San Francisco

San Francisco Will Pay Artists $1,000 a Month in Universal Basic Income

The pilot program intended to assist the city's arts community during the pandemic is drawing both interest and criticism from proponents of unconditional cash transfers.

|

San Francisco will become the latest city to experiment with a universal basic income (UBI). Sort of.

In an effort to assist the city's struggling arts community in bouncing back from the pandemic, Mayor London Breed announced last week that she'd be rolling out a cash transfer program for artists.

Under the mayor's plan, 130 artists in the city will receive a $1,000 monthly cash stipend for a period of six months starting early next year.  It's one of several arts-themed policies sourced from the city's Economic Recovery Task Force final report released last Thursday, which also includes funding for "artists to paint murals with a public health theme on boarded-up businesses and deploy performance artists to promote COVID-safe behaviors in high foot traffic areas."

"In the months and years ahead, it's going to take that same collective effort to confront the economic devastation caused by this virus," said Breed in a press release. "We need to continue to translate these ideas into action so we can get people back to work and get San Francisco moving forward."

The proposal is drawing both interest and criticism from UBI advocates.

"We've sort of gotten into the habit of cloaking anything that gives money to people as a universal basic income," Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. "This is a subsidy for artists."

A true universal basic income, says Tanner, has to be, well, universal, or at least broad-based. The limited number of people who could benefit from San Francisco's program, he says, and the requirement that they have to be artists means Breed's proposal is effectively a grant program for a select political constituency.

One benefit of a UBI is that it doesn't involve politicians attaching too many strings on who qualifies for benefits, which in turn requires less bureaucracy and limits the government's ability to incentivize or penalize particular behaviors.

San Francisco is negating this benefit, says Tanner, by restricting the pool of potential beneficiaries to artists, a term the city will now have to define with new regulations and potentially politicized rule-making.

Max Ghenis, founder and president of the UBI Center, a think tank that researches basic income policies, is more bullish on San Francisco's artist UBI idea. While imperfect, it still incorporates a lot of the benefits that a universal basic income is supposed to offer, he says.

"Sometimes the u [in UBI] also means unconditional. I think this does pretty much mean that. The people selected for the program, once they start to get it, won't be subject to work requirements or other kinds of requirements that are accessed on other types of programs," Ghenis notes, giving the example of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, where recipients have to check in with a program officer and report income changes.

Recipients of San Francisco's basic income can also spend the money on whatever they want, he says. That's distinct from other traditional welfare programs like food stamps or housing vouchers, which have to be spent on specific things.

Ghenis says San Francisco's proposal might be the first UBI-like program to target artists. Other programs, particularly outside the U.S., have been limited to assisting other types of people, like rural residents or those who have been incarcerated.

A recent study of an unconditional cash transfer program to people who had been homeless in Vancouver, Canada, found that recipients reduced their spending on things like cigarettes and alcohol, and were more likely to find stable housing than those who did not benefit from the program. The same study also found that the $7,500 cash transfer provided to recipients saved the Vancouver emergency shelter system $8,100 per person.

The COVID-19 pandemic is generating increased interest in UBI as a more streamlined way of providing assistance to those in need. Included in the coronavirus relief bill passed in March was a $1,200 cash payment to all legal residents making $75,000 or less.

In Stockton, California, a privately funded UBI-like pilot program that provided $500 in cash to 125 residents earning no more than the city's median income has been extended beyond the 18 months it was supposed to run because of the pandemic, reports CityLab. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced in July that her city would be launching a similar UBI-like pilot program for low-income residents.

San Francisco's plan to provide a relatively generous $1,000 a month just to artists is not ideal, says Ghenis. Existing city programs could be retooled or expanded to provide the benefits of UBI to more people. He suggests expanding the city's tax credit for working families or redirecting development impact fees from an affordable housing trust fund to simple cash assistance to poorer renters.

