“We’re in a deep, dark hole right now that has been brought about by this pandemic, Ed. And to me, it’s crystal clear that Joe and Kamala will be better suited to try to use the government’s resources to help us … dig out of this hole. … You have to ask yourself, ‘Is current leadership going to lead us in a different, better direction or in a similar direction to where we’re heading right now? To me, we need to head in a different direction.” - Andrew YangAndrew has full confidence in Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. He believes they will be able to create new economic legislation and policy that people on both sides of the aisle will be able to agree to. He has confidence that they’ll be able to help the 11 million Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic. Now for those who are concerned about Joe Biden and wondering about his cognitive function, Andrew Yang has full confidence there, too:
“I talked to him before [the debates], after [the debates]. I’ve been around him dozens of times. I’ve had an informal half an hour-long conversation because we’re both waiting to go onstage. … He has never evinced to me any sign of fatigue or wear. … And to me, it’s actually a mistake for his opponent, Trump, to rely upon this narrative because Joe just keeps demonstrating that he’s strong and capable in different settings.” - Andrew YangAs far as any concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities go, I’m going to take Andrew at his word. He’s been around Biden and actually interacted with him, and I haven’t, so I’m going to trust his opinion.
“I’m the son of immigrants myself. So I’m of the opinion that immigrants start a lot of businesses [and] do a lot of great things in technology.” - Andrew YangMost of Andrew’s perspective is as simple as that — Immigrants bring a lot of value to the United States. One of the things that frustrates me the most is how often we demonize immigrants. Even though many of them bring economic value and contribute to American society, we hear a lot about how immigrants are causing increased crime rates. I don’t love hearing that they’re all criminals, rapists, and murderers all the time — I think we’ve got to come up with a way to approach immigration policy without suppressing wages at the bottom part of the country and treating people like they’re criminals. This is where my conversation with Andrew got interesting. We didn’t talk very much about the specifics of any party’s immigration plans, but he did say something that I think gets at the problem at the center of our political system.
“I was reading about how there was a principled approach to immigration that died, and it died because of politics. One of the things that’s holding us back right now is that there are better politics around leaving the problem unsolved than in solving them in many of these circumstances. And that’s what’s killing us.” - Andrew YangAt this point in the conversation, my mind was blown. Andrew just said something that was almost verbatim what Donald Trump Jr. said in my interview with him last week. Trump Jr. said, “It’s much easier to campaign on a problem than it is to solve it because once you solve it, you can’t run against it.” I’m fascinated by the fact that these two guys on opposite sides of the political aisle can have such a similar perspective. The truth is, whatever your views on immigration or any other political issue, what we need is to get to a point where we’re not campaigning problems. Our political system is driven by loud, angry words, and negative posts that get lots of clicks on social media. But if we, the American people, can start expecting real solutions from our leaders, I think we can shift the political system to where we can begin solving very real problems.
“My Freedom Dividend is a universal, basic income, and I was campaigning on $1000 a month for every American adult. … To me, this pandemic has unfortunately brought to the foreground the need for getting people resources in a time when I thought we were going to be automating away millions of jobs. … It turns out that now a lot of those jobs have been shut down by the pandemic. … So to me, a version of basic income was inevitable based upon technological advances.” - Andrew YangEssentially, Andrew believes that one of our biggest economic problems is that everyone starts at zero. We all start with no income and have to earn a living in a world where millions of jobs are being automated. He predicted that many Americans would be out of work in the next few years as companies started using robots to do more things, and then, of course, the pandemic put a lot of Americans out of work all at once. He wants to make sure that all Americans start with a base of $1000 a month to keep more people out of poverty and off of welfare programs. Where is all that money coming from? Andrew would redistribute it from the big tech companies like Amazon.
“If you have something like a value-added tax, then the Amazons of the world, the Netflixes of the world, can’t gain their way out of things. They can’t just hide all their money in Ireland, which is what they’re doing right now.” - Andrew YangIf you’re worried that this policy sounds like socialism, you’re not alone. A lot of people have raised that concern, but Andrew doesn’t think so.
“It’s not socialism. It’s capitalism where income doesn’t start at zero. … If you have [welfare programs] right now [that make it so that] you’re going to get less for your family if you work more, then that’s a disincentive to work. But if you put money into someone’s hands and say, “This is your money. … Do what you want. … Then, if you go out and do anything under the sun — work part-time, volunteer, start a business — you get that too.’ That, to me, is not a disincentive for people to work.” - Andrew YangI’m not sure if I completely agree with that idea, but I definitely think it’s worth considering. Would a value-added tax on the tech giants and money redistributed to American citizens create a healthier economy where more people are working and contributing to the economy? I don’t know. But it’s definitely a conversation we should be having.