Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, October 15, 2020
Universal Basic Income for Artists? San Francisco Will Give Local Creatives Struggling Amid the Shutdown $1,000 a Month
news.artnet.com: A cohort of more than 100 San Francisco-based artists will be given a $1,000 monthly stipend as part of the city’s Economic Recovery Task Force, the mayor’s office announced last week.
I will be honest though I have heard of Universal Basic Income before I’m not super informed about it but I think this article was really helpful in understanding more about the implementation of programs like this. I think even though this was relatively small scale it is wonderful to see places attempting to implement systems like this. I also do understand the criticism of the limiting this benefit to artists is against the nature of UBI but if it is serving as a test for larger programming then I think it is a mutually beneficial group. Also considering how highly impacted the artistic sector has been by the pandemic it seems a fitting group for the sample, not to dismiss the widespread economic impact the pandemic has had on a much wider group in America, but from my highly biased perspective I think it was a good group and also allows for artwork to be reinvested into the community during a particularly bleak time.
So...what? I am very confused by this. It feels like this task force had to do something, and they picked out a particular subset of impacted people to throw money at. But they are only funding 130 people (how are they going to choose them?) and they are only giving them $1,000 monthly, which is about half of the average rent for a San Francisco studio apartment. I am all for helping artists who are out of work, but I am not sure that this is the right move. Part of my hesitation comes from a racial justice standpoint--the arts are majority white for complicated socioeconomic reasons that I only sort of grasp, and I think that offering unqualified funding for artists might not help. I am ready to be wrong on this, though, particularly since my reasoning is fuzzy. That said, I look to the public actions that are coming from within the arts, and I see calls for unilateral aid, not just for our sector.
I think when you read the title of this article initially it seems like a really great, exciting thing. However, when you really get into it, there seem to be so many elements of it that are not actually ideal. While there is great evidence that a Universal Basic Income can create positive change, it seems like this is just a temporary small solution that is not doing much but being performative. It is great to see that San Francisco will be investing so much into the arts industry as a whole, but to call giving 130 people $1,000 a month for six months “universal basic income” is simply inaccurate. This definitely seems like a solution that is not entirely thought out, and is really serving as some type of temporary band-aid. While I think it would be excellent if there were more programs that provided artists with stipends, I am not quite sure if this program is ideal yet.
So, I don’t know why this is being sold as ‘universal’ basic income with it being provided to such a small group of people? And as other people have mentioned, how far is $1000 a month actually going to get you in San Francisco, where the average rent is, after some quick googling, $3,629 per month? Obviously it’s better than nothing, and certainly helpful to the people who are selected to receive it. A charitable explanation could even say that this could be meant as a test for true UBI for the arts industry or even the city as a whole. But with it only being provided for a small group, I’m wondering about the selection criteria here, and if the money would truly be going to those who need it, or to well-known/established (white) artists. I’m definitely for UBI as a concept, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here, and the token effort is a little frustrating, even if it is a step in the right direction.
I went into reading this article excited to learn about how certain smaller governments like San Francisco's was going to start supporting their artists in this time of need. I came out just confused. It seemed like a good idea in the title, but as you read, you realize how messy of a situation this is. Providing universal basic income to only a small subset of people is... not universal. Not properly defining who even that small subset of people are is another whole mess - so many people will exploit it and so many people might not even feel completely included. However, after describing all of these things that were wrong, the article still read like it was for supporting artists in this way. I really like the additional idea presented at the vey end, about commissioning murals and employing artists to enforce safety preecautions in the city.
The title of this article is very misleading to what the article actually shows and what San Francisco is actually implementing. I haven't been super exposed to the idea of a Universal Basic Income and have always been pretty confused by the idea. I was first introduced to the term during during the primaries as Andrew Yang had popularly proposed "The Freedom Dividend" which was a Universal Basic Income of $1000 a month. This has always been a concept that I have wondered how it can be implemented and if it is truly possible to be implemented. It seems as thought San Francisco is just giving a stipend, rather than Universal Basic Income. Perhaps this is a stepping stone for policies like this to be implemented however I do not think anything about this was universal. It only provides to artist and on top of that it only provides to 130 artists in a city where there are thousands. I personally do not understand how this can help the artist community in the city and can see a potential of bigger messes being created by this false narrative of a Universal Basic Income.