Like Tanner, Ghenis notes that it'll also be difficult to define who counts as an artist for the purposes of the program.

The details of San Francisco's UBI are still pretty sparse. The mayor's office did not return Reason's request for comment.

In addition to the artist UBI, Breed announced last week a host of other policies intended to help the city recover from the pandemic. That includes waiving taxes and fees for small businesses, extending the Shared Spaces program (which allows restaurants and other businesses to set up shop on the sidewalk and in parking spaces), and grants for the city's cultural districts.

Libertarians and libertarian-adjacent folks have long advocated for basic income proposals as a superior replacement to traditional welfare programs, whose many strings often mean these programs become just another form of social control. Obviously, more radical libertarians who find all taxation and redistribution immoral will still have problems with UBI, whatever its ability to beat back bureaucracy.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Are Political Journalists More Scared of Revealing Their Votes Than Baseball Writers?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Odds are that would be more than they made when there was not a pandemic.

    1. I have received $17634 last month from home by working online in my part time. I am a full time student and doing this easy home based work for 3 to 4 hrs a day. YGT.This job is very simple to do and its regular earnings are much better than any other office type work.

      See detail here…………Money90

      1. I’m an “artist” living in SF and get $1,000 per month doing nothing at all.

          1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…AMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

            Here’s what I do…>> Click here

            1. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS▬▬▬▬▬●
              Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16994 in one month online acting from home. I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

              open this web……↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ ­­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­►Click here

              1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month in from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

                what I do……………………………….Click here

        1. Only so long as “doing nothing” is itself a pretentious and clearly retroactively excused performance or commentary or whatever.

    2. But now they have to make the “right kind” of art.

    3. Hmmmm… If anyone knows anything about the cost of living in San Fran, these payments won’t pay the rent for a run down studio apartment in the Tenderloin! I don’t necessarily have a problem with the payments, themselves (as it’s not a welfare ticket and has an expiration), but I do have a problem with it targeting a select group when there are others struggling at this time as well (and I am an artist! Not in San Fran tho… :o) ).

    4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abt me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

  2. I quit working my desk job and now,,,I ‘m making $97/Hr working from home by doing this simple online home jobz.i earn $15 thousands a month by working online 3 Hour par day.i recommended you try it.you will lose nothing.just try it out on the following website and earn daily…go to this site home media tech tab for more detail thank you…Check my site.

    1. that sounds like work. i’m moving to SF to be an artist.

      1. Your $1,000.00 will buy 10 days rent.
        Good luck.

          1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…MBg after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

            Here’s what I do…>> Click here

        1. Who pays rent these days? Just stick it the landlord, since they can’t evict. They’re a probably rich capitalist that never did anything for these struggling artist, they certainly didn’t pay any taxes to give these lucky struggling artists a $1000.00 per month stipend.

        2. so I’ll live with 3 other artists

        3. RENT? WHAT IS THIS “RENT” YOU SPEAK OF?

  3. San Francisco is negating this benefit, says Tanner, by restricting the pool of potential beneficiaries to artists, a term the city will now have to define with new regulations and potentially politicized rule-making.

    Damn this brings back memories. I got into an argument once over whether artists should be paid a living wage by the State. I asked how you would choose which artists. I was told artists would self-select themselves. I said Great, I will paint circles on walls and call myself an artists. Where’s my living wage? I was told circles aren’t art. I said I’m the artist and I say it’s art. Who are you to deny an artist his due?

    Round and round that went. She simply could not see the flaw in her system, or her own hypocrisy.

    1. The only fair and equitable solution is to extend UBI benefits to everyone.

      1. They can pry my tax dollars from my cold, dead hands before some alt-right whackjob gets a dime of UBI from me.

      2. No one is stopping anyone on this country from dividing their own income up and giving it to everyone else, equitably.

        1. “The government can literally create money, and it should.”

