Economic progressivism is compounded with the larger political progressive movement
that emerged in the Western World during the late 19th century and
early 20th century. During this time, the movement and its ideas
directly confronted the laissez-faire economics and increasing socioeconomic inequality that characterised society. The term economic progressivism, especially while describing policies of progressive taxation, social welfare and general leftist
economic measures, finds particular resonance in the parlance of the
United States compared to rest of the world. Nations in Europe developed
social welfare systems either by social-democratic governments or by more right-wing governments as concessions to pacify the population from moving further towards the left. Meanwhile, less developed countries and postcolonial
nations in Africa and Asia developed a tradition of social welfare
systems being implemented to aid the population develop across social
and economic indices. The development of economic progressivism has been
markedly different across different parts of the world.
In Europe
Progressive economic policies in Europe have a slightly longer history and many of the policies are not explicitly termed as "progressive politics". In Britain, England and Wales had the English Poor Laws
in place since the 16th century. The laws existed under various period
undergoing several modifications until the 20th century, when the Liberal Party implemented several welfare reforms across the country. The Liberal welfare reforms
from 1906 to 1914 strengthened labour laws and the position of trade
unions, expanded education and introduced a pension system for the
elderly, among other things. In Germany, chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the first comprehensive welfare state in modern industrial society. To curb the influence of socialism and to appease the working-class population, Bismarck employed State Socialism
and implemented a series of laws during the 1880s and 1890s. These
included the Workers Protection Act, the Health Insurance Bill, the
Accident Insurance Bill and the Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill,
all designed to increase the welfare of the newly create German nation
state.
Progressive economic policies in terms of the welfare state expanded significantly across Europe in the post-World War II period. This manifested in the domestic politics in those countries. In Germany, one had the struggle between left-leaningSocial Democrats and the right-leaningChristian Democrats. In the United Kingdom, the struggle was between Labour on the left and the Conservatives on the right. The welfare state and policies such as progressive taxation
emerged throughout Europe. Scandinavian nations became exemplary in
introducing steep rates of progressive taxation and extensive welfare
schemes as part of their Nordic model. However, the rise of neoliberalfree-market
economics led to a decline in progressive economics towards the end of
the 20th century, particularly in the United Kingdom, where the
premiership of Margaret Thatcher saw the dismantling of powerful trade unions, reduction of government expenditure and increased privatisation in the 1980s which continued throughout he 1990s.
The aftermath of the Great Recession saw the resurgence of a demand for a return to increased government expenditure. The anti-austerity movement that emerged during the Great Recession in Europe saw countries such as Greece, Spain and the United Kingdom. Like the Occupy Wall Street
movement across the Atlantic, people started protesting government
response to the financial meltdown which involved cutting down of
government spending to manage budget deficits. This involved cutting
spending on measures such as healthcare, education and other social
welfare benefits.
In the United States
In the United States, the term progressive is often contrasted with neoliberal free-market ideology. The progressive movement emerged during the 1890s and 1920s in the so-called Progressive Era.
Within this larger political movement tackling corruption and social
inequalities was the introduction of economic policies that aimed to
neutralise the worst excess of capitalism. This era was marked by the growth of labour unions such as the American Federation of Labour, the expansion of labour rights, the establishment of antitrust laws
targeting major monopolistic firms and industries and an increase in
taxation of the upper class. Progressive economic policies emerged as a
response to the excessive big business power and the concentration of wealth and power amongst a very small fraction of society during the Gilded Age. This period introduced many landmark economic policies, including the introduction of an income tax in 1913. The estate tax
also introduced in 1897, first in the state of New York. By 1924,
estates valued at more than $10 million were taxed a rate of 40%.
During the Great Depression in the 1930s, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration created the New Deal programme. The government become heavily involved in stimulating economic growth through increased expenditure, following Keynesian
economic policies of using fiscal policy through government subsidies
and investment in various industries like infrastructure, agriculture
and commodities to provide to increase economic output. The Great Depression in the United States
was marked by massive unemployment and poverty. The New Deal programme
provided jobs through investment in many large infrastructure projects
such as housing, transport infrastructure, civil administration and
farming. There was also the creation of government departments such as
the Public Works Administration to oversee government activity in industry. From then until the late 1960s, with Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society
program, there was significant government activity in investing in
industries, education, healthcare and general social welfare of the
population. During the presidency of RepublicanRonald Reagan in the 1980s, neoliberal free-market economics
came back into prominence in government policy. This period was
characterised by increasing privatisation in industries, healthcare and
education. It was also marked by a decrease in taxation of businesses
and a decrease in government reliance of fiscal policy, with increasing
use of monetary policy instead.
Progressive economics made a comeback to the forefront public discourse after the Great Recession
of the late 2000s, when people's dissatisfaction with government
policies favouring big business and the bailout of banks led to the
emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Subsequently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and his policies of progressive taxation, universal healthcare for all (Medicare for All)
and free higher education, amongst others, also gained prominence
across the country. Sanders, who ran for the Democratic presidential
nomination in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential primaries, lost out to
his rivals in securing the nomination. However, his policies have seen a
rise in popularity and mainstream acceptance within the time period.
