[solarmist]

Artist have always since classical times struggled to support themselves. I don’t think there is any system that would make this a viable career for the number of people who want to pursue it. Same with musicians.

It is a luxury career supported exclusively by surplus. There will always be demand for it, but it is highly elastic and heavily influenced by trends and skewed by the top end.

[hypertele-Xii]

A social security system that supports all artists was put into operation since 1984 in my country of Finland, it's still functioning fine, the only struggle for artists here is substance abuse.

[solarmist]

This is a is a fundamental change of how we relate to work and the economy. So I hope it catches on and I've seriously though about emigrating because of that. That weather though...

I think it doesn't go quite far enough though. I still believe a universal basic income would do better and be easier to administer.

[fauigerzigerk]

How do people qualify for this support?

[hypertele-Xii]

It's essentially universal. They simply subtract income from it. About $10k/y. If you earn more than $150/mo, the excess is subtracted. The bureaucratic process is submitting an online form. Property owned (land, house, shares, w/e) may reduce it, I don't know, I don't own anything of substantial value.

[RugnirViking]

Can you elaborate a little on how this works? I have many questions haha, how they verify someone is doing art, how it's not the same as a basic unemployment, whether there is a maximum amount of people who can be on this programme, if so how qualification works etc. It sounds very interesting

[hypertele-Xii]

> how they verify someone is doing art

Sorry if I framed it confusingly, this isn't only for artists, it's for everyone. They don't care what you do, only how much money you make.

> how it's not the same as a basic unemployment

It pretty much is, though unemployment has more strings attached. Anything you get from unemployment is subtracted from social security, and vice versa. For unemployment the online form is simpler and money comes much quicker, but you have to attend unemployment office events and stuff.

> whether there is a maximum amount of people who can be on this programme

The true maximum is of course however much the system as a whole can support, through taxing people's income. My back-of-the-napkin math puts the cost of the whole program at about $1/mo per taxpayer. So all artists and bums combined. Might not include basic retirement, which is slightly less.

> how qualification works

It's based on income/assets. If you make less than $10k/y plus $150/mo, the program covers the difference for living expenses.

In practice, there are limits to how much they're willing to pay for things like rent and utilities. In my city the max rent is $560/mo. On this winter's coldest month they complained that my electricity bill was too high (electric heating), but still paid it in full when I complained back.

To qualify, you have to attach to your application all of your bank accounts' statements from the past 3 months, so they can see how much money you've got. When you get a bill, you send the bill and they cover it.

The social security program covers: rent, water, electricity, home insurance, Internet, healthcare, moving van, security deposit of new apartment. On top of that you get about $15/day for food and other stuff like clothes, cleaning products, what have you. In my experience food costs some $10/day to live comfortably so some $150/mo remains for everything else. Second hand clothing stores sell decent clothes for a few dollars a piece, sometimes less.

You can request additional funds for infrequent, dire needs, like a new bed, vaccuum cleaner, etc.

Feel free to ask more questions, I'm happy to elaborate :)

[fauigerzigerk]

>Sorry if I framed it confusingly, this isn't only for artists, it's for everyone.

Ah, OK, that was what I was wondering. Some social security schemes for artists that I am aware of require proof that you are in fact an artist, which can be problematic.

[fauigerzigerk]

By historical standards, most of what is sold today in developed countries is "surplus". The share of GDP that goes to art and entertainment is not constant as your historical comparison suggests. It is growing and will continue to grow. It will eventually outgrow most other industries.

Wherever you stand on copyrights, it would be a mistake to underestimate the central importance of this issue going forward.

[solarmist]

Yes, we have a lot of things supported by surplus. All research is one example.

I don't think my comment implies that at all. I'm not convinced it'll ever grow that large though. See: Content is not king [1] for a good explanation of why.

I think it's natural that it grows now to levels never seen before.

What am I underestimating? I agree it is an important issue; my comment is orthogonal to it though.

[1] https://firstmonday.org/article/view/833/742

[mold_aid]

>It is a luxury career supported exclusively by surplus.

What is your career, precisely?

[solarmist]

I mean no aspersions when I say that. For example, all research would fall into that category as well. So does most of tech, but not all of it.

My point was that it's a career whose demand is dictated by fluctuations in the economy and trends. And can be almost completely shut down (in theory) if the situation dictates.