In High-Tech San Francisco, a Pilot Program Tries Guaranteed Incomes for Artists (sfgate.com) 116
In 2015 the San Francisco Arts Commission surveyed nearly 600 local artists. "More than 70% of them had either already left San Francisco or were about to be displaced from their work, home or both," reports SFGate.com, adding "The pandemic has only intensified these problems. A report by Americans for the Arts found that 53% of artists have no savings whatsoever as a result of the pandemic."
Would it help to give over 100 artists their own Universal Basic Income? In an effort to mitigate what appears to be an existential threat to the arts, in March 2021, the city of San Francisco partnered with the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts [YBCA] to launch a guaranteed income pilot, called the SF Guaranteed Income Pilot for Artists, or SF-GIPA, that gives 130 local low-income artists who have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for 18 months.... At the time, YBCA was planning to launch its own guaranteed income project for artists, and this allowed it to combine forces and take both projects further. The first six months of funding for the SF-GIPA project came from the Arts Impact Endowment, which is funded by San Francisco's hotel tax and designated for underserved communities. YBCA extended the project by an additional 12 months with private funding from the Start Small Foundation, a philanthropic initiative by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey....
Though the additional income from SF-GIPA is a welcome relief, as the project moves past its halfway point, the question remains: Will 18 months be enough time to truly make a difference in these artists' lives? YBCA is currently scrambling to find a way to continue supporting guaranteed income recipients after the project's scheduled end in October 2023.... "It's just so sad; people come to San Francisco because of the art and culture, but the art and culture makers can't afford to live here," says Stephanie Imah, who is leading YBCA's pilot. "This is very much a rental problem. It's really hard for artists living in San Francisco unless they work in tech. It's clear we need long-term solutions." For YBCA, that means advocating for big policy changes down the line.
"Our eyes are on the federal government," YBCA CEO Deborah Cullinan explains in an interview with Berkeley's Aurora Theatre. "We'd like to see guaranteed income programs across the country for all people." For now, the organization is focused on collecting "university standard research" in order to make an irrefutable case for universal basic income as a viable long-term solution to poverty.
Would it help to give over 100 artists their own Universal Basic Income? In an effort to mitigate what appears to be an existential threat to the arts, in March 2021, the city of San Francisco partnered with the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts [YBCA] to launch a guaranteed income pilot, called the SF Guaranteed Income Pilot for Artists, or SF-GIPA, that gives 130 local low-income artists who have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for 18 months.... At the time, YBCA was planning to launch its own guaranteed income project for artists, and this allowed it to combine forces and take both projects further. The first six months of funding for the SF-GIPA project came from the Arts Impact Endowment, which is funded by San Francisco's hotel tax and designated for underserved communities. YBCA extended the project by an additional 12 months with private funding from the Start Small Foundation, a philanthropic initiative by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey....
Though the additional income from SF-GIPA is a welcome relief, as the project moves past its halfway point, the question remains: Will 18 months be enough time to truly make a difference in these artists' lives? YBCA is currently scrambling to find a way to continue supporting guaranteed income recipients after the project's scheduled end in October 2023.... "It's just so sad; people come to San Francisco because of the art and culture, but the art and culture makers can't afford to live here," says Stephanie Imah, who is leading YBCA's pilot. "This is very much a rental problem. It's really hard for artists living in San Francisco unless they work in tech. It's clear we need long-term solutions." For YBCA, that means advocating for big policy changes down the line.
"Our eyes are on the federal government," YBCA CEO Deborah Cullinan explains in an interview with Berkeley's Aurora Theatre. "We'd like to see guaranteed income programs across the country for all people." For now, the organization is focused on collecting "university standard research" in order to make an irrefutable case for universal basic income as a viable long-term solution to poverty.
Get a real job... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Get a real job... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other end of the spectrum, I have a friend who was an art major in college. He was serious about it and after graduating, he worked as an artist in one way or another for his entire life. I used to go to the art major parties with him just to get laid. I was a computer science major and, in the seventies and early eighties, comp sci parties were pretty slim pickings for women.
I can say, without reservation, that the vast majority of the art majors who I met at these parties were spoiled, lazy, entitled brats who were going to school on mom and dad and wanted an easy major. Thy were no more capable of becoming a real working artist than I am of walking to Mars. This was at the University of Idaho, a mainly engineering school. It may have been different at more liberal arts oriented schools, but that's the way that it was at the U of I.