6 comments:
I will be honest though I have heard of Universal Basic Income before I’m not super informed about it but I think this article was really helpful in understanding more about the implementation of programs like this. I think even though this was relatively small scale it is wonderful to see places attempting to implement systems like this. I also do understand the criticism of the limiting this benefit to artists is against the nature of UBI but if it is serving as a test for larger programming then I think it is a mutually beneficial group. Also considering how highly impacted the artistic sector has been by the pandemic it seems a fitting group for the sample, not to dismiss the widespread economic impact the pandemic has had on a much wider group in America, but from my highly biased perspective I think it was a good group and also allows for artwork to be reinvested into the community during a particularly bleak time.
So...what? I am very confused by this. It feels like this task force had to do something, and they picked out a particular subset of impacted people to throw money at. But they are only funding 130 people (how are they going to choose them?) and they are only giving them $1,000 monthly, which is about half of the average rent for a San Francisco studio apartment. I am all for helping artists who are out of work, but I am not sure that this is the right move. Part of my hesitation comes from a racial justice standpoint--the arts are majority white for complicated socioeconomic reasons that I only sort of grasp, and I think that offering unqualified funding for artists might not help. I am ready to be wrong on this, though, particularly since my reasoning is fuzzy. That said, I look to the public actions that are coming from within the arts, and I see calls for unilateral aid, not just for our sector.
I think when you read the title of this article initially it seems like a really great, exciting thing. However, when you really get into it, there seem to be so many elements of it that are not actually ideal. While there is great evidence that a Universal Basic Income can create positive change, it seems like this is just a temporary small solution that is not doing much but being performative. It is great to see that San Francisco will be investing so much into the arts industry as a whole, but to call giving 130 people $1,000 a month for six months “universal basic income” is simply inaccurate. This definitely seems like a solution that is not entirely thought out, and is really serving as some type of temporary band-aid. While I think it would be excellent if there were more programs that provided artists with stipends, I am not quite sure if this program is ideal yet.
So, I don’t know why this is being sold as ‘universal’ basic income with it being provided to such a small group of people? And as other people have mentioned, how far is $1000 a month actually going to get you in San Francisco, where the average rent is, after some quick googling, $3,629 per month? Obviously it’s better than nothing, and certainly helpful to the people who are selected to receive it. A charitable explanation could even say that this could be meant as a test for true UBI for the arts industry or even the city as a whole. But with it only being provided for a small group, I’m wondering about the selection criteria here, and if the money would truly be going to those who need it, or to well-known/established (white) artists. I’m definitely for UBI as a concept, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here, and the token effort is a little frustrating, even if it is a step in the right direction.
I went into reading this article excited to learn about how certain smaller governments like San Francisco's was going to start supporting their artists in this time of need. I came out just confused. It seemed like a good idea in the title, but as you read, you realize how messy of a situation this is. Providing universal basic income to only a small subset of people is... not universal. Not properly defining who even that small subset of people are is another whole mess - so many people will exploit it and so many people might not even feel completely included. However, after describing all of these things that were wrong, the article still read like it was for supporting artists in this way. I really like the additional idea presented at the vey end, about commissioning murals and employing artists to enforce safety preecautions in the city.
The title of this article is very misleading to what the article actually shows and what San Francisco is actually implementing. I haven't been super exposed to the idea of a Universal Basic Income and have always been pretty confused by the idea. I was first introduced to the term during during the primaries as Andrew Yang had popularly proposed "The Freedom Dividend" which was a Universal Basic Income of $1000 a month. This has always been a concept that I have wondered how it can be implemented and if it is truly possible to be implemented. It seems as thought San Francisco is just giving a stipend, rather than Universal Basic Income. Perhaps this is a stepping stone for policies like this to be implemented however I do not think anything about this was universal. It only provides to artist and on top of that it only provides to 130 artists in a city where there are thousands. I personally do not understand how this can help the artist community in the city and can see a potential of bigger messes being created by this false narrative of a Universal Basic Income.
Post a Comment