Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses

Ireland Launches World's First Permanent Basic Income Scheme For Artists, Paying $385 a Week (irishcentral.com) 121

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Ireland has announced what it says is the world's first permanent basic income program for artists, a scheme that will pay 2,000 selected artists $385 per week for three years, funded by an $21.66 million allocation from Budget 2026. The program follows a 2022 pilot -- the Irish government's first large-scale randomized control trial -- that found participants had greater professional autonomy, less anxiety, and higher life satisfaction.

An external cost-benefit analysis of the pilot calculated a return of $1.65 to society for every $1.2 invested. The new scheme will operate in three-year cycles, and artists who receive the payment in one cycle cannot reapply until the cycle after next. A three-month tapering-off period will follow each cycle. The government plans to publish eligibility guidelines in April and open applications in May, and payments to selected artists are expected to begin before the end of 2026.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ireland Launches World's First Permanent Basic Income Scheme For Artists, Paying $385 a Week More

Ireland Launches World's First Permanent Basic Income Scheme For Artists, Paying $385 a Week

Comments Filter:

  • That's not basic income (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday February 16, 2026 @01:08PM (#65992260)
    That's a subsidy for artists.

    Basic income doesn't work because the people getting the money resent the handouts and the people paying the taxes for the money resent giving the handouts.

    If you have ever had a coworker that doesn't pull their own weight it's like that. You resented them right? That feeling of resentment where you're working and somebody else isn't is easily exploitable.

    Now we have solid evidence that 70% of middle class jobs in the last 45 years got taken by machines and we all know AI is about to devour jobs. It might be in 5 or 10 years but there's no question that it's happening. And while it turns out that self-driving cars are not actually self-driving and are being piloted by people in the Philippines it doesn't matter because those jobs are still going to be shipped over to third world Nations and there's so much money involved that you can't say no.

    Basic income is a trick people who are desperate to keep capitalism functional but who don't want to do market socialism and actually regulate the billionaires turn to.

    The real problem here is that in addition to the problems with human nature I'm bringing up above the billionaires are done with capitalism. They have gotten what they want out of it and they are moving towards a techno feudal future that does not include any of us.

    One way or another capitalism is going to be dismantled and I don't see any viable alternative that doesn't involve about 3,000 people and a handful of hangers on living in abject poverty and occasionally being bombed by drones so that they don't get too uppity.

    I'm open to suggestions I just haven't heard any that can survive the billionaires sabotaging them
    • Explain how the "artists" getting the handouts are resenting it? Hahaha... are you delusional? It lends legitimacy to living in their mom's basement because they are "starving artists." They now have even LESS incentive to be productive and get a real job.

      • What is a real job exactly? Is a software developer who works on video games not doing a real job because video games are frivolous art? What's the difference between a painting and a website layout? Are the "serious business folks" who manipulate numbers on spreadsheets so much more valuable than those who create tangible things others find beautiful?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rta ( 559125 )

          What is a real job exactly? Is a software developer who works on video games not doing a real job because video games are frivolous art? What's the difference between a painting and a website layout? Are the "serious business folks" who manipulate numbers on spreadsheets so much more valuable than those who create tangible things others find beautiful?

          well, broadly a "real job" is one that produces output that people are willing to pay for. and I guess we can expand it to an activity that is reasonably likely to produce such output.

          Although... some say custom kitchen delivereyeyey is the only real job. (or animating same)

          • Plenty of "real jobs" don't produce output someone necessarily pays for. Government jobs (including police) don't produce any tangible output someone will pay for. And plenty of artists do produce output people will pay for.

            • Plenty of "real jobs" don't produce output someone necessarily pays for. Government jobs (including police) don't produce any tangible output someone will pay for. And plenty of artists do produce output people will pay for.

              On the contrary, they absolutely do. Policing is a job with output. Criminals are caught, rules are enforced. This is output that can be measured. Output isn't directly died to producing manufactured goods. Output can be a service that people are willing to pay to have done.

              In much the same vein, cleaning staff and maids aren't manufacturing anything, but they still produce output that people will pay for.

              • Not really. The benefit of catching criminals is intangible, and a lot of it is non-economic (people feeling safe). An artist making a painting creates something tangible, but the benefit is intangible. How much cumulative human pleasure was created from the Mona Lisa, and how does that weigh against the pain of a crime stopped? These are questions that can't really be answered.