So, my question is, who is going to get this artist money, real artists like my niece and my friend or a bunch of entitled bums?
Re: (Score:2)
So, my question is, who is going to get this artist money, real artists like my niece and my friend or a bunch of entitled bums?
Ding ding ding!
Re: Get a real job... (Score:3)
There's a massive gulf between an art major and... (Score:4)
I can say, without reservation, that the vast majority of the art majors who I met at these parties were spoiled, lazy, entitled brats who were going to school on mom and dad and wanted an easy major. Thy were no more capable of becoming a real working artist than I am of walking to Mars. This was at the University of Idaho, a mainly engineering school. It may have been different at more liberal arts oriented schools, but that's the way that it was at the U of I. So, my question is, who is going to get this artist money, real artists like my niece and my friend or a bunch of entitled bums?
...a professional artist. Presumably, they'd have to apply and submit portfolios. Spoiled, entitled people can major in whatever the fuck they want. However, in order to make money selling art, they have to actually delight those looking to buy. The city wants to support artists that make art people want to buy. No one wants bad artists to keep working. It's like any other investor. I don't buy stock in companies I think suck.
Also, yeah, the University of Idaho, to my knowledge is not a top arts school. I think most ambitious and passionate artists in Idaho would want to move to an area that's more supportive of the arts and has more wealthy patrons.
Also, regarding entitled bums. I'm pretty confident you'll see much more egregious subsidies given to your local business community. Oil subsidies are 4 billion a year...given to profitable companies. $18,000 over 1.5 years is pretty tiny in comparison. I bet your local real estate developers got 10x more in tax breaks than this problem will ever cost.
Re: (Score:1)
Considering these people are waxing lyrical about UBI, I would say that's a bold assumption to make.
you got a bit of a word salad going there. (Score:2)
Are these supposed subsidies actual subsidies (aka money transferred to a bank account) or "subsidies" aka fictional amounts of money derived from vague assumptions over the economic impact of climate change? Apologies for asking, but words have lost their meaning long ago.
No clue what you're trying to say. There are a bunch of words there. I know the meaning of the individual words, but put together, I have no clue what you're thinking or trying to communicate. It's clear you don't like this program and apparently people who might.
However, a bit more effort in expressing your view would make it easier to understand it and engage with you....which for me means evaluating to see if you're right, about to teach me something I need to learn, or just attempt to see your poi
Re: (Score:2)
In the past, a subsidy was money transferred from the government to someone's bank account.
In the present, it might mean that, but not necessarily.
You see, there is this ongoing attempt to quantify (aka attach a dollar amount) to the economic impact of climate change. Of course, such an attempt is silly, because you have what is an already imprecise science (
Re: (Score:2)
...a professional artist. Presumably, they'd have to apply and submit portfolios.
So to get the money they have to prove they don't need the money?
I'm pretty confident you'll see much more egregious subsidies given to your local business community.
So we should give money to artists because we squander money on other things that are even stupider? That logic can be used to justify anything.
Past success doesn't guarantee future earnings (Score:2)
...a professional artist. Presumably, they'd have to apply and submit portfolios.
So to get the money they have to prove they don't need the money?
I'm pretty confident you'll see much more egregious subsidies given to your local business community.
So we should give money to artists because we squander money on other things that are even stupider? That logic can be used to justify anything.
If they don't need money, they don't need to apply. You seem to have either a strange agenda that you're twisting these words or some sort of comprehension issue.
Having a portfolio doesn't mean you can pay rent. It means you take your occupation seriously and have a body of work. If people want to invest money intelligently, they'd give these tiny grants to artists who had past success and future potential but are not top earners today. Everyone creative person has lean years. The goal is that the
Re: (Score:2)
Art is subjective to the viewer. What one person says is good art, the next person might say it's garbage. And with garbage like the Bored Apes Yacht Club being passed off as art, all it takes is someone able to do just enough bullshitting to get a free ride.
Draw a few stick men together and a couple of basic buildings, and call it art. It could be that simple.
Don't believe me? Here is "Francis Terrace, Salford" artwork by the award winning J S Lowry.
https://w
Re: (Score:2)
Actual artist here: what is contemporary art is what the market will buy as art. This is why the Bored Apes work. People are currently willing to shell out $$$ for them. Sure, why not? A fool and his money, etc. But that's the art market in a nutshell.