Since then, many other politicians from the Democratic Party advocating
progressive economic policies begun to gain prominence nationally. Among
them are Senator Elizabeth Warren, who also sought to win the 2020 democratic presidential nomination, along with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Even some in the Republican Party have advocated for economic progressivism (but using populist and traditionalist rather than social justice rhetoric).
The modern welfare state has been criticized on economic and moral grounds from all ends of the political spectrum. Many have argued that the provision of tax-fundedservices or transfer payments
reduces the incentive for workers to seek employment, thereby reducing
the need to work, reducing the rewards of work and exacerbating poverty.
On the other hand, socialists typically criticize the welfare state as championed by social democrats as an attempt to legitimize and strengthen the capitalist economic system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist economic system.
Conservative criticism
People waiting in line for relief checks in the United States during the Great Depression
In his 1912 book The Servile State, Anglo-French poet and social critic Hilaire Belloc, a devout Roman Catholic, argued that capitalism
was inherently unstable, but that attempts to amend its defects through
ever-more burdensome regulation could only lead to the rise of what he
calls the "Servile State". According to Belloc, this servile state
resembles ancient slavery in its reliance on positive law as opposed to custom or economic necessity by themselves. Austrian-born economist Friedrich Hayek mentions Belloc's Servile State favorably in his book The Road to Serfdom. Along with others such as G. K. Chesterton and Eric Gill, Belloc advocated abolishing profit-making banking in favor of credit unions and replacing capitalism with a system they called distributism which they believed would preserve private property and revive the dignity of work exemplified by the small craftsmen and property holders of the Middle Ages.
Some conservatives in the United Kingdom such as James Batholomew and Theodore Dalrymple
claim that the welfare state has produced a generation of dependents
who prefer to remain on assistance and make no real effort to find
employment, even though assistance is officially only available to those
unable to work or who are temporarily unable to find work. The welfare state in the United Kingdom
was created to provide certain people with a basic level of benefits in
order to alleviate poverty, but these conservatives believe that it has
fostered irresponsible and immature attitudes in many of its
recipients.
Some British conservatives such as Conservative Party co-chairman Sayeeda Warsi also criticize the "'something for nothing' culture" of the welfare state, claiming that the high extent of the welfare state "discourages the unemployed from finding jobs". 55% of people in England and 43% of people in Scotland believe that "benefits for unemployed people are too high and discourage them from finding jobs".
According to political scientist Alan Ryan, "[m]odern conservatives
argue that liberalism promises a degree of personal fulfillment that the
welfare state cannot deliver and that attempts to deliver it will
inevitably lead to disillusionment". Additionally, citizens' resentment
of paying taxes to create benefits for others creates "hostility between
more and less favored groups that is wholly at odds with what modern
liberals desire". Ryan also argued:
Moreover,
the welfare state must employ an extensive bureaucracy whose members
are granted discretionary powers and charged by law to use those powers
for the welfare of their clients. This means that classical liberals'
concern for the rule of law and the curtailing of arbitrary discretion
is ignored: bureaucrats are given resources to disburse to their
clients. [...] The liberation the welfare state promises – liberation
from anxiety, poverty, and the cramped circumstances of working-class
existence – is easily obtained by the educated middle class and is
impossible to achieve for most others. There is thus a grave risk of
disillusionment with liberalism in general as a result of its failure
when it overextends itself. Some writers suppose that the worldwide
popularity of conservative governments during the 1980s is explained by
this consideration.
Conservative and libertarian groups such as The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute
argue that welfare creates dependence, a disincentive to work and
reduces the opportunity of individuals to manage their own lives. This dependence is called a "culture of poverty", which is said to undermine people from finding meaningful work. Many of these groups also point to the large budget used to maintain these programs and assert that it is wasteful.
The
government, Milton Friedman and others argued, told the poor: make more
money and we will take away your free housing, food stamps, and income
support. People are rational, Friedman said, so they will not work for
long if they get nothing or next to nothing for it. The big difference
between the Malthusian conservative critics of social insurance in the
early nineteenth century and the Chicago critics of the 1970s is that
the Chicago critics had a point: Providing public support to the
"worthy" poor, and then removing it when they began to stand on their
own feet, poisoned incentives and was unlikely to lead to good outcomes.
And so, from 1970 to 2000, a broad coalition of conservatives (who
wanted to see the government stop encouraging immorality), centrists
(who wanted government money spent effectively), and leftists (who
wanted poverty alleviated) removed the "notches" from the
social-insurance system. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George
H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and even George W. Bush and their supporters
created the current system, in which tax rates and eligibility
thresholds are not punitive disincentives to enterprise.
Certain American libertarians criticize the welfare state because they believe welfare
programs do not work to reduce poverty, improve education, or improve
health or retirement. According to them, welfare programs also increase
out-of-wedlock births and decrease the incentive to work. Moreover, they
believe welfare programs reduce freedom by reducing the opportunity of
individuals to manage their own lives.