          -every progressive

          1. Government creating money leads to inflation and the devaluing of the currency. Both Conservatives and Liberals, in the fed, have done this before rather than fixing what is broken to begin with because it’s an easier and quick fix but it has long-term detrimental effects.

    2. Circles aren’t art? Damien Hirst and his million dollar spots disagree.

      1. As an artist, myself, art, like music is subjective. Circles may not be art to me, but may be to someone else. I am a rock/metal guitarist but can’t stomach death metal or country, but others love it. Go figure. LOL

    3. It’s just ridiculous that people think art needs some kind of subsidy like that. Art is something people have always done and will always do. And just like in all of history, if you can’t find a wealthy patron in one way or another, or find a commercial outlet, you aren’t going to make much money at it.

      1. Not only has art always been created (in terms of human civilization), but often the best art has come about from a process of struggle, adversity, and passion. There seems to be a growing contingent that think removing the possibility of any hardship will somehow result in a climax of artistic creation.

      2. I always felt the same, if you’re not good enough or sale yourself enough as an artist to make a living then it should become your hobby until you are good enough. Or be attractive and find a sugar daddy/momma to support your talents.

    4. Sounds like a prof I had (a professor of fine arts, of course…. teaching a general purpose honors course….. another story) was quite adamant that a monkey with a paintbrush was not the same thing as a real artist, because the monkey didn’t know what he was doing. In retrospect, he may have been right, the “artist” knows what he is doing: running a variation of the emperor’s clothing scam.

  4. If no one’s buying what you’re selling, maybe they don’t want it.

    1. If no one’s buying what you’re selling, it’s systemic racism.

      /prog

      1. If no one’s buying what you’re selling, it’s systemic racism.

        /prog/most of polite society in 2020

        Fixed.

      2. Couldn’t that be turned on it’s head? Sort of? That artists get the stipend, but others in the area that are struggling don’t? Racism though? I think you are confused. Maybe it’s prejudiced, but not racist.

    2. There are not enough murals of George Floyd in San Francisco.

  5. Everyone in San Francisco should declare to the city that he is an artist. Is the city going to define what counts as “art”? That could run into a serious First Amendment challenge.

    1. The shit stain I left on the city court building is art.

    2. Has anyone read the impenetrable link that apparently describes why and how the 130 selected artists were… selected?

      1. This isn’t yet a policy – it’s just a “recommendation.” I could as easily imagine that they already have 130 people in mind as I could that they just thought it sounded nifty to fund “artists” and $130k is chump change for a city like SF.

        1. Well, it’s $130,000 a month for six months. Yes, still not a huge amount… so why not give it to all the artists?

          1. Yes, still not a huge amount… so why not give it to all the artists?

            I would wager that 90-95% of the under-35 population of SF consider themselves “artists.” That would stop being chump change pretty quickly.

            Over six months $1k for 130 people is still only $780k, which is about what it costs to make one public, six-occupant restroom gender-neutral (yes, I speak from experience). The City could lose that money and would barely notice.

            It’s classic “this sounds like we’re doing something to support artists, when really we’re doing practically nothing.”

            1. $780k, which is about what it costs to make one public, six-occupant restroom gender-neutral

              Wow. I would have thought that changing the sign on the door would cost a lot less than that.

              1. I see a bunch of these converted bathrooms. This was OK with me until I noticed they have a triangle inside a circle on the door. As someone that identifies as a square it was very triggering to me.

                1. As someone that identifies as a square it was very triggering to me.

                  Me, too! Luckily my identity is fluid.

              2. I would have thought that changing the sign on the door would cost a lot less than that.

                If only that were all that was involved.

                Since it’s still actually a matter of law that non-gendered restrooms can’t be multi-occupant, that means all of your partitions need to be removed and replaced with full-height walls and proper doors, which then require each of those spaces to have independent ventilation, lighting, fire alarm devices (detectors and alerting devices), and fire sprinklers. It also screws up the spacing of your fixtures, so that you often wind up re-doing all the waste lines in order to move the toilets, and those are almost always buried in concrete.

