had van Gogh been "subsidized" rather than dying in poverty, how much longer would he have lived and how many more works would he have produced? none of them had any market value or whatever during his life.
Why pay a human to mop when you can buy a robot that'll do it for less than $200? That's less than a 40 hr paycheck for someone making $7.25/hr. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Yet, companies insist on having humans mop floors.
Janitorial staff often do much more than simply mop, so will likely be a while before robots will completely replace. I was just using that as an example.
If you had 100 Van Goghs, you'd have no Van Goghs, really. Van Gogh is notable because he was one of a kind. You can't mass produce that.
The list of great artists who died impoverished across all fields isn't exactly small. And how many other people could have been great scientists, doctors, or what-have-you, save for the fact that they were forced to scrape by at a shitty job, or worse, were literal slaves, as a number of Americans were before 1865? We'll never know. As for the argument that if we had UBI, nobody would flip burgers at McDonald's, I'm not sure that holds water. I've known more than a few retirees who had a comfortable income thanks to their pension or 401K, but still kept working because they liked to keep busy and be around people. Not to mention the folks I've known who took a part-time job for the short-term because they wanted a little extra money in their pocket (Christmas was coming up or they wanted a new engine for their hot rod).
no, but you can have many more great artists... we're using him because he never made a living from painting. I could have used Jackson Pollock, but he's more subjective.
And wasn't subsidized, either. If people can't do what they love, they can pursue it in their off hours.
Let's say that 20% of their job is mopping. Most janitors make more than $7.25/hr, so if you can eliminate that part of their job, you can potentially cut one janitor from your staff, or have them do something that they're not presently doing, or turn them from a full-time employee (whom you have to provide benefits for), into a part-time employee (whom you don't have to provide benefits for).
Indeed. Charles Murray's UBI plan (video linked upthread) incentivizes people to work even with the UBI by not clawing back benefits until a fairly high wage is achieved.
Why? Do you believe people don't change their habits, behaviors, ambitions, etc. in response to their material conditions? If so, what planet are you living on? There's a great Russian film, Stalker, where three men travel to the center of a forbidden zone, a desolated industrial cityscape where a mystical creature (alien?) that can, apparently, grant wishes dwells. One of the men is a writer and his wish is, naturally, to be a great writer. When he reaches the creature's location, he has an epiphany: a great writer becomes great because of the struggle to become one, not despite it. The writer chooses not to have his wish fulfilled.
I dunno, there are literally hundreds of artists in various fields thruout history who were "subsidized" by assorted nobles and kings and whatnot. Seems to have worked out okay. In fact, thru modern apps like GoFundMe and Kickstarter, artists and creators are being funded by random individuals making donations. So there would seem to be merit in the subsidization route.
That's kinda what I meant by "other advanced technologies." We probably won't ever have a device as magical as a Star Trek replicator, but odds are we'll have some kind of "close enough" technology.
Exactly. The truth is that right now both sides are correct. A UBI could have massive benefits, but as economies are setup and administered now they could also present massive problems. Ideally a UBI works to unlock unused supply in the economy, growing the economy rather than inflating it. Our central banks already manipulate the money supply to target a desirable level of inflation. Lower interest rates act as a tap, increasing liquidity as individuals and businesses are more incentivised to take out loans. Higher interest rates act for many individuals with mortgages and other loans as defacto increased taxation.
You know, there are a lot of things that I'd like to learn how to do but there's the whole issue of what the job pays, etc. that stands in the way of my doing it. Even if it's something that once I acquired the necessary skills to do the job at a highly professional level the pay would be really high, I'm not sure that if the work environment is something that I'd want to be surrounded by. Supposedly, the reason Gordon Ramsay is such a shit on-screen is that he wants to get people interested in being chefs used to the idea that they might be subjected to massive amounts of abuse (because customers can be royal assholes). Having worked in retail, I can see his point, but at the same time, I don't think that anyone should be subjected to the kind of abuse that he heaps out (and I know customers can be worse). So there's not really any reason for me to want to work in a kitchen to learn how to make really good food. Sure, I do what I can to improve my cooking on my own, but without serving the food to bunches and bunches of people, there's only so much I can figure out. But enduring the insane screaming from Karens and Kens because their steak was served at 161 degrees instead of 160, isn't worth it.
One would think so, but IME, that's not the case. I've worked jobs (and railed about them here) where anyone with a grain of sense would have automated them. That's not the case. Quite literally, I've worked jobs where I've had to operate machines that were pushing the 100-year mark, and a modern machine could crank out in a day more than what the machine I was running could do in a week. WTF wouldn't you upgrade the machines? It doesn't matter what they would cost, you can make the money back easily enough in labor savings as well as taking on more work.
I missed this earlier. A UBI is a step toward the economy in The Expanse. Not anywhere near the economy in Star Trek.
I suppose you could call patronage "subsidy," but all of the artists involved were accomplished before they saw a penny. You didn't go to the king or the Pope or the duke and ask for a subsidy to become an artist. The Pope did not subsidize Michelangelo's life or artistic growth. He hired an established artist. Sure, and if people want to donate to someone they think worthy, I'm all for it. Those are fantastic ways to find patronage.
Sounds like. You should probably manage that department! (Because it sounds like someone just doesn't want the bother of updating the equipment.)
It would depend on specifics of those two options. It isn't a simple matter; I favor (and disfavor) spending in both of those areas.
I can't speak to how Ramsay runs his kitchens but on Kitchen Nightmares, the bulk of his "abuse" is aimed at the GMs and other positions of power who provide poor work environments, cut costs or seem otherwise oblivious to the shitshow business they run since they're the ones with the accountability.
Reality TV kind of created this problem. Rich yuppies who know nothing about the restaurant industry and have no culinary skills thinks it's easy to own a resturaunt and have pie in the sky ideas about owning one. Then they start a resturaunt, things don't go as planned and need someone like Ramsay to bail them out and teach them how to do everything. Wash, rinse, repeat.
It’s not as if everyone here is below average intelligence and you are so much more intelligent than us. We all understand there are multiple facets to each option. That’s not my question. And you know you it. You’re obfuscating.
Your question as posed is not answerable. I'm straightforward in my writing and my meaning is clear, so definitely not obfuscating.