Why Andrew Yang Can Beat Donald Trump in 2020 https://medium.com/@samuelkronen/why-andrew-yang-can-beat-donald-trump-in-2020-52e540bb729d https://medium.com/@samuelkronen Samuel Kronen https://medium.com/@samuelkronen
May 19 https://medium.com/@samuelkronen/why-andrew-yang-can-beat-donald-trump-in-2020-52e540bb729d · 6 min read Tech Entrepreneur Andrew Yang is the dark horse candidate for the 2020 presidential race. What began as a self-generated meme from the far corners of the internet has steadily transformed into the one of the most popular grassroots campaigns in recent memory. Yang’s candidacy is centered around the impact of automation and artificial intelligence in our declining job market and the role of universal basic income in managing these tectonic economic and technological shifts. The solution-centered campaign Yang has adopted draws voters from all sides of the political spectrum, from disillusioned Trump voters to middle of the road liberals to hard line progressives. And for this reason, I believe he is the candidate to beat Donald Trump in 2020. Though most people have yet to hear about Andrew Yang, he is polling at 3% https://medium.com/@ChngRsrch/national-poll-results-biden-sanders-and-buttigieg-lead-majority-support-medicare-for-all-20bd0e69134d nationally with the highest ratio https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1119056618954608643 of media coverage to popularity than any other candidate. And it’s no wonder. We are in the midst of the greatest economic transformation the world has ever seen, and he seems to be the only candidate who has noticed. From 2000–2015, America automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs, https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/article/manufacturing.htm most of which were in swing states that Donald Trump won in 2016. A report published by the White House https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Artificial-Intelligence-Automation-Economy.PDF during Obama’s final months in office predicted that 83% of jobs where people make less than $20 an hour will be subject to automation in the coming years. The projections for job loss due to the automation wave have been researched by major financial institutions such as Bain Capital https://www.bain.com/insights/labor-2030-the-collision-of-demographics-automation-and-inequality/, which found that 20–30% of jobs could be displaced by autonomous technologies before the turn of the decade — just about 3 times the pace of the industrial revolution. This is unprecedented. Indeed, America is the wealthiest country en masse in terms of GDP, having risen over $ 5 trillion since 2010 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US, all the while our public health rates have hit multi decade lows. The national life expectancy rate has been in decline https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/28/us-life-expectancy-drops-as-opioid-deaths-and-suicide-rates-rise.htmlthe last three years due to the sharp rise in drug overdoses and suicides, a development unheard of in other industrialized countries. Fewer businesses are sprouting up around the country, with 100,000 fewer https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/us-startups-near-40-year-low/index.html total than was the case 12 years ago. A Bankrate survey https://www.bankrate.com/finance/consumer-index/money-pulse-0117.aspx conducted in 2017 found that 57% of Americans don’t have the savings to pay an unexpected $ 500 bill. Still worse, our economy is less dynamic than ever before, with a labor participation rate https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate of less than 63% while less Americans move from state to state https://slate.com/business/2018/06/americans-are-moving-less-often-than-ever.html than in past eras. To make matters worse, the country has become increasingly divided https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ into opposing political tribes, and much of our polarization can be linked to these deeper economic shifts. This is how we got Donald Trump. But how are we going to contend with the automation wave on the horizon? Andrew Yang’s approach is threefold. First, he plans to introduce a universal basic income of $1000 a month to every American adult — paid for by the federal government — to soften the impact of the massive displacement of jobs that we’re already seeing and set the foundation for a new kind of economy. Two, ensure medicare for all. And three, remodulate our measurements of GDP to account for national well-being — including general health, childhood success, environmental quality, and self-reported happiness. In short, Yang advocates a unique form of human-centered capitalism built from the ground up that prioritizes human flourishing. If this sounds unrealistic, consider the fact that Andrew Yang has listed over 90 specific policies https://www.yang2020.com/policies/ on his website, including instituting digital social credits and modernizing our voting system, which is about 90 more than any other candidate has released. I have written on the costs and benefits of universal basic income https://quillette.com/2019/03/06/in-defense-of-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend/?fbclid=IwAR2N5EnF_BXicR9SHkh3WVUQ0k7U6PZKclLWIAi2YPIDJd-Oji8Dw1vwdWs in the past. It’s an idea that has garnered support from Democrats and Republicans, having been endorsed both conservative economist Milton Friedman and civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr. This is a popular idea that has been around for a long time, but it isn’t without flaw. The main criticism of universal basic income is the high cost of giving every American adult $12,000 a year unconditionally, which would be estimated at about $ 2.4 trillion a year — over half of the federal budget https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ (about $ 4 trillion). Though as the development of work-reducing technologies continues to shrink the job market and expand the scope of productivity, the prospect of universal basic income becomes all the more palatable — if not altogether inevitable. Yang plans to pay for a UBI through implementing a value added tax https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp to harness the gains of automation at all levels of production and distribution. A VAT at only half the rate of the European level would be a much more effective way to generate public wealth than raising income tax, which powerful corporations and tech companies can easily bypass (Amazon paid precisely $ 0 last year in federal income tax). Moreover, the cost of basic income would decrease substantially when we take into account the fact that we already spend almost $ 1 trillion on pre-existing welfare programs — which would wane considerably as Americans are given the option to receive guaranteed income without jumping through the same bureaucratic leaps and hurdles required to receive their current benefits. With the reduced price tag of UBI from welfare spending, the implementation of a value added tax, and the general stimulation of the economy from increasing the spending power of American citizens (The Roosevelt Institute https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rooseveltinstitute.org_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2017_08_Modeling-2Dthe-2DMacroeconomic-2DEffects-2Dof-2Da-2DUniversal-2DBasic-2DIncome.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=W8uiIUydLnv14aAum3Oieg&r=rz4oN5WSLeQq9veWzO9LvZAr9bK4sqmmNDo8Im869pQ&m=MiSHfNvug95boX5q7CbcpBqibhkkz2_9N-wmCiSEevE&s=OjGOwpp1SK33VfiTu58U0kqIDRmKYBtGWCFfDJ5Ru94&e= projects economic growth by about 13% and increase the labor force with 4.5 million people) — not the mention the $100s of billions saved on healthcare, incarceration, and homelessness services — universal basic income could end up paying for itself. But even if we could supposedly afford a UBI, wouldn’t we all just become more lazy from getting free money? Actually, no. The fundamental difference between UBI and other welfare programs is that the latter tends to remove the incentive to get back on our feet. The moment we get a job while we are on a given welfare program, we end up losing our benefits. One of the problems with the current welfare state is that it effectively rewards failure and punishes success — prodding otherwise capable people out of the job market. The same cannot be said of universal basic income, which will remain intact as we develop our skills and re-enter the job market. While the welfare system fosters dependency and treats its recipients like victims, a UBI would treat us only as free citizens of the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. The first step of any solution is to name the problem. The problem is not immigrants, nor is it Donald Trump’s rhetoric. The problem is that we are undergoing mass economic change that the market is completely unable to adjust for. If we keep blaming each other for the withering world around us, we risk rupturing the very fabric of our country. Andrew Yang is the only candidate who has poured his energies into naming the problem (automation) and taking steps to solve it (human-centered capitalism). Out of all those who will find themselves on the debate stage in June, Yang is one of the only candidates who can win over large pockets of Trump’s constituency — as he has already proven https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjFyGVc8E3U in kind. And at the end of the day, as Andrew has noted more than once, what is more of an opposite to Donald Trump than an asian man who loves math?
