You appear to be introducing three new tangential topics, and I don’t think you are addressing the point you originally raised.
Your original comment says that we should take a system that is there to provide insurance for the unfortunate (social safety net) and use that system to fund people’s desires (art, open source, or whatever).
I very strongly disagree with that idea: different systems have different purposes and commingling a safety net with creative goals will likely lead to very unfair outcomes.
The U.S. used to in fact commingle the social safety net with creative goals during the WPA era. There would be funding provided to employ artists, musicians, writers, actors, stage hands, etc. I think this is one of the many great ideas from the progressive era that could use reinstatement today. What a shame so many of our excellent social programs were cut during WWII as we shifted to a centrally planned war economy.
That’s not really what I meant, but I suppose I can see why you’d infer it. I’m saying that a social safety net decreases the risk of pursuing art rather than a more traditional job, not that we should repurpose it to give people additional income to fund specifically artistic goals.
So I’m not really introducing any tangential topics. In the US, medicine and healthcare are expensive and usually tied to employment; by providing those to everyone for free or cheap as part of a social safety net, it becomes less risky to dedicate your time to producing art.
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. I did jump to the conclusion you meant UBI, or full-time “welfare” benefits for artists (à la https://wikipedia.org/wiki/UB40 — the eight musicians formed a band, deciding on the name 'UB40' after a friend suggested it was an appropriate name given the unemployed status of all of the band members).
But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that. Plenty of people think artists should have to worry about their own balance sheet and society provides them plenty already, as opposed to your special-status-for-artists comment “people be able to make art without worrying about medical bankruptcy or homelessness”.
Instead, Western society’s usual deal is supposed to be: work 40 hours a week and you get your needs met, plus some disposable money to use as you wish, and the rest of your week (evenings, weekends) to do whatever you wish (art, open source, whatever). Alternatively society provides ways to monetise your interests. Those deals actually work in some countries, and don’t work in many others. I understand why you feel that the 40-hour deal might be broken in the USA. Many people from other countries look at the deal given to the median American with envy, and that is perfectly reasonable too.
I have multiple artistic and musician friends where the jobs-for-money deal seems to work for them and they mostly own their own homes (however I am a ~50 year old in New Zealand and the majority of my artistic friends are 40 or over). I also have arty friends that get government benefits!
And yeah, the USA medical system is rather perverse: hopefully you guys can fix that for all of yourselves (not just artists etcetera).
To be honest, I would support some form of UBI, but I think there are many more modest reforms we can talk about before we get there.
> But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that.
You’re inferring this, but I’m not implying it. Let me try to be a little clearer:
Public services do not necessarily cost taxpayers more than the alternatives. Again, with healthcare we have a concrete example of privatized systems costing more and delivering worse outcomes than universal public ones. Many people who are working might prefer the former so they don’t have to subsidize others, but ultimately they themselves receive worse care (on average) as a result of this; they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Relatedly, a significant amount of US taxpayer money subsidizes the business ventures of billionaires like Elon Musk. There are plenty of other examples, like the almost eight trillion USD we give to the military every decade. This doesn’t directly address your point, but I do wonder why we only start talking about these tradeoffs when it’s the poorest receiving subsidies from the government, rather than the most powerful.
I feel like I am repeating myself, both those situations are irrelevant to your original point. I agree we can try to make things more efficient, and society can improve how it redistributes wealth.
You seem to be saying we should distribute any gains to artists. I am saying that we distribute those gains to working people, and let the artists do their thing in their free time.
If we start getting to the point where there is not enough “work” to go around, then we can follow the scandi practice of reducing everyone’s working hours. Although admittedly that doesn’t address the problem that there is an unlimited need for highly skilled people (the drive behind the power law of income distribution and why the more highly paid professionals have no spare time).
UBI is a lovely concept, but unfortunately in the very major examples I have already seen of UBI (retirement being the biggest example), I don’t see much return in scientific or creative output.
Your original comment says that we should take a system that is there to provide insurance for the unfortunate (social safety net) and use that system to fund people’s desires (art, open source, or whatever).
I very strongly disagree with that idea: different systems have different purposes and commingling a safety net with creative goals will likely lead to very unfair outcomes.