I’m not much of a writer when it deals with the base of reality, as I tend to have a healthy obsession for fictional writing. So, you can take my thoughts as a layer of new ways to accomplish something; however, I think it’s a compelling initiative of how things can be while including different ideas for a common goal.
Which brings me to Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang. Both of these candidates have a similar idea of how the bureaucracy can include everyone’s needs, without it bringing an inequality complex system that inadvertently pushes a variety of people to the side. These are the type of approaches that I think we need to have to progress in a way that benefits everyone.
The great thing I love about Bernie is that he’s been fighting for this type of progressive change for years. He’s on a mission to get this way of societal change that’s been needed for the longest.
Which similarly is the way for Andrew Yang. Andrew can see the changes that need to be made now, so we won’t have another cycle of the downward path as the previous generations who missed the chance to correct.
Bernie was saying, “Hey, we need to have these variables in place, so that we won’t end up in a future like this” — much like we have now.
The same argument can be said by Yang. He understands how technology and the scope of automation will drastically change the way we live, interact and progress in the digital age.
He is saying, “Hey, we are itching close to this type of future, let’s put these variables in place so the future won’t end up like before, but much much worse."
This is where a similar approach resonates, because, it highlights the problems in our system that need to be fixed; to have a functional performing system, without it disregarding anything else to achieve that.
I urge voters to simply listen to both candidates and you’ll understand the approaches are different, but both are wanting to achieve the same goal. Both candidates approve on most of the same core policies, with the biggest latter only being a Federal Jobs Guarantee vs the Freedom Dividend. Most people can see both of these policies being implemented, but I believe the disconnect between both sides is, which one should be implemented first?; and of course, how these programs will be paid for out of whose ‘pockets’.
Here are the key differences between Bernie Sanders’s Federal Job Guarantee vs Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend.
The Federal Jobs Guarantee is a government-funded program where if someone is able and willing, they will have a job provided by the federal government. Bernie argues that by going the route of a Green New Deal, building up our infrastructure, education, and other various “green” jobs, we can provide work for everyone.
A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. It aims to create full employment and price stability, by having the state promise to hire unemployed workers as an employer of last resort (ELR).
Under Sander’s plan, every working adult will have a minimum wage of $15 an hour and will have job security with benefits. Media has been critical of the cost of Bernie’s plan, which has been estimated at $450 Billion per year **, but is subjective to be even more costly or less.
The issue with the cost of Bernie’s plans is how could we afford FJG, free healthcare, erase student loan debt and free college for all. A wealth tax has been proposed, however, if other countries have tried it and repealed it because it had massive implementation problems and didn’t generate the revenue that was promised, it would be impossible to work.
I couldn’t help but think an FJG would have been the ideal policy a decade ago, right before the financial crisis during 2007–2008. A lot of people who owned homes lost them due to the federal government bailing out Wall Street instead of people’s mortgages. It was a missed opportunity to fix some underlining issues that are happening now with the high cost of housing.
Bernie argues that FJG would be better than Yang’s UBI because people want to work. They want to have the decency and security of a job and stable work life. It is interesting to know that Bernie was initially in support of UBI, but decided a FJG would be better for all.
Now, on the other hand, we have the Freedom Dividend (UBI). UBI is a Universal Basic Income of $1000 per month for every American adult over the age of 18. The idea is that we, the citizens, are shareholders of this democracy. There are multiple reasons why this is needed. We have trillion dollars tech companies that are making billions each year yet are paying little to zero in federal taxes. Not only are these companies not paying, but they are also automating away the most common jobs in today’s economy. Retail, truck driving, call center, customer service, etc.
Yang argues that our data is worth more than oil yet we don’t see a dime of the profit. There are companies currently selling our information for millions yet we aren’t getting a % of it, nor do we know what they are using it for and who’s buying it. UBI is a necessity as technology evolves and automation starts to sweep through our economy right now and in a couple of years.
Yang’s plan would cost around 2.4 trillion dollars per year, however, it could be easily paid for under the current budget. For starters, it’s opt-in, so if you like your current benefits, you do not have to get UBI. However, if you do opt-in, you forego certain benefits like food stamps and SSI, but, it stacks upon SSDI, disability, housing, and numerous others. So, thus people having options of which is best for them, the price starts to drop drastically.
The beauty of this UBI is that the money doesn’t disappear. People will spend the money in their local communities and stores thus boosting local businesses and entrepreneurship. With an influx of more buying power in each of these local communities, businesses will have to hire workers to meet the demand of consumers buying power. UBI will essentially create new jobs throughout the economy. Care-giving, programs to help homelessness, improving stress and mental health, removing the mindset of scarcity and many more.
The Freedom Dividend will be paid for by a VAT (Value Added Tax) at 10%. Other advanced economies that repealed a “wealth tax”, turned in favor of a VAT at 20%. This allowed them to capture the wealth that other businesses tried to stow away, but it also catches the business production of robots automating jobs and data.
Yang explains that by having UBI, we could eliminate poverty, and then the public will be able to focus on the real threats of humanity like climate change. UBI will recognize work that’s already being done in our society like creative arts, moms, people whose already making $15 an hour, homelessness, volunteering and much more.
The critics of UBI thinks that people will become lazy and not work, however, $12,000 a year is below the poverty line, so if you could, you will barely be able to live on $1000 per month. You will still need to work, however, you won’t have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet or be stressed about bills. Yang explains that only two groups work less with extra money: New moms who get a chance to be home with the child and students who go on to graduate at higher levels.
Andrew explains that UBI is more superior to FJG because the average American doesn’t want to work for the federal government. It would also have massive problems because what if they don’t like their boss, they’re bad at their job; and this is their only means of survival. It also doesn’t help people whose making $15 an hour and UBI is essentially a $6 raise per hour on whatever job you are working.
This article wasn’t written to prove which candidate is correct, but rather, for both sides of the campaigns to realized the positives of each other’s policies; than to downplay the other as incorrect. This doesn’t just start here, but I understand why these two running for office have evolved the landscape for future political innovation to come.
Which PLAN sounds best to you?