                I don't think it's appropriate to reduce all human activity to pure economics. There are plenty of things that I won't pay for but

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by modecx ( 130548 )

                  How is people feeling safe non-economic? That's silly. People from all walks of life expend unfathomable amounts of money to feel safe every year--whether or not it actually makes them safe in any meaningful way. Feeling safe is one of the great drivers of real estate value: separating oneself from unsavory characters can be quite expensive, whether it's choosing an apartment with window bars on the right side of town versus one without, owning a home with a network connected camera system in the burbs, own

                  • People spend all sorts of money to see beautiful things too. I'm not doubting the police have value, but the economic value is intangible.

                    • Is it really intangible, though? If someone wanted to do a study, I'm quite sure it would be possible to directly measure the effect of law enforcement. Crime rates. Property valuations. Personal income. Business revenue. Diversity of businesses. The amount people walk outdoors. Body Mass Index, calories spent, etc. Since you bring up art, I expect the number of outdoor art installations could be related to law enforcement. If your area is basically little Mogadishu, public art is probably low on your prior

            • Government jobs are more value than most because they are a part of a Democratic process. That is we vote on what the government should do and then hope that the Executive branch manages to do that without being inefficient. The problem with e.g. what is happening in the US right now is that you can not get elected on efficiency and add authorian bloat yourself.

        • The difference is people are willing to pay for one and not the other.

          • But people do pay (sometimes quite a bit) for paintings, sculptures, and other artistic output.

            • Indeed. However that is what determines if you are successful or not. If you are an artist producing output that people WILL pay for - then that's a "real job". If you're an artist producing output that nobody is willing to pay for - then you're just wasting time.

              Focusing activity where it is needed is part of the job market. If you go into your back yard with a shovel and just start digging a deep hole people will rightly think you're wasting time. If you instead take the same shovel and effort and di

              • " If you're an artist producing output that nobody is willing to pay for - then you're just wasting time."

                I play the piano to entertain myself and my bird.

                There's no money in it but I don't consider it a waste of time either.

        • A job is something that generates a positive income. If this activity were to continue to generate a negative income long term, say 5 years or more, it's then considered a hobby. Most artists are hobbyist and not professionals. They may aspire to be professional but have yet to get there.

          There are still a lot of jobs that we don't need but there is more to life then just the essentials of survival. So the game dev and the movie star and the tiktok influencer all provide value to society in the form of enter

      • I just finished explaining that this is not basic income it's just a subsidy for artists.

        I then switched to talking about basic income which is the process of giving everyone enough money that they can have an okay life.

        Those are two different things. Please do try to keep up.

        • I think that depends on how you define "okay life". I tend to reach a lot lower than most people on that.
          I still remember getting into a UBI debate with a person who thought that the UBI should pay extra so he could send his kids to a religious school. And not just any religious school, but an expensive one.
          He couldn't seem to understand that:
          1. UBI is supposed to be universal, not customized to individual people's "needs". Also "basic", IE not much over the minimum needs.
          2. That said expensive religio

      • They have a real job, which is to produce Irish culture. Without Irish artists, Ireland becomes the same as everywhere else. How can citizens care or want to invest in a country that has no identity?

    • What "solid evidence" exists that 70% of middle-class jobs have been taken by machines over the last 45 years? Unemployment hit 8.8% in 1981 (45 years ago). Today it's around half that. And don't give me the "the unemployment rate is a lie" nonsense. The BLS collects different measures of unemployment and also publishes a U6 unemployment that counts discouraged or marginally attached workers as well. That rate is also low.

      It is true that many jobs have been replaced by machines. The U.S. makes a similar amo

      • I can't be bothered to post the link you can find it on Google pretty easily by searching for the phrase. There are actually studies of the effect of automation on employment over the last several decades and they are not good.

        We are currently at 25% functional unemployment. That number includes everyone unemployed, everyone who gave up looking for work and crucially everyone who makes less money than it takes to afford a studio apartment and enough food to survive.

        Those people are mooching off rela
        • I can't be bothered to post the link you can find it on Google pretty easily by searching for the phrase.