                I have gently hinted to more than one client, though, that they could just change the sign on the door, which is a lot cheaper.

                1. I bet that makes ADA turning and clear floor area requirements REAL fun to figure out.

                2. Fuck it, I’ll just go outside behind the dumpster.

                  1. Fuck it, I’ll just go outside behind the dumpster.

                    You and the rest of San Francisco.

                3. partitions need to be removed and replaced with full-height walls and proper doors

                  That sounds glorious.

                4. Prudes and homophobes. They need to learn to piss and shit together. I promise you that there is no added health risk.

        2. 130K a month was chump change for SF, back when businesses were opening and paying sales taxes.

          1. That’s bullshit. Even in SF 130K a month is plenty to get by on. That’s over a million fucking dollars a year. Do you have like a fucking entourage to support or something? Jesus Christ dude.

    3. This bit, “The Office of Economic and Workforce Development will make $265,000 available to fund artists to paint murals with a public health theme on boarded up businesses and deploy performance artists to promote COVID-safe behaviors in high foot traffic areas. “?

      My shit stain was socially distanced, a mural, and a performance piece. I can repeat my performance daily in front of a closed business if that is the important part.

      1. I’m curious to see which of those artists will be eager to become a mouthpiece for The State. I suspect that for $1,000 a month, almost all of them…

      2. There’s no better way to make people safe from COVID than hiring people to stand around in high foot traffic areas, right?

  6. It’s not universal basic income if it’s isn’t everyone. Sounds more like special interest income.

    1. I’m starting to get the sneaking suspicion that California wants to implement UBI, but do so in such a way that the literal homeless will be the only people not qualified for it.

      1. they can just declare themselves performance artists.

        I saw one guy outside the 7-11 carrying on a cell phone conversation with someone at LAX. except he had no cell phone.

        1. One of the air traffic controllers who lost a job when they struck almost 40 years ago?

    2. Doesn’t matter. Undefined terms are the bread and butter of the Left.

  7. A handful of politically connected people get to give their friends $1K/mo.

    1. More like giving money to their deadbeat children who majored in griefer studies.

    2. ‘Appoint more arts, culture, hospitality, and entertainment sector representatives to advisory groups, and policy bodies,’ from the Economy Task Force Report and plan. This tends to supports your view.

  8. “The limited number of people … the requirement that they have to be artists means Breed’s proposal is effectively a grant program for a select political constituency.”

    In other words, business as usual.

  9. Cool so 10 of them can get together and afford an efficiency.

  10. I’m a bullshit artist. Where’s my free money?

  11. also includes funding for “artists to paint murals with a public health theme on boarded-up businesses and deploy performance artists to promote COVID-safe behaviors in high foot traffic areas.”

    I can just imagine a street mime trying to demonstrate how to wear a mask getting the hell beat out of him.

    1. So Antifa does have some good ideas*? I thought I might have to amend my broken clock theory.

      *no: I don’t actually support Antifa, no: I don’t support beating up other people, yes: mimes aren’t people.

    2. “….. on boarded up businesses…..”

      Haha. The people who used to pay taxes? Yeah, shut down my business and then pay someone else to paint fear porn on it.

      Awesome.

  12. Sorry, but at this point, paying artists $1,000 a month pales in comparison to San Francisco paying women of color to get pregnant. One is just typical left-coast graft and corruption, the latter begins to smack of leftist eugenics.

    1. I thought the Left was worried about Barrett bringing the Handmaid’s Tale to real life. I guess that was projection too.

  13. Instead of paying them to propagandize, maybe pay them to clean up the shit and used needles off the streets?

    You know, something that might actually benefit the city.

    1. Call it performance art. You perform a job, we pay you.

    2. “Grant recipients shall be required to work exclusively in human feces and hypodermic needle media to construct sculptures in the city designated art gallery located within the landfill.”