What is more likely to be Art is what history will retain as art. Let's make the humbling note that history is written by the victors, so it may well be that Bored Apes will enter books of art history at some point.
However, as we will move into the more distan
Yes, lots of "art" sucks (Score:2)
But what defines a "art portfolio" in this case? Art is subjective to the viewer. What one person says is good art, the next person might say it's garbage. And with garbage like the Bored Apes Yacht Club being passed off as art, all it takes is someone able to do just enough bullshitting to get a free ride. Draw a few stick men together and a couple of basic buildings, and call it art. It could be that simple. Don't believe me? Here is "Francis Terrace, Salford" artwork by the award winning J S Lowry. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/ar... [tate.org.uk] In fact, here is an article about an art display that was just damaged nylon and a clear bag of paper. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ent... [bbc.co.uk] Or that banana that was duct taped to a wall? Two of those sold for $120,000 USD each. If these can pass as art, the sky is the limit.
Let those running it decide. I actually am very familiar with what you're talking about. This goes all the way back to Marcel Duchamp and probably others. It's not for you or me to decide what is good art. It's subjective, but so is investing. The VC decides what is worth investing in or not with their money.
I don't really care much. While I used to love visual art, it's not a priority for me today. If it is for SF? Well, this is a better investment than tax breaks to build office complexes no o
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, they'd have to apply and submit portfolios.
The city wants to support artists that make art people want to buy. No one wants bad artists to keep working.
Seems reasonable on its surface; however, this ultimately depends on the judgement of a person working for the City to determine if an Artist is worthy of supporting. I smell corruption and it hasn't even started yet.
That being said, I can think of much worse things happening right now. What is another drain on monetary resources at this point?
Re: (Score:2)
I say this to cops every time they pull me over.
Re: (Score:2)
Well take your own advice. It'd keep you out of trouble and off the cops' radar.
Re: Get a real job... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Guaranteed income for artists that can’t create art that people want to buy? All that does is shift the decision of who pays for art from the people who earn the money to pay for it to the politicians. Why not just leave the decision with the people who earn the money? Are they not to be trusted with their money? Are you too stupid to know what to do with your money? Do you need a politician to step in and make the decision? I don’t think so but enough politicians are 100% convinced that t
NFT for con artists (Score:2)
NFT is a high tech scam to guarantee income for con artists.
Re: (Score:3)
Please keep in mind that a BS job (Director of Proactive Engagement, Director of Inclusivity etc), aka a job that doesn't add any value to a company's bottom line can be a real job as long as it pays at least minimum wage (and usually BS jobs tend to pay higher). The distinction between "real job"
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking LOL (Score:3, Informative)
Rampant homelessness, pooping and hard drug use in the streets. Crime isn't punished ( and in fact, encouraged! ). Education is a joke.
But that's all OK, we're going to focus on guaranteeing artists income!
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like Austin, TX, with crime through the roof, crap on the streets, and downtown smelling of hopelessness, piss, and K2.
At least people in SF are trying to make something better of themselves. I'd rather see $1000/month given to an artist, than another CEO or land developer.
Re: (Score:2)
SF won't turn around until they have a pillory for the tech bros and executives and the politicians. Especially the politicians that either make deals to bring sports team in or bungle deals that make sports teams leave.
Meh, unimpressive conservative propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
Rampant homelessness, pooping and hard drug use in the streets. Crime isn't punished ( and in fact, encouraged! ). Education is a joke.
Yup, Stanford and all the major international corporations founded in that area are a big joke. Are you upset they're not more like the Texas Board of Education and pretending slavery didn't happen and the Civil War was about "States' Rights" and "Yankee Aggression?"
Crime is encouraged? Citation please? We have an office in San Francisco and I've visited a few times. No one encouraged anyone to commit crime.
Poop and hard drug use? Hmm, didn't see it myself, but maybe that one is true. I don't
Re: (Score:2)
It's the conservative politicians who prevent governments fixing homelessness. It's cheaper to just give everyone a home, than it is to clean up the mess being homeless creates. Conservative voters don't like the idea that someone is getting something for free, especially when it is paid for by their taxes, so the government has to rely on worse solutions that never really fix the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
San Francisco conservatives have zero power. Further, in California, conservatives have no power. Whatever is going on in San Francisco and California more broadly is not the fault of conservatives.
Re: (Score:1)
just give everyone a home
Every dollar you take from a working man to give to someone who is not working, is a dollar that was earned but not received.
