this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
1268 points (99.5% liked)

World News

50445 readers
2154 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As Ireland's $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?

With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.

Earlier this month, Ireland's government announced its 2026 budget, which includes "a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year" among its expenditures.

Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 2 days ago (5 children)
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 112 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Lotteries avoid issues with the deciding committee handing these to their friends.

To an extent, it also can provide better data on outcomes. Instead of biasing for the most motivated, it includes a wider pool, so of whom may otherwise be seen as "unworthy". Then people do people things.

[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

Not just "to an extent." Randomised Controlled Trials (lotteries) are the gold standard for evaluating policy. The political optics for the general public unfortunately aren't great, but the resulting data will be much more ironclad to refute anyone who argues for repealing such a scheme in the future.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sure, it's not without advantages, but it waters down the concept quite a bit. Which may or may not be a bad thing, I guess - lots of people could use a basic income.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

you see this a lot with these pilots. its funny because you don't really see the actual benefits until everyone gets it. Someone can breathe and take some classes to get into a profession or take some time to get into better shape to become a first responder or start a business.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

also by the way what i find interesting is that UBI wouldn't actually have to pay for 100% of people's living expenses. imagine i get a $100, then i'm gonna spend $30 of that on food at a nearby restaurant, so the chef and waiters are gonna get money, which they then spend again ... what i'm saying is that $1 in UBI does far more than $1, because people are gonna spend it and then other people are gonna have it ... so you probably need to pay far less than 100% of living expenses, only like maybe 30% could be enough.

edit: this has nothing to do with your comment, i just wanted to write it somewhere.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago

oh yeah. its kinda like when people talking about a penny costing more to make than a penny but metal coins last much longer in circulation than bills. so if its actually used for its intended purpose then its not an issue as each penny realizes many pennies over its lifetime. The problem comes if the value is so desperate that people hold on to them as a value store. I firmly believe this type of understanding is lacking in our politicians who love half of what keynes said but like to ignore the other half.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How else would you handle distributing a limited resource pot without making judgment about what art is good/valid?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A competitive system is more what I was expecting. So, somebody who's a big name in Irish art but doesn't currently make a living would get priority above someone who just has an Etsy shop.

That is a judgement call, but not neccesarily about the worth of the art itself.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

A lottery among pre-selected candidates. Just about anything can be considered to be art, so it is inevitable that there would be far more demand than fulfillment. After all, if they gave $1500 per month to anyone who claimed to be an artist, literally every single citizen would suddenly become committed to their "art."

I'm already a musician, but if I weren't, I'd become an artist today.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, exactly. If the selection isn't competitive it's vaguely art-themed more than anything, in practice.

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is kind of ridiculous and not even ubi. Universal means universal. And this is clearly not universal. So if only some people get the grant, there needs to be a talent competition and the 2000 best artists should be the winners. Otherwise imagine being objectively a better artist than someone else who got the grant and you didn't get it. 😡

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trying to rank who is the better artist objectively sounds like a nightmare

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Well to start, it would be easy to weed out people who consider themselves artists but nobody, NOBODY likes their "art."

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nobody in the Irish government has actually used the label "universal" for this program by the way.

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Good. Then people discussing it should stop saying "ubi."