      Clever bastards… call the street janitors “artists”, and they’ll voluntarily work for below minimum wage.

  14. I volunteer to assist San Francisco with geographic diversity. They can send me the money across the country, and I will do art each month. I will expand on the pioneering work of “Piss Christ”, and just piss in the toilet and flush it, much like what they are doing with these tax dollars.

    1. Knowing how to use a toilet disqualifies you from this program.

    2. I have two feline artists who regularly create art that reflects San Francisco.

  15. Pussies. Make it $20k/month.

    1. 12K a year isn’t even a living wage. Needs to be 30K (15 bucks an hour, if they actually worked 40 hour weeks).

  16. Max Ghenis, founder and president of the UBI Center, a think tank that researches basic income policies, is more bullish on San Francisco’s artist UBI idea.

    Of course he is, because the UBI is fucking retarded. Why Libertarians ever entertained this concept, I know not. And yes, I was guilty of entertaining it.

    1. I don’t particularly like the idea, but if it were implemented in such a way that we could get rid of all the other safety net bureaucracies it would be a net benefit.

      I have no faith we’d actually implement it that way, but in theory it could result in a smaller government than what we currently have.

      1. I don’t particularly like the idea, but if it were implemented in such a way that we could get rid of all the other safety net bureaucracies it would be a net benefit

        That’s why I entertained it. I actually believed that for five minutes.

        1. A few years ago I did some math. Multiplying out the number of households and the poverty line, the tab for UBI worked out to almost exactly the amount of money we currently spend on all social welfare benefits programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, foodstamps, etc.

          A reasonable idea–indeed, this was put forward in a WSJ essay by Charles Murray–would be to eliminate all those programs in favor of the UBI.

          Of course, this ignores the howls that would arise from a populace deprived of their SS checks and foodstamps and Section 8 vouchers. There will still be screams from people concerned about drug addicts not buying food for their kids and that sort of thing.

          So it seems unlikely that the overhead of those programs, let alone the programs, would be completely done away with.

      2. Government is not in the business of voluntarily reducing its influence and control over the populace. If our government was capable of implementing an alternative scheme “to get rid of all the other safety net bureaucracies” those other bureaucracies would never have existed in the first place.

        1. Those programs don’t exist because government wanted more power, not entirely anyways, they exist because people learned they can vote to have Other People’s Money. I have no doubt that should we ever get UBI it will be implemented in a way that ensures the moocher class gets as much OPM as possible.

          That’s not a problem with the idea though, it’s a problem with our society. There’s a world where the legislation that implements UBI destroys the rest of the safety net; that world is not the USA in 2020.

          1. There have been many proposals to replace X with Y. Big government types have changed the proposals to add X to Y.

          2. If the idea works only in theory, and always fails in practice, it is a bad idea. Any economic paradigm that posits ideal individual behavior and the existence of pure motivations is one that will invariably devolve into a perverse symbiosis between individual greed and repressive government.

            1. I’m not suggesting it’s a libertarian idea, it isn’t. I’m saying that under the right circumstances UBI is a lesser evil than the existing welfare state. All of your criticisms apply to the existing welfare state, it’s full of greed, selfish motivation and repressive government. If we could replace that with a slightly smaller program that is guilty of all the same sins, it would be progress.

              Not as much progress as eliminating the welfare state altogether, but that will not happen in my lifetime and talking about it is only useful to score brownie points with libertarians in internet comments sections.

              1. The “right circumstances” will never exist.

                The UBI paradigm will be subject to the same political pressures as the current welfare state. There is no reason to believe it will not be similarly manipulated and distorted into resembling the present system, even assuming the present system could be scaled back in any significant measure.

                There is only one way to escape the endless cycle of government largesse breeding a hunger among the people for more government largesse. Trusting a drug addict to moderate his own addiction is fruitless.