          Sorry, but no; that's not how it works. You made the claim, so you're the one who has to provide the evidence, not me. If you can't be bothered to do so, I'm perfectly entitled to presume that it doesn't exist and that your claims are nonsense, as usual.

      • Maybe, but over all of human history new technology has never taken away employment- it has always changed its nature while increasing productivity.

        That's a pretty contentious claim. You can safely say that new technology has never taken away employment permanently. Or at least long term. The people made unemployed by new technology eventually found new employment, or at least their children or grandchildren did, but short-term automation would often absolutely lead to overall increase in unemployment. And just because permenent reduction in employment has never happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in future. There's always a first time fo

    • Besides, how do they select which artists to subsidize?
      • Doesn't really matter. It's just a regular run of the mill government subsidy for artists. Nothing we haven't been doing for a well over 150 years. My point is that we shouldn't be calling it basic income because it's not.

        The problem isn't whether giving out money helps people and helps society as a whole we have plenty of research on the topic and yeah it does. The problem is like I mentioned people who give out the money resent giving it out and people who get it resent the handouts and I don't have a

      • Ironically - they'd likely end up picking the worst artists in the country, as artists with skills who are more valuable are less in need of the program in the first place.

        I get that the lack of a social safety net can be an issue. It leads people to either take or stay in jobs that they hate where conditions may be bad or unfair, because if you become unemployed most people aren't too many paychecks away from homelessness.

        Still, I'd rather see something akin to an unemployement option where everyone gets

        • We already have unemployment programs for covering things like the "5 years".

          My thought is that with many forms of art being more or less infinitely replicable - anything digital like pictures, music, games, and such can be distributed nearly for free all around the world. Meanwhile, the system of very long copyrights means that anything produced commercially is locked up for longer than we're going to remain alive.
          Artistry is a skill as well. I've seen saying that it can take 5k hours to master a new ski

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      That's a subsidy for artists.

      And as such, is nothing new whatsoever. The National Endowment for the Arts [wikipedia.org] was established win 1965 for that specific purpose.

      The only difference is that's generally a one time grant, where this is pretending it's permanent (but will only last until money is short and their parliament needs to cut expenditures).

    • All this will do is just get landlords to hike rent prices and now that UBI is going to the real estate monopoliies. Might as well just skip the middle man and give Blackstone and other firms the cash directly.

      We don't need a UBI. We already escaped the maw of socialism when Reagan closed the books on welfare.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by spitzak ( 4019 )

      I feel like basic income would work better if there were "fake jobs" that went with it. To receive the basic income, you have to do something. The most important aspect of this is that you feel more that you "earned" the basic income and are more careful with it. If whatever you do actually provides some benefit to others then that is a win. I suspect the vast majority of these jobs will be "security guard", meaning you walk around neighborhoods with a cell phone that you can report things to the police wit

      • However, if you do that, it is no longer "basic". Now you're back to needing administrators and supervisors to run the fake jobs, having to pay to set up said fake jobs, etc... What, are we going to have them grind in the latest MMO as the job?

        Now, I've proposed having a "FedJob" program that does some of what you say - but I try to avoid the broken window fallacy by having them work on "infrastructure" instead. Basically, do work that will make the nation better in the long run. If the economy heats up

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spitzak ( 4019 )

          I think you are suggesting the same thing. They get the basic income if they work at a job, and the fed provides what I am calling "fake" jobs. These jobs still do something useful, it's just that the value provided is less than the basic income. I do believe a lot of the jobs can be in building things. But not enough, there is going to have to be a lot of grafitti cleanup jobs and a lot of "security guard" jobs.

          If they have a real job they get both the basic income plus whatever the real job pays. And they

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by spitzak ( 4019 )

            Actually I think I understand what you are saying:

            Everybody gets the "basic income".

            There are also "fake" jobs that pay more than they are worth, and you can take one of these jobs if you want. You get both the basic income and the pay for the fake jobs.

            Real jobs would probably have to pay more than the fake ones, so in effect there is a minimum wage. But if you take one you get both the real wage and the basic income.

            IMHO you may be right that this removes the problems of people lying to get out of doing t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spitzak ( 4019 )

              Other ideas:

              Real jobs could actually pay less than fake ones. Somebody might take them because they are more interesting, easier, or more convienent. There may be "fake" jobs which are not paid for by the government, but instead by charitable individuals (kind of how artists are often paid now).