Ever dollar received by someone who is not working, means someone profits of someone else's work
Who is the parasite now?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the cheaper option?
A. Get homeless people into housing, give them a chance to get a job and become productive members of society.
B. Pay for more police and higher insurance premiums, forever.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't solve homelessness by giving people who are homeless homes, and no I'm not talking about the guy who got laid-off, then bitch-slapped with some medical bill. Chronic Homeless people almost always have significant psychological and social impairments and generally drug and alcohol co-morbidity. You can't get anywhere until you fix the underlying psycho-social problems and that isn't going to happen until they are willing and able to do the work to heal.
You can't fill a leaking bucket and expect it
Re: (Score:2)
You can't fix the underlying problems if they are homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict that these stipends will gravitate toward 'street artists' which is to say, homeless bums who'll be happy to trade graffiti for money to support their drug habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Rampant homelessness, pooping and hard drug use in the streets. Crime isn't punished ( and in fact, encouraged! ). Education is a joke.
But that's all OK, we're going to focus on guaranteeing artists income!
But the artist "specializes in contemporary ballet, and her performances are heavily informed by social justice", which means the Artist is competing with 100,000 performers on TikTok and I can watch the TikTokers without dodging Junkies panhandling in the street while stepping over human feces.
At least if we were talking about Graphic Artists we could snarkily say "Learn to Tattoo".
let's judge their art (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:let's judge their art (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there should be some form of judgement of their art, like if people like it, then the artist should be paid. Too bad there's not a system to do this.
What an antiquated idea--that art should be enjoyed!
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. What has to happen though is new names need to be invented to replace "capitalism" *gasp* and "meritocracy" *GASP*.
Re:let's judge their art (Score:4)
Maybe there should be some form of judgement of their art, like if people like it, then the artist should be paid. Too bad there's not a system to do this.
There's a system to do an approximation of this, but not really a system to do this. If you've ever known an artist who created stuff that people liked but who wanted to put their time into making art instead of into schmoozing and selling and making up bullshit to say about their art, then you've probably known an artist who was poor.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Not Univerisal [Re:Modern Day Bread and Circus] (Score:4, Insightful)
Universal basic income is nothing more than ....
You do know that income directed to a specific group (artists) is not universal basic income. The point of universal basic income is that it is universal,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And in other news, that requires the actual availability of decent jobs that those without one can actually do. That period of human history is over. Clinging mindlessly to it can do a lot of damage though.
Art is wonderful but... (Score:2)
Why are artists getting this guaranteed income?
Are other people struggling not worthy of this free cash?
Why I don't think capitalism is always a perfect system, you need to find a way to make yourself valuable and/or find a job that will get you an income.
How long until they ask the taxpayers to foot it? (As a person living in California we pay insane & questionable taxes already...)
Plus, with all the other problems SF has, crime, homelessness, etc. etc. I wonder about the priorities here
Re: (Score:2)
Art is a big deal in San Francisco. There are a LOT of murals everywhere, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is fine, but it doesn't answer the question why should they be getting free money (over others too)?
Re: (Score:1)
Which is fine, but it doesn't answer the question why should they be getting free money (over others too)?
The city thinks so, and is willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Selection Bias (Score:1)
Artists that are talented have no problem selling their services. This program will produce shitty art that nobody wants. Awful poetry, Abstract garbage, and plenty oh plenty of lazy ass conceptual art.
Re: Selection Bias (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's also the case: is there a requirement for them to actually produce anything? Like can I just say I'm an artist or do I have to produce art? Because if it comes with a stipulation that content must be created, you're really just hiring them.
Culture (Score:3)
This sounds awesome. I love being in a city where there's culture, where plays and art shows and exhibitions are being made. I attend only a tiny fraction, I don't even think half of it is very good, but i prefer being in a culture where art happens than one where it doesn't. And I love grass roots art in the community. It gives a city a kind of buzz and vibrancy.
If the free market thinks that human creativity is would better serve the economy by flipping burgers? ... then I'm glad to be part of a society where culture gets to make decisions too, not just dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
If you enjoy those types of arts, you're paying to see them, and as such, the artists involved are receiving income. That is the free market working. Those that produce something which others desire, get paid. People claiming to be artists creating art that no one likes won't get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
If you enjoy those types of arts, you're paying to see them, and as such, the artists involved are receiving income. That is the free market working. Those that produce something which others desire, get paid. People claiming to be artists creating art that no one likes won't get paid.