                1. Nuclear/biologic/chemical annihilation?

              2. it’s the same with libertarians pushing for a national sales tax. sure it would be great if we could replace the income tax with a sales tax, but in practice we will end up with both.

      3. “it could result in a smaller government than what we currently have.” Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

        Thanks. I needed a good laugh. What universe do you reside in btw?

    2. Agreed. Folks on the libertarian side are putting themselves out there for this (like Reason and Cato) because it seems like it portrays them as caring about the plight of the poor and don’t seem to realize or care that the “replacement for current welfare programs” will be COMPLETELY elided in any real legislation on this and it will just become another welfare program lumped on top of the other ones that are already third rails you can’t touch politically.

      This is Social Security for the non-elderly. AVOID

    3. Not to mention… welfare statists like these will just stop calling things “welfare” and rebrand everything as a UBI and claim even libertarians are in support of those (except us “radicals”– Britschgi, those were the only kind, once upon a time when the word actually MEANT something, now get off my lawn).

      Watering down the libertarian message seems like a good idea to convince your proggie friends to not disown you in the current political climate, but you’re coming dangerously closer to concession and appeasement lately. This is not just stupid tactically, it’s stupid strategically. Give them an inch, they’ll eminent domain a mile.

      1. “Watering down the libertarian message seems like a good idea to convince your proggie friends to not disown you in the current political climate, but you’re coming dangerously closer to concession and appeasement lately. This is not just stupid tactically, it’s stupid strategically. Give them an inch, they’ll eminent domain a mile.”

        Exactly this.

  17. Cue the cries of how no one can live on 1k/mo in SF and how it needs to be more money.

    1. That’s going to be in addition to all the other subsidies.

  18. Why doesn’t the city print its own scrip and make it mandatory for everyone in the city to accept it?

    Peg it to the dollar and voila! Everyone has enough money to live on.

      1. Well shit, I’m late to the party, as usual.

        Berkeley, California, is exploring a city-branded cryptocurrency effort to fund municipal bonds, making up for inadequate outside investment.

        […]

        Berkeley’s cryptocurrency, for example, is meant to offer citizens an easier way to buy municipal bonds, which could help the city build affordable housing, rebuild transit systems, and support social services.

        1. Berkeley’s cryptocurrency, for example, is meant to offer citizens an easier way to buy municipal bonds, which could help the city build affordable housing, rebuild transit systems, and support social services.

          I suppose as long as contractors and developers are okay getting paid with Berkeley Bits?

          1. It’s a plan so stupid, it could have only come from Berkely and Silicon Valley.

            1. If there was ever a city with the word “Sucker” written across its forehead, it’s Berkeley.

            2. It put Ogdenville on the map!

        2. …a college student who cares about poverty in the city can buy $20 worth, knowing his contribution is going toward, say, an affordable housing project. He can then use his tokens on other city goods, like transit rides or groceries…
          Can I just pay $20 for groceries and cut out the middleman?

          1. Look at Mr. Rockefeller over here with his $20 in US currency.

            1. My cats are registered artists in San Francisco.

        3. “Inadequate outside investment”, sounds like they have reached the municipal debt end game.

  19. “Obviously, more radical libertarians who find all taxation and redistribution immoral will still have problems with UBI, whatever its ability to beat back bureaucracy.”

    Principled libertarians that understand libertarian principles are radicals.

    “Libertarians …. have long advocated for basic income proposals as a superior replacement to traditional welfare programs[.}”

    Progressives are the real libertarians.

    Interesting take.

    1. Principled libertarians that understand libertarian principles are radicals.

      Well, people who think the government should respect the Bill of Rights are now dubbed Right Wing Terrorists, so . . .

    2. ““Libertarians …. have long advocated for basic income proposals as a superior replacement to traditional welfare programs”

      No they haven’t. Maybe a few said something like “IF (I repeat, IF) you insist on stealing money from taxpayers to fund a welfare state, let’s at least do it in the most efficient, transparent way possible, and a UBI (a true UBI) may do that.”

