this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
1265 points (99.5% liked)

World News

50432 readers
2513 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
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The question is: Who or what determines if you are an artist?

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 14 hours ago

Being paid to create art, that's the literal job description

And it's not a full UBI, it's got an assessment as part of it

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

This is why universal* basic is the proper way. We're heading toward a world where there will never be enough existing jobs for everyone who wants to work, let alone those who can't work, and finally the smallest cohort, those who don't want to "work" at all.

The administrative burden of means testing so many people is absurd. And when you do and they fail then what?

People who are against looking after the unemployed rarely say the quiet part out loud. That they don't care about homelessness, disease, violent crime, or whatever, since they can isolate themselves away from it. The law works for them, and so does the system, so they're safe. So let the peasants who refuse to tow the line figure it out on their own.

[–] IlovePizza@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

*universal Took me a minute 😅

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Fuck, oops. Swipe typing on Android is a minefield of typos. But it's so fast one handed.

One day AI will properly fix my typos. Maybe.

[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree with this, but I want to ask a question as this has come up in topic recently in a friend group. Do you not worry that “universal” becomes “stipulated”?

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't think there's a meaningful difference. If you're a citizen or permanent resident of a country with UBI you should get the UBI if you're of working age. No exceptions.

It's not the only progressive policy that's needed. Certain regulations over the cost of basic services and commodities is essential too. Housing/rent, food, and healthcare prices to name a few need to be controlled or there's a risk those dependent on the UBI will be priced out of the market. That's the biggest challenge to making it work, next to of course taxing the wealthy their fair share.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They’ve been saying this for decades and this was the birth of bullshit jobs.

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

You mean in Ireland?

So far I am unaware of a UBI policy having been appropriately implemented anywhere in the world.

It would be the end of "bullshit jobs" and make employment outside of specialist roles people actually want to do a sellers' market.

You'll have to raise the pay, benefits, and other working conditiona until it actually becomes a job people want to do, rather.

Right now there are enough desperate people, particularly immigrants in many countries, willing to do anything. That should be an ethical problem for all of us.

Immigrants probably wouldn't get the UBI and would still be more likely to take up unwanted jobs, so there would still need to be instruments like minimum wage (or better, guaranteed minimum income) that apply to all people engaged in full time work. The GMI should only be needed in industries with low profits or no profits so these employers can offer attractive and fair wages.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You yourself?

Are you using most of your day being creative, or do you have steady employment? You don't need an authority to determine who is an artist

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

That would lead to loads of self-proclaimed "artists".

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

No, it would lead to loads of self-proclaimed artists. Successful and real are not the same thing

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Wishing to be an artist does not make it so. There is a lot of human slop in "arts".

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Here it is guys, found who's the authority on what is art and what is slop

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone is his or her personal authority on what is art and what is slop. That's what makes art subjective. Which also makes defining who is an artist subjective.

For my PERSONAL perception, quite a lot of what is sold as art is slop. If you consider randomly splattered paint or rusty heaps of steel "art", fine, that is also your PERSONAL decision.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So you are saying that no single authority can define who is or isn't an artist because art is personal? I agree.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

And that was the very reason why I asked how an "Artist" is defined under that rule.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I guess we disagree on what that means. From my understanding, the fact that such an authority can not exist means to you that the system will be corrupt or unfair, because someone ultimately needs to decide whether you qualify or not. I disagree with that and think you can just skip the authority altogether. Just verify they are not employed and have sold some threshold amount of art, or made performances, over 6 months or something

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

Just verify they are not employed and have sold some threshold amount of art, or made performances, over 6 months or something

See, you still need an authority. That is a systemic problem you cannot get rid of.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's the prior guidelines. You generally had to show your membership in an art organization and that you made an income selling art. Then they just randomly picked names of those people.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hmm, a rather random approach, then.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

What? How is it random? Having sold your art makes you a professional artist, by definition. Then they sampled at random because it's a pilot program

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

How is it random?

Then they sampled at random because it's a pilot program

Well, I see a connection here.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Then you're daft.

You have to be a part of an art organisation (as in a governing body that requires paid membership to join), and to have proof of being paid, multiple times, for making art

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

And yes, in your own words: Then they [sic] sampled at random (emphasis added)

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

for the initial trial period, also in my own words.

It's no longer in the trial period. No random samples. Just have to be a member of the governing body (which does take effort and a nominal fee to join)

You do know the definition of Pilot Program, right?

Here it is;

Pilot Program: To test the feasibility of a path of action that is aiming to become more widespread, by choosing a smaller subset of the eligible people and then using the program on only that subset and analysing the results. If results are positive, then the program is approved and becomes widespread, if the results are negative or no change, then the program is not approved

The document linked is about the Pilot Program, the details of the Full Program are not yet known, but it can be presumed that it will be the exact same as the Pilot Program minus the Random Sampling (as the point is to cover everyone that is eligible)

Edit: spelling

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

It’s no longer in the trial period. No random samples.

That was exactly what you omitted to say: that they no longer do random sampling.