Social stigma is prevalent towards recipients of public
assistance programs. This includes programs frequently utilized by
families struggling with poverty such as Head Start and AFDC
(Aid To Families With Dependent Children). The value of self-reliance
is often at the center of feelings of shame and the fewer people value
self reliance the less stigma affects them psychologically.
Stigma towards welfare recipients has been proven to increase passivity
and dependency in poor people and has further solidified their status
and feelings of inferiority.
Caseworkers frequently treat recipients of welfare disrespectfully and
make assumptions about deviant behavior and reluctance to work. Many
single mothers cited stigma as the primary reason they wanted to exit
welfare as quickly as possible. They often feel the need to conceal
food stamps to escape judgement associated with welfare programs.
Stigma is a major factor contributing to the duration and breadth of
poverty in developed societies which largely affects single mothers.
Recipients of public assistance are viewed as objects of the community
rather than members allowing for them to be perceived as enemies of the
community which is how stigma enters collective thought.
Amongst single mothers in poverty, lack of health care benefits is one
of their greatest challenges in terms of exiting poverty.
Traditional values of self reliance increase feelings of shame amongst
welfare recipients making them more susceptible to being stigmatized.
Socialist criticism
Critiques of the welfare state and of social welfare
programs have come from various socialists perspectives, ranging from
Marxists to anarchists. In these perspectives, criticism of the welfare
state often goes alongside criticism of the structural issues of capitalism and the inability for social welfare measures to solve fundamental economic issues which Marxists consider inherent to the capitalist mode of production. Initially, social insurance schemes were promoted by liberals and conservatives to appeal to working class voters to undercut the appeal of socialism.
While some socialist parties tolerated social insurance, socialists
often viewed advocacy of such programs as antithetical to their goal of
replacing capitalism with socialism.
Marxian
socialists argue that modern social democratic welfare policies are
unable to solve the fundamental and structural issues of capitalism such
as cyclical fluctuations, exploitation and alienation.
Accordingly, social democratic programs intended to ameliorate the
issues of capitalism—such as unemployment benefits and taxation on
profits—create further contradictions in capitalism by limiting the
efficiency of the capitalist system by reducing incentives for
capitalists to invest in further production. As a result, the welfare
state only serves to legitimize and prolong the exploitative and
contradiction-laden system of capitalism to society's detriment.
Democratic socialists such as the American philosopher and mathematician David Schweickart
contrast social democracy with democratic socialism by defining the
former as an attempt to strengthen the welfare state and the latter as a
political movement seeking to create an alternative to capitalism.
According to Schweickart, the democratic socialist critique of social
democracy is that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized" and
any attempt to suppress the economic contradictions of capitalism would
only cause them to emerge elsewhere. For example, attempts to reduce
unemployment too much would result in inflation while too much job security would erode labor discipline. As socialists, democratic socialists aim to create an alternative to capitalism. In contrast to social democracy, democratic socialists advocate a post-capitalisteconomic system based either on market socialism combined with worker self-management, or on some form of participatory-economic planning.
Market socialism
is also critical of and contrasted with social democratic welfare
states. While one common goal of both systems is to achieve greater social and economic equality,
market socialism does so by changes in enterprise ownership and
management whereas social democracy attempts to do so by
government-imposed taxes and subsidies on privately owned enterprises to
finance welfare programs. Franklin Delano Roosevelt III and David Belkin criticize social democracy for maintaining a property-owning capitalist class
which has an active interest in reversing social democratic welfare
policies and a disproportionate amount of power as a class to influence
governmental policy.
Karl Marx famously critiqued the basic institutions of the welfare state in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League by warning against the programs advanced by liberal democrats. While Marx proclaimed that the communists had to support the bourgeoisie wherever it acted as a revolutionary, progressive class because "bourgeois liberties had first to be conquered and then criticised",
he specifically argued that measures designed to increase wages,
improve working conditions and provide welfare payments would be used to
dissuade the working class away from socialism and the revolutionary
consciousness he believed was necessary to achieve a socialist economy
and would therefore be a threat to genuine structural changes to
society by making the conditions of workers in capitalism more tolerable
through welfare schemes.
Eduard Bernstein, a reformistsocial democrat,
was skeptical of the welfare state and social welfare legislation.
While Bernstein viewed it as something helpful for the working class, he
feared that state aid to the poor might sanction a new form of pauperism.
Ultimately, Bernstein believed that any such policies should be of
secondary concern to the main social democratic concern of tackling
capitalism as the source of poverty and inequality.
The most extreme criticism of states and governments is made by anarchists, who advocate for the abolition of all social hierarchies, including the state. Despite the anti-state and anti-market views of social anarchism,
most anarchists ultimately advocate for the strengthening of the
welfare state, arguing that social safety nets are short-term goals for
the working class. According to Noam Chomsky,
"social democrats and anarchists always agreed, fairly generally, on
so-called 'welfare state measures'" and "[a]narchists propose other
measures to deal with these problems, without recourse to state
authority". Some anarchists believe in stopping welfare programs only if it means abolishing both government and capitalism.