      That’s not the same thing as “advocating” for UBI so much as it is decrying the current system and pointing out that this OTHER horrible idea is at least not as bad as the current system.

      Kinda like voting for Trump over Hillary doesn’t mean a person actually ADVOCATED for Trump.

  20. Let’s call this by it’s real name. This is not UBI. This is government patronage.

    Now patronage of the arts does have a long and mostly-successful history. But that’s private patronage. The history of patronage by government is … not so salutary.

    1. “Stop painting George Floyd with those ridiculous cartoon lips, or forfeit your check.”

      Government sponsored Wokeism will lead to absurdities of the highest order.

    2. But that’s private patronage. The history of patronage by government is … not so salutary.

      Depending on how you define “private.” But patronage by individual patrons, even royal ones, has always been superior to patronage by committee.

  21. “We’ve got piles of money, groups which reliably vote far left get in line.”

  22. How does SF pick the artists that get the grants? The article didn’t explain.
    This seems like a program ripe for corruption.

    1. The proposal itself doesn’t explain. If I had to bet on a metric it would be “the City has paid you in the past to produce public art or to run publicly-funded art education programs.”

      As I commented above, this probably already describes enough people to fill the 130 slots.

      1. I suspect the criteria for selecting eligible artists will be sufficiently arbitrary so as to inspire an “organic” political movement for the equitable expansion of the stipend to a wider range of artists and, ultimately, other groups.

        If this works the way I suspect it is intended to work, stipends for sex workers will follow soon after. A sex worker should not have to starve because nobody wants to fuck them.

    2. This seems like a program ripe for corruption.

      This is really small peanuts. I suspect it’s merely wasteful politics intended to throw a bone to the “Arts Community.” For bona-fide corruption, look to large construction projects, particularly in the planning phases.

    3. That’s probably the point.

    4. How does SF pick the artists that get the grants?

      Same way as always: they’ll appoint an expert committee of middle aged white guys in dead end bureaucratic jobs, you present yourself to the committee, and committee members who like you will ask for sexual favors.

  23. This money is not going to artists; they make a living at it.
    It’s going to hobbyists.

  24. I’ve known a few “artists” and they are often trust fund kids who have other income sources. Unless the city plans to suddenly employ homeless people as artists, this sounds like a really stupid idea, but then again it’s SF

  25. Every homeless schizophrenic beating off in the park should call what they’re doing “performance art.”

    1. They can claim to be Diogenes, but in asking for a grant they would prove they weren’t actually Diogenes.

  26. Hmmm do I make the comparison that like socialists only pro Gov art is counted… Or do I make a joke about only the people best at paper work will be concidered artists…. Nah I will take the high road

    1. If they pay the artists in fentynal they would save alot of money in the long run and get way better art in a shorter amount of time

      1. And the stipend would be finite.

  27. Hmmm…I have an idea for getting a subsidy. Scam artists are artists, too, aren’t they?

  28. War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength

    Universal is Targeted

    1. not extending a medical emergency is extending a medical emergency (according to the court in Michigan)

  29. Sometimes the u [in UBI] also means unconditional.

    Still doesn’t apply here.

    1. Yeah, that was quite an impressive bit of doublethink out of that guy.
      “Once people meet the conditions to receive the money, they will be given the money unconditionally.”

    2. Unconditional, except for the conditions that one be an “artist” in San Francisco.

  30. Let me see if I have this right. SFO is going to blow three quarters of a million on this? In the middle of a pandemic?!

    This is woke idiocy at it’s finest.

