Photo by Nanette Konig

There is a version of Andrew Yang that no one seems to be talking about

On the surface, Yang may seem to be a one policy candidate flying behind the all-encompassing banner of Universal Basic Income (UBI), but there is something fundamentally more powerful hidden within this cornerstone policy. The most effective strategy that unites all of his 150+ specific policies is intelligent incentivization. His realistic policies that ignore superficial symptoms and cut directly to attack the root cause of each problem is massively appealing to me. I’m going to explain why that is exactly what we need as a nation. Not only will this solve many of the economic problems we grapple with, but it will help kill the divisive rhetoric that has fixated Americans against one another. This rhetoric and tribalism has hurt us all and we have nothing positive to show for it. Yang’s incentive-driven policies are our way out and here is why:

“Donald Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom”

There is a familiar diagnosis that Yang states at each rally. “Donald Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom. The reason why Donald Trump was elected is because we automated away jobs [in all of the swing states].” This is a diagnosis that Yang applies to each problem he encounters. “The problem is not Amazon’s accountants that enable Amazon to pay $0 in taxes each year. The problem is that we created a system that allows them to do this.” “The problem isn’t PG&E [cutting corners to raise revenue. It’s the systems that incentivize a major power provider to profit off of these things.]” Those same systems make it possible for wildfires to be caused by one of the largest power providers in the country. Yang sees through the symptoms that most mistake as root causes. He then proposes a plan to deal with these causes instead of throwing duct tape on the symptom for a temporary fix.

A great example of Yang’s incentivization-centric policy is his stance on gun control. Instead of going after the personal liberties of gun owners, he proposes that we fine the gun manufacturers for the deaths caused from their products. This moves the responsibility from the citizen who has no control over the means of production or sale of firearms, to the systems that do have this power. This is a much more pragmatic approach that relies on incentivization to automatically correct behavior without villainizing any particular group. He seems to say, “If you are going to create something with the potential to kill thousands of Americans, you need to take some responsibility for that and figure out how to fix it. If you don’t do that, then you need to pay.” We know that the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun lobbyists are all after the money that weapon sales produce. The best way to hold those that primarily care about revenue accountable is to cut into that revenue when they enable something terrible to happen. Think about how reluctant gun companies and organizations would be to sell to dangerous gun owners if they were fined millions of dollars each time that gun or those bullets were used to harm innocents? Think about how it would immediately be in their best interest to vet each buyer and make sure that safety measures were in place to prevent tragedy. When forced to care about these issues, it would be in their best interest to care about the effect their products have on the general populace. No Left vs. Right, no villain, just a pragmatic solution. Society is better off, and we are not torn apart as a nation where gun control activists are pitted against gun rights activists.

“It’s not left, it’s not right, it’s forward.” — Responsibility as a means to disconnect from Identity Politics

This shift in responsibility from the average citizen to the businesses and government agencies that truly hold power and responsibility has another effect which is quite profound. When the responsibility for doing something polarizing like electing Trump falls on something unfeeling and nebulous like a company or technological leap, there is no social group to scapegoat. There is no one in a MAGA hat to villainize and spark antifa violence, there is no radical antifa for the alt-right to fight. This can do profound things to help our national consciousness and unity. Instead of simply blaming our fellow Americans, we can analyze the problem for what it is and go about fixing it so that we all benefit. Instead of playing identity politics and resorting to tribalism with “us vs. them” arguments (which are entirely unproductive) we can actually do something to help the situation. The popular military tactic “divide and conquer” exists for a reason. We have become divided and we are very close to crumbling and being conquered by the mania that is pitting us against ourselves. Identity Politics, whether that means you are a MAGA supporter who identifies as a “Real American” or a “woman in the whitehouse” supporter who ignores candidate policy and supports a candidate purely off of gender (yes, these exist too) — is shallow, non-productive and doesn’t actually do anything other than stroke the Identity Politicist’s own ego. This shift of responsibility from hating the other side, to focusing on where the true responsibility lies is a much needed change in the meta-political climate if we are to pull ourselves out of this rut.

Why Yang over Bernie?

There’s one more issue I feel I must address as someone who thinks of Bernie Sander’s as an incorruptible and deeply respectable human being. Many of you are probably wondering why would I pick Yang over someone like Bernie who is also trying to solve the same problems and has a lot more support and a longer track record. Let me lead this back to incentivization and use the argument of a Federal Jobs Guarantee (Bernie) vs. UBI (Yang). Here is why UBI is a better solution:

1. UBI has almost no overhead cost while the FJG is inherently inefficient.

We already have a system that sends out millions of tax refund dollars each year. We can use this existing system to issue the UBI check/direct deposit.