Welfare capitalism is capitalism that includes social welfare policies and/or the practice of businesses providing welfare services to their employees. Welfare capitalism in this second sense, or industrial paternalism, was centered on industries that employed skilled labor and peaked in the mid-20th century.
Today, welfare capitalism is most often associated with the
models of capitalism found in Central Mainland and Northern Europe, such
as the Nordic model and social market economy (also known as Rhine capitalism and social capitalism). In some cases welfare capitalism exists within a mixed economy, but welfare states can and do exist independently of policies common to mixed economies such as state interventionism and extensive regulation.
Language
"Welfare
capitalism" or "welfare corporatism" is somewhat neutral language for
what, in other contexts, might be framed as "industrial paternalism",
"industrial village", "company town", "representative plan", "industrial betterment", or "company union".
History
In
the 19th century, some companies—mostly manufacturers—began offering
new benefits for their employees. This began in Britain in the early
19th century and also occurred in other European countries, including
France and Germany. These companies sponsored sports teams, established social clubs,
and provided educational and cultural activities for workers. Some
offered housing as well. Welfare corporatism in the United States
developed during the intense Industrial Revolution development of 1880 to 1900 which was marked by labor disputes and strikes, many violent.
Cooperatives and model villages
Robert Owen
was a utopian socialist of the early 19th century, who introduced one
of the first private systems of philanthropic welfare for his workers at
the cotton mills of New Lanark. He embarked on a scheme in New Harmony, Indiana to create a model cooperative, called the New Moral World, (pictured). Owenites fired bricks to build it, but construction never took place.
One of the first attempts at offering philanthropic welfare to workers was made at the New Lanark mills in Scotland by the social reformerRobert Owen. He became manager and part owner of the mills in 1810, and encouraged by his success in the management of cotton mills in Manchester (see also Quarry Bank Mill),
he hoped to conduct New Lanark on higher principles and focus less on
commercial profit. The general condition of the people was very
unsatisfactory. Many of the workers were steeped in theft and
drunkenness, and other vices were common; education and sanitation were
neglected and most families lived in one room. The respectable country
people refused to submit to the long hours and demoralising drudgery of
the mills. Many employers also operated the truck system,
whereby payment to the workers was made in part or totally by tokens.
These tokens had no value outside the mill owner's "truck shop". The
owners were able to supply shoddy goods to the truck shop and charge top
prices. A series of "Truck Acts" (1831–1887) eventually stopped this abuse, by making it an offence not to pay employees in common currency.
Owen opened a store where the people could buy goods of sound
quality at little more than wholesale cost, and he placed the sale of
alcohol under strict supervision. He sold quality goods and passed on
the savings from the bulk purchase of goods to the workers. These
principles became the basis for the cooperative stores
in Britain that continue to operate today. Owen's schemes involved
considerable expense, which displeased his partners. Tired of the
restrictions on his actions, Owen bought them out in 1813. New Lanark
soon became celebrated throughout Europe, with many leading royals,
statesmen and reformers visiting the mills. They were astonished to find
a clean, healthy industrial environment with a content, vibrant
workforce and a prosperous, viable business venture all rolled into one.
Owen's philosophy was contrary to contemporary thinking, but he was
able to demonstrate that it was not necessary for an industrial
enterprise to treat its workers badly to be profitable. Owen was able to
show visitors the village's excellent housing and amenities, and the
accounts showing the profitability of the mills.
Owen and the French socialist Henri de Saint-Simon were the fathers of the utopian socialist
movement; they believed that the ills of industrial work relations
could be removed by the establishment of small cooperative communities.
Boarding houses were built near the factories for the workers'
accommodation. These so-called model villages
were envisioned as a self-contained community for the factory workers.
Although the villages were located close to industrial sites, they were
generally physically separated from them and generally consisted of
relatively high quality housing, with integrated community amenities and
attractive physical environments.
The first such villages were built in the late 18th century, and
they proliferated in England in the early 19th century with the
establishment of Trowse, Norfolk in 1805 and Blaise Hamlet, Bristol in 1811. In America, boarding houses were built for textile workers in Lowell, Massachusetts in the 1820s.
The motive behind these offerings was paternalistic—owners were
providing for workers in ways they felt was good for them. These
programs did not address the problems of long work hours, unsafe
conditions, and employment insecurity that plagued industrial workers
during that period, however. Indeed, employers who provided housing in
company towns (communities established by employers where stores and
housing were run by companies) often faced resentment from workers who
chafed at the control owners had over their housing and commercial
opportunities. A noted example was Pullman, Illinois—a
site of a strike that destroyed the town in 1894. During these years,
disputes between employers and workers often turned violent and led to
government intervention.
