1292
Ireland plans to make a $1,500 a month basic income for artists permanent
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
1292 points (99.6% liked)
World News
58330 readers
1796 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree we don't know what exactly would happen if UBI was implemented globally, and what the large-scale effects would be. But saying "there is no evidence" goes too far. There have been UBI experiments, both intentional and by accident.
We generally know how people react in different contexts to different variants of a low to moderate UBI, what the health and work outcomes are, etc. Sure, a "full" UBI would be different. But it would be silly to expect people to react in a completely different way from what we have already seen, at least for a low UBI.
If you need a reminder about past experiments, listen to Scott Santens (youtube, 10min, from 2020). He is obviously very biased (UBI advocate) but he knows all the nuances about past UBI experiments.
Oh i am not saying that there isn't positive implications for small scale experiments i am saying that this isn't waterproof evidence that we would see the same effect when done countrywide because the parameters change massivly.
True, but "waterproof evidence" is not the bar required to change a law. Most voters are against UBI not because of the lack of evidence. I think they don't even want to check the evidence, they are arguing against the idea.
(Sorry for the long reply. I got sucked into this topic ~15 years ago and it all wants to come back now ;-)
You can get quite an emotional reaction from some people to even propose this idea. Even when you propose to implement a tiny, tentative amount, they are still firmly against it.
My guess is that it de-valuates paid work ever so slightly, in principle, which goes against the current paradigm that puts paid work into the center of everything. (Ignoring those who already have an unconditional passive income today.) My guess is also that people really like the feeling that they have earned by their own personal effort any money they own. The truth of who has earned what is, as you know, a lot more complicated.
Actually, I think this is the most well-explored point. Every study is trying to measure this. E.g. quoting Wikipedia:
IIRC most studies have similar findings: employment generally changes only very slightly. Usually it goes slightly down, but nothing dramatic. Given the amount of studies that exist, I think at this point you'd have to argue why those results should not transfer, why at least a comparable (low) amount of UBI should have a large effect on employment elsewhere.
But as I said, I don't think the political discussion around UBI is really about the evidence.
This one is more interesting. Some studies ignore this completely. (More time spent in paid work is always better, right?) But some try to find out what why people actually stop working.
From memory, in one study some of the newly un-employed were actually going back to finish their degree. And I remember an anecdote of one person who finally got out of an abusive job because of the money, only to find a much better one (better paid, too) a few months later. In one study I think they were even able to argue that the reduced health costs, etc. (people out of poverty are less likely to get hostpitalized or get criminal) is paying for the cost of the (low) UBI. (But IIRC it was additional money.)
You can dismiss this all as anecdotal, or "not real UBI if it was additional money". But as I said, I don't think the political reasons why people are against has much to do with the evidence. I think we have enough evidence to say that at least a low UBI is extremely unlikely to hurt the economy, or at least not by more than other policies that focus only on the unemployed already do.