  31. I wonder how people will game the system to get defined as “artists”.

  32. One day taxpayers are going to start moving out of California to other states.

    1. the y have already started

  33. The definition will be interesting – as will the qualifications. I’m an artist – but it’s really just a serious hobby for me – I don’t make close to $1,000 a month selling my paintings and drawings. I have a serious day job – I am a partner in an independent investment services/financial planning firm. I don’t live in SF, but if I did – I would not apply for the subsidy – it wouldn’t be fair to the full-time artists – would it? Will art teachers employed at public schools/colleges be able to apply for the subsidy if they sell art? A program for 130 artists in a city the size of SF will exclude many dedicated artists. I am not confident the SF government can manage this program properly – so as much as I appreciate what artists do, I suggest that the mayor of SF pull the plug on this program.

    1. “I don’t make close to $1,000 a month selling my paintings and drawings”

      I tried to respond with a parody spam comment, but it seems to have been blocked.

      1. I am not offended – sorry your comment was blocked. The few bucks I get selling my art occasionally mostly just helps me defray the costs of art supplies. Like I said – it’s a (serious) hobby for me. I’m happy to have a business to run that provides a decent living – and let’s me have a little time for my hobby of painting and drawing.

        1. There’s actually a book entitled *Real Artists Have Day Jobs.*

          https://amzn.to/33V2yaU

    2. “I am not confident the SF government can manage this program properly – so as much as I appreciate what artists do, I suggest that the mayor of SF pull the plug on this program.”

      The laws of progressive inertia dictate that a poorly conceived government program that excludes people arbitrarily from receiving a particular benefit must be expanded indefinitely, in the pursuit of equity, until it includes everyone unconditionally.

  34. I strongly suspect that any artists whose works aren’t “woke” will find themselves cut off from this UBI.

    1. They’ll be taxing white males and then making art predicated on mocking their sugar daddy.

      ART!

  35. pure proof that the market places NO VALUE on most of the crap that passes for art these days. if society valued it there would be no need to subsidize it.

  36. Lol.

    I swear. 2020. smh.

  37. Nothing says avant-garde like sucking on the government tit.

  38. The city that can’t keep the streets free of human feces…

    Who is going to be paying for this “free money”?

    Painting boarded up businesses.., buildings that belong to somebody else.

    1. What, you think they’d object?

  39. Going to tell a relative who lives in SF about this . He has a full time job but does Improv part time and pat time in a band. That should qualify him as an artist , right?

  40. I think my head just exploded.

  41. Ha ha ha…why not for anyone who just plays video games all day..or someone who wants to be a professional runner (can’t get a Nike shoe deal and can’t break 2 minutes in the half but you “want” to be a pro runner)…

    What is an “artist” anyway? Isn’t a runner an artist..he/she creates with their feet.

    Why do I think the “big” money here are the folks running the program..sure they will be paid $200K or more per year…can someone investigate that?

    F’ing A bubba

  42. So the government is going to define artist now.

    Then give approved artists a nice check every month.

    Where have I seen this before.

  43. No one can go to work but bureaucrats will give away $1k to handpicked “artists”. Honestly, it is not worth caring. The idiots in SF and CA are getting exactly what they voted for.

  44. How does adderall work?
    more info click here: https: //redditpharmacy.com/
    buy adderall online click here:https://redditpharmacy.com/product-category/buy-adderall-online/
    call us: +1(707) 510-0015

  45. Looking for best accountant consultancy? check this out 🙂 Accountant St Neots

  46. Those guys who play street drums with plastic buckets are probably really hurting right now. They should start there.

  47. Why ‘artists’ over anyone else? Being a professional artist is no different than a professional cook or anything else. If no one wants to buy your product, you should be out of business. All this will do is encourage bad artists to keep painting or sculpting instead of growing up, facing reality and getting a job that pays the bills. I
    Why should others subsidize their hobbies?

  48. I belong to the Coalition of UnWoke Artists. Do I qualify?

  49. $1000 is nothing in SF.

  50. Typical SanFran BS.
    $1000 is scarcely a “basic income.” It won’t solve any program in the city, but it will cost the taxpayers.
    But they are adults. If they want to throw away their money. So be it.

  51. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>> Read More.

Please to post comments