Welfare as a business model
The Cadbury factory at Bournville, c. 1903, where workers worked in conditions that were very good for the time
In the early years of the 20th century, business leaders began embracing a different approach. The Cadbury family of philanthropists and business entrepreneurs set up the model village at Bournville,
England in 1879 for their chocolate making factory. Loyal and
hard-working workers were treated with great respect and relatively high
wages and good working conditions; Cadbury pioneered pension schemes, joint works committees and a full staff medical service. By 1900, the estate included 313 'Arts and Crafts' cottages and houses; traditional in design but with large gardens and modern interiors, they were designed by the resident architectWilliam Alexander Harvey.
The Cadburys were also concerned with the health and fitness of
their workforce, incorporating park and recreation areas into the
Bournville village plans and encouraging swimming, walking and indeed all forms of outdoor sports. In the early 1920s, extensive football and hockey
pitches were opened together with a grassed running track. Rowheath
Pavilion served as the clubhouse and changing rooms for the acres of
sports playing fields, several bowling greens, a fishing lake and an
outdoor swimming lido, a natural mineral spring forming the source for
the lido's
healthy waters. The whole area was specifically for the benefit of the
Cadbury workers and their families with no charges for the use of any of
the sporting facilities by Cadbury employees or their families.
Port Sunlight in Wirral, England was built by the Lever Brothers
to accommodate workers in its soap factory in 1888. By 1914, the model
village could house a population of 3,500. The garden village had
allotments and public buildings including the Lady Lever Art Gallery, a cottage hospital, schools, a concert hall, open air swimming pool, church, and a temperance
hotel. Lever introduced welfare schemes, and provided for the education
and entertainment of his workforce, encouraging recreation and
organisations which promoted art, literature, science or music.
Lever's aims were "to socialise and Christianise business
relations and get back to that close family brotherhood that existed in
the good old days of hand labour." He claimed that Port Sunlight was an
exercise in profit sharing,
but rather than share profits directly, he invested them in the
village. He said, "It would not do you much good if you send it down
your throats in the form of bottles of whisky, bags of sweets, or fat
geese at Christmas. On the other hand, if you leave the money with me, I
shall use it to provide for you everything that makes life
pleasant—nice houses, comfortable homes, and healthy recreation."
In America in the early 20th century, businessmen like George F. Johnson and Henry B. Endicott
began to seek new relations with their labor by offering the workers
wage incentives and other benefits. The point was to increase
productivity by creating good will with employees. When Henry Ford
introduced his $5-a-day pay rate in 1914 (when most workers made $11 a
week), his goal was to reduce turnover and build a long-term loyal labor
force that would have higher productivity.
Turnover in manufacturing plants in the U.S. from 1910 to 1919 averaged
100%. Wage incentives and internal promotion opportunities were
intended to encourage good attendance and loyalty.
This would reduce turnover and improve productivity. The combination of
high pay, high efficiency and cheap consumer goods was known as Fordism, and was widely discussed throughout the world.
Led by the railroads and the largest industrial corporations such as the Pullman Car Company, Standard Oil, International Harvester, Ford Motor Company and United States Steel,
businesses provided numerous services to its employees, including paid
vacations, medical benefits, pensions, recreational facilities, sex
education and the like. The railroads, in order to provide places for
itinerant trainmen to rest, strongly supported YMCA hotels, and built railroad YMCAs. The Pullman Car Company built an entire model town, Pullman, Illinois. The Seaside Institute is an example of a social club built for the particular benefit of women workers. Most of these programs proliferated after World War I—in the 1920s.
The economic upheaval of the Great Depression in the 1930s
brought many of these programs to a halt. Employers cut cultural
activities and stopped building recreational facilities as they
struggled to stay solvent. It wasn't until after World War II that many
of these programs reappeared—and expanded to include more blue-collar
workers. Since this time, programs like on-site child care and
substance abuse treatment have waxed and waned in use/popularity, but
other welfare capitalism components remain. Indeed, in the U.S., the
health care system is largely built around employer-sponsored plans.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Germany and Britain created "safety nets" for their citizens, including public welfare and unemployment insurance. These government-operated welfare systems is the sense in which the term 'welfare capitalism' is generally understood today.
Modern welfare capitalism
The 19th century German economist, Gustav von Schmoller, defined welfare capitalism as government provision for the welfare of workers and the public via social legislation. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are regions noted for their welfare state provisions, though other countries have publicly financed universal healthcare and other elements of the welfare state as well.
Esping-Andersen categorised three different traditions of welfare provision in his 1990 book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism; social democracy, Christian democracy (conservatism) and liberalism.
Though increasingly criticised, these classifications remain the most
commonly used in distinguishing types of modern welfare states, and
offer a solid starting point in such analysis.
European welfare capitalism is typically endorsed by Christian democrats and social democrats. In contrast to social welfare provisions found in other industrialized countries (especially countries with the Anglo-Saxon model
of capitalism), European welfare states provide universal services that
benefit all citizens (social democratic welfare state) as opposed to a
minimalist model that only caters to the needs of the poor.
In Northern European countries, welfare capitalism is often combined with social corporatism and national-level collective bargaining arrangements aimed at balancing the power between labor and business. The most prominent example of this system is the Nordic model,
which features free and open markets with limited regulation, high
concentrations of private ownership in industry, and tax-funded
universal welfare benefits for all citizens.