              If you blow all your money you will still get free housing, which will be an insulated box with a lockable door (you furnish it yourself), plus shared bathroom and kitchen facilities. These must be located so somebod

              • Yes, everybody gets the basic income.

                However, I'm opposed to truly "fake" jobs. Waste is inevitable. But I want any work to have at least some use. That's why I said infrastructure - long payout, but still a payout.

                When it comes to government spending, there are generally added complexities. For example, if somebody is working a federal job, they're still paying federal income taxes. So the government can count on getting 10-30% of that right back (because congress both wants the money and to be able t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      People who feel resentment are short sighted. If you remove all the "free money" stuff, social problems get worse and it ends up costing you more anyway. Not just costing you money, but making you the victim of extra crimes, making the place where you live a less pleasant place to be, that sort of thing.

  • Haha (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16, 2026 @01:08PM (#65992264)

    This is going to piss off the MAGA simps here so badly

  • Define "artist" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by innocent_white_lamb ( 151825 ) on Monday February 16, 2026 @01:11PM (#65992276)

    It'll be interesting to see how they define what an artist is.

    Writer? Poet? Painter? Musician?

    Do you need an established body of work? Many times it's the beginner who's starting out that needs a subsidy more than the chap who's been doing whatever for 50 years.

    • Re:Define "artist" (Score:5, Funny)

      by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Monday February 16, 2026 @01:13PM (#65992282)

      It gets assigned at birth.

      • We're not quite to 'Gattaca' yet... give it a generation, and we'll be there.

        UBI (in the US) could work if they calculate it to be enough to survive on, but not enough to live 'high on the horse' (pay rent and bills, afford food, basic stuff like that), maybe (in the US, at least) put the UBI on the EBT card used for SNAP and have some kind of requirement (like actively looking for work, working a low-hours per week job, not making over 'X' amount, not drawing SS anything, et cetera).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rta ( 559125 )

          I thought it was "eating high on the hog" ...

          my take is that the only way to do UBI is to give the same amount to every adult citizen (some letter amount for kids up to 2. much less for 3rd+). No other requirements. no regional adjustment for metro areas. maybe for rural areas ... maybe not.

          some single digit percent of people will still need "services" instead of in addition because they can't "adult" (due to mental illness, congenital issues, hooked on drugs etc)

          • Well, there'd have to be a cap... the $150/hour lawyer probably doesn't need it, neither does the $200k a year CEO.

            An extra $200 (for me) in my bank account, on top of SNAP and my insurance would be a huge help; I could do my rent myself, even buy some new clothes finally (when I had a regular job, I could afford it, but I was so dirty from washing transmission parts there was no way I was gonna try on clean pants).
            After rent and internet, $100 wouldn't get anything for drugs, and at most like a few cases o

            • This is a common problem I see with UBI proposals.
              It's supposed to be Universal. A big part of being universal is that by NOT putting excessive requirements on it, you keep administrative costs low.
              For example, my proposed requirements amount to "US Citizen living in the USA, not a fugitive from justice"

              Okay, so you want to pull it back from the lawyers and CEOs. Anybody making over $200k/year. Well, now we need income verification, which is more paperwork, more federal employees managing that requiremen

              • If it could be worked out in a way that the "rich" (the lawyer and the CEO) get the UBI, but basically pay it back through taxes while those of us regular Joe's don't have to pay it back, that could work... as long as the CEO's 200K is properly taxed (and he didn't pull some trick like get paid 200K, report 70K on taxes, donate the rest to a non-profit his company runs, which just happens to have a Swiss bank account that his Mistress happens to "manage" for him).
                UBI could work, but all those little loophol

                • That isn't a complaint against UBI though, that's a rant against tax evasion in general. Maybe tax avoidance (Evasion: illegal, avoidance: legal). In either case, it's fixed by auditing and proper tax code. Using the UBI to flatten and simplify the code would really help.
                  Besides which, you really need to boost the CEO income one, maybe two orders of magnitude before the scheme you mention makes sense.
                  And for UBI to work, it would actually be taxed back for most of the "regular joes". Much like welfare,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        Okay joke, but the only successful attempt at humor on a story with so much potential for funny? But that's what the moderators voted.