I don't think art works like that. I think there needs to be a huge pyramid of artists, building an artistic culture. There are a few artists that I care to see and will pay to see, but I don't believe they'll exist without the mass of other artists that they're immersed in and take inspiration from that I don't care to see.
I know the free market is able to encourage many forms of art, but I think it's predatory atop that same pyramid, benefiting from the foundation layer's existence without passing money t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It tends to be the ones that spend more on & provide more support to the arts that tend to attract innovative businesses & creative thinkers who want to live in a stimulating, engaging environment. You should check out Albert Einstein's or any other creative genius' childhood. I somehow doubt that the next creative business sector will start up in a quiet, dull suburb in Utah.
This is an interesting myth that I have seen popping up more and more recently. Its prevalence seems to be roughly correlated with the rise in cost of living in certain megacities, rise in crime, etc. It's like a defense mechanism to justify life choices. I guess it's probably also linked to increasing polarization in the US and the "us vs them" mentality of red vs blue, city vs rural, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting myth that I have seen popping up more and more recently. Its prevalence seems to be roughly correlated with the rise in cost of living in certain megacities, rise in crime, etc. It's like a defense mechanism to justify life choices. I guess it's probably also linked to increasing polarization in the US and the "us vs them" mentality of red vs blue, city vs rural, etc.
I think it's a bit more than a myth. One need only look at the origins of the things people choose to use every day, and the origins of the entertainment of which they partake.
Necessities like food and construction materials come from Middle America. The stuff that people buy because they want it comes from big cities, largely liberal, which spend money on fostering education and creativity and providing that stimulating engaging environment. Or at least it's designed there and comes from China.
And then
Re: (Score:2)
Artist Stipend (Score:5, Informative)
It's fine to support the arts... but this is not UNIVERSAL Basic Income.
This is an artists stipend.
Guaranteed basic creativity? (Score:2)
Anyone can call themselves an artist. Being an artist does not preclude the notion of "having a job" outside of "art". In fact, quite a few artists have other jobs, even if it's just selling their ideas to sponsors to get the money to do/perform their "art".
In exchange for guaranteeing someone an income as an artist, we should expect them to do artful things in return.
Portland has a solution (Score:2)
"This is very much a rental problem. It's really hard for artists living in San Francisco unless they work in tech. It's clear we need long-term solutions."
Maybe they could afford the rent if they shared a place [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:2)
If you need to create objects, you also need to rent a workshop. And when you are low income, as most artists are (only 1% earn a living making art)...
It does not work! (Score:4, Interesting)
This book I read quite a while ago explains why this approach WILL NOT work. The author is both an artist and economist, and he wondered why are artists poor.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are... [amazon.com]
In a nutshell he said the problem with artists is that it is winner take all business. Meaning unlike business where you can compete and work on building a better widget, with art that does and cannot exist. As a result you have a few who manage the expectations of their clients take all the money. Art is not about expressing yourself, but about expressing what the client thinks that you are expressing.
Think of it as follows. We have all heard about the art with the banana taped to the wall, or the painting with a single stripe. We mock it, but our opinion is completely irrelevant (for the most part) because we don't sponsor the individual who taped that banana. For the individual who taped the banana was most likely sponsered by the individuals who thought the act was awesome and explained society. This is how art works.
Thus by giving money for free and painting what they want they don't actually solve any problems. For they will not reach out to the clients who will say that taped banana is awesome. Instead they will only attract more people who really don't get the arts.
I read this book to understand open source way back when. For Open Source is very much a winner take all business as well. Linus has a job and he is well taken care of. So what about the minions who do the work of Linux? I am not condemning Linus. I am more saying that Open Source and the Arts have from a business perspective quite a bit in common.
Re: (Score:2)
I have not read it, but looks good. Thanks for sharing! Here is a link to the book, free of charge, in case anyone else wants to check it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting, thank you for the reference.
Great for artists (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the olden days... (Score:3)
In the olden days artists had jobs. TS Eliot banker. Larkin - librarian. Dickens - journalist. Borodin - chemist. Michelangelo - ceiling painter
The idea that artists of whatever quality should be able to avoid what the rest of us have to do is a very modern conceit and not, particularly, one I agree with.
yes there is a joke in the first line.
Re: (Score:2)
If memory serves me correctly, a lot of early astronomers put bread on the table casting horoscopes, can you imagine how much an authentic Galilean Horoscope would be worth?