An alternative model of welfare exists in Continental European countries, known as the social market economy or German model,
which includes a greater role for government interventionism into the
macro-economy but features a less generous welfare state than is found
in the Nordic countries.
In France, the welfare state exists alongside a dirigiste mixed economy.
In the United States
Welfare capitalism in the United States refers to industrial relations policies of large, usually non-unionised, companies that have developed internal welfare systems for their employees. Welfare capitalism first developed in the United States in the 1880s and gained prominence in the 1920s.
Promoted by business leaders during a period marked by widespread
economic insecurity, social reform activism, and labor unrest, it was
based on the idea that Americans should look not to the government or to
labor unions but to the workplace benefits provided by private-sector
employers for protection against the fluctuations of the market economy.
Companies employed these types of welfare policies to encourage worker
loyalty, productivity and dedication. Owners feared government
intrusion in the Progressive Era,
and labor uprisings from 1917 to 1919—including strikes against
"benevolent" employers—showed the limits of paternalistic efforts.
For owners, the corporation was the most responsible social
institution and it was better suited, in their minds, to promoting the
welfare of employees than government. Welfare capitalism was their way of heading off unions, communism, and government regulation.
The benefits offered by welfare capitalist employers were often
inconsistent and varied widely from firm to firm. They included minimal
benefits such as cafeteria plans,
company-sponsored sports teams, lunchrooms and water fountains in
plants, and company newsletters/magazines—as well as more extensive
plans providing retirement benefits, health care, and employee
profit-sharing. Examples of companies that have practiced welfare capitalism include Kodak, Sears, IBM and Facebook
with the main elements of the employment system in these companies
including permanent employment, internal labor markets, extensive
security and fringe benefits, and sophisticated communications and
employee involvement.
In the 1980s, the philosophy of maximizing shareholder value became dominant, and defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s, replaced guaranteed pensions. The average duration of employment at the same firm also decreased significantly.
Anti-unionism
Welfare
capitalism was also used as a way to resist government regulation of
markets, independent labor union organizing, and the emergence of a
welfare state. Welfare capitalists went to great lengths to quash
independent trade union organizing, strikes,
and other expressions of labor collectivism—through a combination of
violent suppression, worker sanctions, and benefits in exchange for
loyalty.
Also, employee stock-ownership programs meant to tie workers to the
success of companies (and accordingly to management). Workers would
then be actual partners with owners—and capitalists themselves. Owners
intended these programs to ward off the threat of "Bolshevism" and
undermine the appeal of unions.
The least popular of the welfare capitalism programs were the
company unions created to stave off labor activism. By offering
employees a say in company policies and practices and a means for
appealing disputes internally, employers hoped to reduce the lure of
unions. They called these employee representation plans "industrial democracy."
Efficacy
In the end, welfare capitalism programs benefited white-collar workers far more than those on the factory floor in the early 20th century. The average annual bonus payouts at U.S. Steel Corporation from 1929 to 1931 were approximately $2,500,000; however, in 1929, $1,623,753 of that went to the president of the company.
Real wages for unskilled and low-skilled workers grew little in the
1920s, while long hours in unsafe conditions continued to be the norm.
Further, employment instability due to layoffs
remained a reality of work life. Welfare capitalism programs rarely
worked as intended, company unions only reinforced that authority of
management over the terms of employment.
Wage incentives (merit raises and bonuses) often led to a speed-up in production for factory lines.
As much as these programs meant to encourage loyalty to the company,
this effort was often undermined by continued layoffs and frustrations
with working conditions. Employees
soured on employee representation plans and cultural activities, but
they were eager for opportunities to improve their pay with good work
and attendance and to gain benefits like medical care. These programs
gave workers new expectations for their employers. They were often
disappointed in the execution of them but supported their aims. The post-World War II
era saw an expansion of these programs for all workers, and today,
these benefits remain part of employment relations in many countries.
Recently, however, there has been a trend away from this form of welfare
capitalism, as corporations have reduced the portion of compensation
paid with health care, and shifted from defined benefit pensions to
employee-funded defined contribution plans.
The 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang, an attorney, entrepreneur, and the founder of Venture for America, began on November 6, 2017, when Yang filed with the Federal Election Commission to participate in the Democratic primaries. Yang suspended his campaign on February 11, 2020, the night of the New Hampshire primary. On March 10, 2020, Yang endorsed Joe Biden for president.
With no prior political experience and low public recognition,
Yang was widely considered a longshot candidate by the media during the
early stages of his campaign. In April 2018, Yang released The War on Normal People, a book discussing job displacement, automation, and universal basic income (UBI), which were central to his campaign. Yang's profile significantly increased in early 2019 after appearing on the popular podcastThe Joe Rogan Experience;
he later appeared on numerous other podcasts, shows, and interviews.
