>
an acknowledgment that jobs might not always be the most effective way to distribute money to people.> By earmarking money specifically for “creatives,” we are still operating under the assumption that we must justify people’s income based on what they do
These are quite bold claims, among many others in the article. It would be useful to define "effective" to start with.
In a free society individuals decide on how to allocate their time and resources. The flip side is that a "job" is a signal that others value what you are doing and are willing to pay for it. Historical experience has shown that this works "better" than alternatives.
A question is that if no-one is interested enough in what you do to enable you to earn of living from it then why should you nevertheless be entitled to? I.e. effectively why should others be forced to subsidise your lifestyle choice?
There is a question of fairness at the core, like in a school project when one team member does not contribute but still shares the grade, or like the hippie commune that collapses because no-one produces but everyone wants to share...