    • I wondered the same thing but it says right away that these artists were pre-selected.

      It's not like this is currently an open system where people can claim to be an artist in order to receive extra money.

      • I see. Nothing new. Instead of giving an artist a studio grant, they'll trickle them a grant over 3 years. I'm pretty sure it evens out in the end. And it won't help artists who need it, because the ones who get the grants are the one who are already well-known enough and usually have a way to earn a living.

    • Well, established artists don't need the help, so I'd guess it's newcomers. Which also means this will be abused like crazy in short order.

      • Maybe linked to a graduate program? e.g. you study music, sculpture, theatre, dance etc and graduate third in your class after 3 years of study. You have a portfolio of work but just need a break.

        The stereotype being broke twenty-somethings on the dole applying for bs jobs while they wait for their next paid gig. Breaking that cycle; maybe Ireland has sufficient casual workers that they don't need ballerinas working as baristas.

        • Well, I'd just say that Ireland should probably want all their 20-somethings working, bs job or no, not on the dole (which includes this proposed payment).

          Making a living as an artist is HARD. You have to be very good in order to do so (I wasn't). And that's not a bad thing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      waiting for graham norton to publicly demand his.

    • Programmers are technological artists.

      As always, though, your sense of taste may vary.

      • Well digital art is actually a thing - I'm not thinking of NFTs here, but lots of artists are also programmers. And some programmers are artists too :).

  • How are they calculating a $1.65 return on that $1.2? Especially since they say it is a return "to society", and not, "the artist sold his work for $514"?

    The value of art, which is valuable, is entirely subjective. How are quantifying that?

    Besides, don't artists usually need to struggle and suffer, at least at first, to be any good? Coddle them, and you'll just get paintings of kittens and anodyne love songs.

    • >paintings of kittens and anodyne love songs

      The is AI territory in 2026. You won't even notice that the cats have 6 toes.

      • Yup. Have you worked out the next bit? I'll give you a clue - it's about scamming the system.

    • Life is full of struggle and suffering without also heaping starvation on top of that. There have even been artists that continue to be great artists AFTER they're rich and no longer need the money to survive and are free to create whatever they want.

      Lots of people keep working at things that they enjoy even without remuneration.

      What I'd like to know is why they didn't just say for every $1 invested, $1.38 comes back. Do Irish folks pay in $1.20 increments?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ambvai ( 1106941 )

        Article uses €1 and €1.39. It should be a tad under 1.20USD to 1.00EUR right now, but close enough.

        • Oh, duh! I had been wondering the same thing, but now I'm kicking myself for missing the obvious. Thanks for the good answer.
      • Well, the other side of that is that it weeds out the artists that should just give up and do something that pays. It also builds character that lesser artists have to fake by being pretentious.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by okle69 ( 258936 )

      I don't even understand how they're calculating giving away 40 million a year when they've only allocated 20

  • Not UBI (Score:5, Informative)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Monday February 16, 2026 @01:45PM (#65992418)

    This is a sexed-up grant program. Various "artists in residency" and similar grant programs have existed for quite some time with the idea of paying artists so they can have time to create. This is just relabeling the grant payments as "UBI".

    But UBI isn't supposed to be paying you because of some merit or value you add to society. In fact, the idea is making payments to people precisely because a lot of individuals have no particular or unique skill and such individuals may be replaced by machines.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rta ( 559125 )

      it's not even sexed up, imo. for one thing it's explicitly not permanent
      and you're tossed off of it after 3 years.

      the new BIA will operate in 3-year cycles with artists being eligible for every 3 out of 6 years. This means that, if selected in 2026 – 2029 for the payment, an artist won’t be eligible for the payment in the next cycle, but may reapply in the cycle following that.

      and it's not exactly a princely income either... so it'll buy food and a piece of the rent, but not much else

      • It shouldn't even be 3 years. 3 months is more like it. If you can't create a salable piece of art or several in 3 months you're not an artist and should probably apply to flip burgers or be a walmart greeter.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rta ( 559125 )

          It shouldn't even be 3 years. 3 months is more like it. If you can't create a salable piece of art or several in 3 months you're not an artist and should probably apply to flip burgers or be a walmart greeter.

          i suspect that many to most artists already do (the equivalent of) both .... and this grant might allow them to just do one so they can do some more "art" on the side.