Yang's rise in notability was accompanied by the development of a
devoted online fanbase that was known as the "Yang Gang". Yang raised
about $41.6 million over the course of his campaign, with the vast
majority of donations occurring during the final months of his
candidacy. Yang qualified for and participated in all six Democratic primary debates
held in 2019. In 2020, Yang did not meet the polling requirement for
the seventh debate, but he later qualified for and participated in the
eighth debate.
Yang stated that he first took an interest in universal basic income (UBI) after reading Martin Ford's book Rise of the Robots. Andy Stern's book Raising the Floor further persuaded Yang to support UBI. In 2017, Yang decided to run for president after Stern remarked to him that no presidential candidate supported UBI.
Yang's candidacy began on November 6, 2017, when he filed with the Federal Election Commission to participate in the Democratic primaries. Andrew Yang was the second Democrat to announce his candidacy for the presidency. The campaign began with a small initial staff working out of an apartment owned by Yang's mother. He ran on the slogans "Humanity First" and "Make America Think Harder" (MATH). According to BBC, Yang was "one of the first and most recognizable East Asian-Americans in history to run for president". He stated that he hoped his "campaign can inspire Asian Americans to be engaged in politics."
Had he been nominated, he would have become the first Asian American to
serve as any major party's presidential candidate, and had he been
elected, he would have become the first Asian-American president.
2018
On April 3, 2018, Yang released The War on Normal People, a book discussing technological change, automation, job displacement, the economy, and the need for a UBI. In a press release on April 19, 2018, he announced that he would be personally giving one resident of New Hampshire $1,000 per month in 2019 to show the effectiveness of his UBI policy, the "Freedom Dividend". He announced that he would do the same thing in Iowa in 2019. On August 10, 2018, Yang was a keynote speaker at the largest Democratic fundraiser in Iowa, the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding. In 2018, he made seven trips to Iowa and six trips to New Hampshire, the first two states to vote in the primaries.
2019
Yang speaks with attendees at the 2019 Iowa Democratic Wing Ding at Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa.
In early 2019, Yang's campaign was called a "longshot" by several media outlets, including Fox News, Washington Examiner, and Vox; Yang soon appeared on several noted outlets and podcasts, including The Joe Rogan Experience, The Breakfast Club, The Ben Shapiro Show, and Tucker Carlson Tonight. Yang's appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience in particular has been credited as a major turning point in his campaign.
Several media sources also attributed Yang's rise in notability to his
large group of online supporters, who informally referred to themselves
as the Yang Gang and made a large number of Internet memes about Yang and his campaign.
Following his sudden rise in notability, Yang attracted the interest of some prominent alt-right figures and many users of /pol/, a forum on 4chan that is notorious for its alt-right politics. Yang himself denounced any support from the alt-right. In an interview with The New York Times,
Yang said that he is "getting support from quarters [he] wouldn't have
expected"; regarding support from the alt-right in particular, he said
"It's uncomfortable. They're antithetical to everything I stand for."
Yang stated that he was confused by the support he had from the
alt-right, because he doesn't "look much like a white nationalist".
2020
A map of rallies and other events in Iowa that Yang appeared in from January to February 2020
After failing to get on the ballot for the March 17 Ohio primary, Yang announced a write-in
campaign. He said that his supporters had gathered three times the
required signatures, but "because of a bureaucratic paperwork issue
caused by an awkwardly-worded law, nearly 3,000 Ohioans' First Amendment
rights have been denied." According to Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose,
"when Ohioans sign a petition, they deserve to know what they're
signing. This is why petition forms must be submitted, complete with a
statement from the candidate stating their intention to run. By their
own admission, the Yang campaign failed to do that."
On January 7, Yang's campaign staff unionized. Evan Low, a member of the California State Assembly, became a national co-chair of Yang's campaign on January 15. On January 23, former Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson announced that she would support Yang in the Iowa caucuses, but noted that it was not an endorsement. Yang responded on Twitter, thanking Williamson and praising her approach. On January 24, she introduced him at a campaign event in Fairfield, Iowa. Additionally, Dave Chappelle performed two comedy shows for Yang's campaign in South Carolina.
According to The Des Moines Register Candidate Tracker, Yang appeared at 78 events in Iowa in January and 14 events in Iowa in February. The Iowa caucus ended without the declaration of a winner due to questions surrounding discrepancies over vote counts.
Yang received 8,914 votes in the first alignment in Iowa, which was
5.1% of all votes cast. In the second alignment, Yang received 1,758
votes, which was 1.0% of all votes cast. Yang received 22 state delegate
equivalents, which was 1.0% of all state delegate equivalents
available. He did not win any delegates to the national convention.
Yang's campaign fired 130 staffers in the aftermath of the Iowa caucus.
Zach Graumann, Yang's campaign manager, said that the layoffs were part
of a "natural evolution" of the campaign after Iowa. A spokesperson for
the campaign stated that the layoffs were unrelated to negotiations
between the campaign and its unionized workers.
End of campaign
Yang suspended his campaign on February 11, the night of the New Hampshire primary.
Zach Graumann, Yang's campaign manager, stated that Yang no longer
believed he had a "real chance to win the nomination", but wanted to
have a future in politics.