On the contrary, we do not have a system that analyzes, places, oversees, and creates new jobs for Americans. While it is true that these exact needs will also create jobs, there will be a big amount of money lost to inefficiencies in this plan that will go back to Washington and large corporations instead of the individual citizen. Say we pump $1,000 into a FJG program. Let’s assume the system is insanely efficient and only 10% of the money goes to the government, is lost in inefficiencies, or goes to people like lobbyists and big company brass. (Keep in mind that the money pumped out of each tax payer is normally >15%, so this 10% assumption is impossibly optimistic.) That means that even in this hypothetical, impossibly efficient FJG program proposed by Sanders, citizens would only receive $900 for every $1000 put into the program. This is a program with an inherent efficiency flaw that shorts the very people that it is trying to help. Why not just save money and get more of it into the citizens’ hands who need it?

2. The argument that $1000 a month will cause people to quit their jobs and not work is misinformed.

Think about it — if the normal American received an extra $12,000/year this would not be enough to quit a good job. It might free up someone to stop working at a predatory work place with terrible wages or culture and pursue better employment, but it’s not going to be a long term solution for anyone. The opposite is in fact true. There are so many people that are afraid to get a job because they might be kicked off of welfare or disability, thereby resulting in a negligible increase or even net decrease in income as a reward for rejoining the workforce. This guarantee that they will still get $1,000 on top of their wages actually incentivizes people to come out of the welfare/disability system and become productive members of society again. This lightens the load on government assistance programs, but more importantly has a ripple effect that gives people purpose and personal agency again. If you have personal agency once again, you are much less likely to fall into a pit of despair and commit harm to yourself or others — or just be a general drain on society. I’m sure we all have known someone that has fallen into a pit of worker’s comp despair. It is a huge problem and not fun for anyone involved. UBI can get those people back to work without fear of financial repercussion.

3. Not everybody wants to work for the federal government.

Providing people with jobs that don’t exactly fit them isn’t the best solution. Giving people $1,000/month is not only more efficient at getting money into people’s hands and not only incentivizes people to come off the bench to contribute to society — but it gives people starting capital which they can use to create their own businesses and pursue their own goals. In a Yang’s UBI world, if you have five friends and a start-up dream, you have $5,000 of guaranteed capital each month that you can use to start a business. This is a much more positively incentivized system when compared to a mandated federal job guarantee which most likely will be menial labor with no self-agency and very little room for advancement. There’s a possibility that a decent percentage of FJG employees will find something that is suitable to them, but a system that creates jobs first and finds people second is going to inherently have a lot of people in it that hate their job which we all know results in shoddy work and a less than ideal sense of fulfillment. Why have this when there are alternatives that are better?

So what now? What does this mean and who cares?

So, I’ve covered why Yang’s use of proper incentivization is universally effective and how it can not only solve the problems that we face, but also help to heal us as a nation. What’s the next step as a reader of this article?

Step 1- Do your own research

Don’t take my word for it. Look at Yang’s policies. See if what I’m saying is true. Does incentivization really produce a pragmatic solution to the problem at hand? How does this stack up to your current favorite candidate’s policy regarding the same issue?

Step 2- Register to vote as a Democrat in your primaries and then vote/caucus!

Polls have shown that Yang has a lot of appeal to Trump voters, Libertarians, and Independents who would not typically be involved in the Democratic Primary process. I am one of those politically disengaged people who has never voted in a primary before. This is one reason why Yang is polling so low (the majority of polls are done with registered Democrats who have land lines- definitely not Yang’s favored demographic).

However, this weakness in the primaries is also the reason why Yang is the best candidate to beat Trump in the general election.

Yang is aiming to solve problems and unite America, not point fingers. It is this attitude that not only makes him effective, but also makes him appealing to current Trump supporters. No one is going to support someone who just called them a bigot or an idiot. Yang doesn’t do these things because he sees past the superficial symptoms and attacks the root issues that all Americans care about. The same cannot be said for many of the other Democratic Candidates.

So, be sure you are registered to vote in the democratic primary especially if you are in a closed primary state. It took me about 2 minutes to change my party affiliation for this voting cycle online, so it’s not a big deal. Check this web site for all the links/details you will need: https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote#item-212825

That’s it everyone. If you have questions or counter-arguments, please comment below. Like most Yang supporters, I welcome anyone with differing views or better ideas to stake their claim and talk it out to find the best solution. It’s not left, it’s not right, it’s forward! Let’s get it.