        • "If you can't create a salable piece of art or several in 3 months you're not an artist"

          It took Michelangelo three years to sculpt David.

  • Normal for real countries. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Monday February 16, 2026 @02:16PM (#65992506)

    Several countries do provide personal stipends, working grants, or quasi-salary systems for artists.

    France
    Through the “intermittents du spectacle” system, performing artists can receive unemployment-style income support between contracts, if they meet work-hour thresholds. It’s not a universal artist salary, but it functions as income stabilization.

    Germany
    Artists can receive working grants (Arbeitsstipendien) that support living costs for a period of time without requiring a specific deliverable. There’s also the Künstlersozialkasse, which subsidizes health and pension insurance for self-employed artists.

    Nordic countries
    This is where it gets serious.
    Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland offer multi-year working grants and, in some cases, long-term stipends that function almost like partial salaries. Norway has had lifetime grants for selected artists. These are competitive but substantial.

    Netherlands
    Individual artist grants exist via national arts funds, often covering living expenses during creative periods.

    Ireland
    The Basic Income for the Arts pilot (launched 2022) provides direct monthly payments to selected artists. It’s explicitly personal income support.

    Canada
    The Canada Council offers individual artist grants covering living and creation time. Some provinces provide additional stipends.

    • It's worth noting that the Canadian grant system is incredibly overloaded, and so it can be really hit or miss for artists who are at the beginning of their careers. I have friends in several theatre groups and they have to jump through a lot of hoops and ultimately get very little grant money.

      The basic income plan is so much better just for its reliability.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rta ( 559125 )

      This is where it gets serious.

      chatgpt detected

      (probably. i already kinda argued like an LLM before they existed ... and prob. do so now more since i interact w/ them ...)

    • The French system requires artists to perform a minimum amount of time in the year to be able to join and retain the status. It is also not a status for the visual arts, but for the performative arts (circus, theater, dance, music...).

      But yes when you are in it, it allows you to have some time to design your next shows in between two tours. In effect, it means the French government subsidizes research time.

      What's the benefit of this? Well, France is known for its culture... It attracts tourists, it is also

    • Grants from art foundations are very different from basic income schemes. Slashdotters might be more familiar with grants for scientific research, such as PhD or Post-doc programs, and it's basically similar for arts. There are many more applicants than available grants, and you have to spend a considerable part of your time on the application process, rather than doing the art/science itself. You also need to show your worth in some way, basically working for years and years without grants to build a dece

  • I'm not knocking the arts at all but I question how you measure the value returned and the quality of the art? Art is highly subjective. I've seen pieces of art that to me look like a toddler did them, but other people are just entranced by them. I can be absolutely entranced by some musical or theater performances and others I find just off putting. So how do you judge the value? How do you actually measure the return?

    In terms of the money being paid out it sounds very similar to grant money to me.
  • Did they have a trial to see whether the taxpaying non-artists had greater professional autonomy, less anxiety and higher life satisfaction?

  • I need to keep up with my Irn Bru to keep my coding vibe going.

  • People think I've got slashdot trolling down to a science. But that implies any one or anything can learn to do what I do. Not so! You have to be an artistic genius!

    Now where's my free money?

  • Finally, a subsidy program that's honest about what it does.

  • "Ireland Launches World's First Permanent Basic Income Scheme For Artists"

    Except being for artists, it's none of the things it claims to be. A three year term is not permanent. It doesn't pay enough to live on, so it's also not basic income. Survival is what makes it basic.

    I remember when slashdot used to have stories that were interesting. Now it's all about telling lies that we react to for ad impressions.

  • Does the selection criteria involve "Actually being Irish"?

  • Can't anybody say their an artist?
    Tape a banana to a wall, or throw paint at a canvas and you're an artist.

  • Yeah, there's been programs like this before, just without the UBI tag on it.

    I guess it meets someone's quarterly job requirements to 'impliment positive subduction' or something.

Slashdot Top Deals

It was pity stayed his hand. "Pity I don't have any more bullets," thought Frito. -- _Bored_of_the_Rings_, a Harvard Lampoon parody of Tolkein

Close