Philistines (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
paid corporate designers made all those things, not San Fran bums getting a piddly allowance of $1K a month. The ignorant Philistine is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, you have it backwards, in general the fads and fashions made by the corporate world are aped by the street bum artists. Good artists get noticed and make the coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
irrelevant history, the modern world with big corporations driving fad and fashion doesn't work that way. You're ignorant of how your world works and have romantic notions from things long dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting take. I see it entirely differently. Throughout history, many of the greatest and most enduring works of art have been sponsored by the extremely wealthy and powerful--whether the Chinese Emperors, the Abbassid Caliphs, the de Medicis, Carneghie, etc.
Artists, like Jony Ive (Apple), have been enormously important AND well compensated.
The counter to this is that to be sponsored, you have to make art that people actually like.
The idea of art for art's sake, is a relatively new idea.
I'm all for peop
Re: (Score:2)
No no no (Score:4, Funny)
It is well known that great art is born out of suffering. When one removes the suffering, it is tantamount to destroying great works of art! Why do these people hate art so much?
Adding money isn't a fair test (Score:2)
One problem with giving money to artists, is defining "artist". How do you decide how is and isn't an artist, when there is money riding on that decision
Art comes from pain (Score:3)
Seriously. Art comes from living outside all normal conventions. It demands you be willing to cast it all aside for nothing more than art's own sake.
If you pay artists regardless of whether they create art or not, you will cut the very nerve of the whole enterprise. You will literally be funding either no art or the guilty creation of bad, worthless art, which is even worse.
Do not kill art!
Re: (Score:2)
No.
How much? (Score:2)
All to avoid building housing (Score:1)
70% of San Francisco is single family housing. The city increased in population far more than new housing that was constructed over the last 10-20 years. This drove up costs for a 1BR apt to $3000, so no one other thank techies and similar jobs can live comfortably.
Taxing and giving handouts is all an effort to avoid building more housing. They won't build up. They won't even allow housing to be built on empty lots or to replace derelict, unoccupied buildings.
In reality, existing homeowners who are retired
Why? (Score:2)
Why is it the government's job...
No, I take that back....
Why is it the job OF TAXPAYERS to support people who can't make a living for themselves because of unprofitable choices in their lives.
Yes, yes, we need art, beauty, blah blah blah.
In the end, you are supporting people who should actually be out in the labor force, instead of being sheltered by governmental overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
You want a working society? No? Then this is not the taxpayers job. Otherwise it is. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Examine what you just said for internal consistency.
Wealth redistribution from productive people to those who are unproductive due SOLELY to their own poor choices?
How the HELL is that a "working society"?
I can understand people who're not able to be productive members of society due to physical infirmity, etc.
Stuff beyond their control.
But that's NOT what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
"working" = "functioning" in this context. Exceptionally obvious so. Seriously. You "hero of work" morons are so disconnected, it is staggering.
Incidentally, that whole "hero of work" idea is a socialist one. In capitalism, you only work as much as needed for others and then you do your own thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, why am *I* responsible for your lousy word choices and attempts to spackle over it by conflation?
"Hero of work"?
Sorry, YOU may enjoy people leeching off you. Or perhaps you're a leech yourself.
Me? I like keeping the fruits of my labor and spending them whatever *I* want.
But thanks for still not understanding what's being discussed.
Why don't these artists just sell NFTs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is all kinds of ways for artists to support their work,
Most Artists and Artisans on Youtube make more money from videos documenting the production of the creation than they do from the sales of the creation, Leo is rebuilding an 1910 gaff rigged cutter Tally Ho [youtube.com], a sailing yacht that will be worth at least a $Million, financed predo
code as art (Score:1)
They need to focus on the Universal part, not the (Score:2)
Basic part of UBI.
There are plenty of basic incomes about, but no guaranteed universal, unconditional cash transfers.
Get everyone a small unconditional income, and see the benefits of that, and increase it until it becomes basic.
Everyone knows people with an unconditional basic income are better off, the big experiment is what happens when that becomes universal. We can make it a basic income after we make it universal.
Duct tape banana (Score:1)
Haha. (Score:2)
In short order it will turn out that 90% of SF is artists.
Depict This (Score:1)
Government meddling (Score:1)
In San Francisco ... (Score:1)
It is just a new way for the homeless to collect income!
I just became an artist (Score:2)
Am I artistic? Not in the least! But what do you know, free money is a powerful motivator!