Yang ultimately received 8,318 votes in New Hampshire, which was 2.8%
of all votes cast, and did not win any national delegates from the
state.
On March 10, 2020, Yang endorsed Joe Biden. While saying he understood the frustration of Bernie Sanders supporters, he referred to Biden as the "prohibitive nominee" and stated that defeating Trump was the most important goal. On April 27, Yang opened a lawsuit against the New York State Board of Elections for removing him and every other inactive candidate from the ballot and effectively canceling New York's presidential primary.
Yang praised a federal judge's order to reinstate the primary, saying
"I'm glad that a federal judge agreed that depriving millions of New
Yorkers of their right to vote was wrong. I hope that the New York Board
of Elections takes from this ruling a newfound appreciation of their
role in safeguarding our democracy".
Fundraising
On
March 11, 2019, Yang announced on Twitter that he surpassed the
fundraising threshold of 65,000 donors, which qualified him to
participate in the first round of Democratic primary debates. On June 28, Yang announced that he reached 130,000 donors, which met the fundraising criterion for the third round of Democratic primary debates. By November 30, Yang had over 300,000 donors according to his campaign.
Yang speaking with attendees at a fundraiser hosted by Iowa's Asian and Latino Coalition at Jasper Winery in Des Moines
In the first quarter of 2019, Yang raised $1.7 million, of which more
than $250,000 came from "the last four days of the quarter". According to Yang's campaign, "the average donation was $17.92", and "99% of the donations were less than $200". In the second quarter, Yang raised $2.8M, an increase of $1.1M from the first quarter. The campaign stated that 99.6% "of its donors were small-dollar donors [who] gave less than $200". On August 6, Yang's third-quarter fundraising reached $2M, which increased to $2.8M on August 13, matching his total second-quarter fundraising. On August 15, he reached 200,000 unique donors.
In the 72 hours after the third debate (held in mid-September), Yang's
campaign raised $1 million, suggesting that it "is on track to raise
significantly more in the third quarter" than in the second quarter,
according to Politico.
In the third quarter, Yang's campaign raised $10M, representing a
257% quarterly increase—the largest growth rate among the fundraising
numbers of all candidates. The average donation was around $30, and 99% of the donations were $200 or less. According to The Washington Post,
the campaign has raised a total of $15.2M and ranks first among all
candidates "in percent of money coming from small-dollar donations".
In mid-October 2019, the creators of a new super PAC,
called Math PAC, announced that they would be spending over $1 million
to back Yang's campaign "so that a first-time candidate's voice isn't
drowned out". Vox noted that it will be "a test for the candidate, who says he wants to eliminate super PACs".
On January 2, 2020, Yang's campaign reported that it had raised $16.5
million in the fourth quarter, representing a growth of 65%. On December
31, 2019, the final day of the quarter, the campaign raised $1.3
million in donations, which was its most lucrative fundraising day to
date. On February 1, 2020, the campaign announced that it had raised over
$6.7 million in January, including $1.2 million raised on January 31
alone.
Yang ultimately raised about $41.6 million over the course of his
campaign. Of this amount, about $39.8 million was raised by Yang's
campaign committee while the remainder came from outside groups.
"Yang Gang"
Supporters of Yang's campaign were collectively known as the Yang Gang or #YangGang.
Followers of Yang's campaign were collectively known as the Yang Gang or #YangGang. They brought attention to his campaign on Reddit, 4chan, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other social media platforms, through the use of Internet memes and viral campaigning. Media outlets noted that much of the content circulated through these platforms, such as memes, GIFs, podcasts, and Twitter tweets, were instrumental to Yang's campaign. According to Mother Jones, Yang's supporters coordinated on platforms such as Discord and Reddit in order to boost Yang on online surveys hosted by various websites, including the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner. According to Iowa Starting Line, Yang was able to attract former Republicans, independents, and Libertarians, and Yang believed that "he could build a much broader coalition to beat Trump in 2020 than anyone else in the field".
However, The American Conservative
stated that the Yang Gang was largely satirical, with most of the
members posting to social media doing so as a critique of corporate
communications attempting to be relatable and in touch with younger
audiences. The American Conservative further stated that a
contingent of Yang's digital followers were only backing him for "a
fresh platform for surreal and cynical humor" and that Yang had to
denounce part of and distance himself from the movement, which largely
stemmed from digital supporters of the Trump 2016 campaign.
In December 2019, FiveThirtyEight found that Yang's base was overwhelmingly young, with 74% of his support coming from individuals under the age of 45. FiveThirtyEight
attributed this to the "internet-savvy" nature of Yang's campaign. Most
of his supporters under the age of 30 were men, but the gender ratio
was closer in older demographics. Yang also received significant support
from the Asian American community, placing third among Asian Americans
in a Morning Consult poll.
Media coverage
Yang supporters in New Hampshire
On multiple occasions, media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN provided
disproportionately low coverage of Yang and excluded Yang from lists of
2020 Democratic candidates. According to The New York Times,
he received some of the least coverage in cable news among the
candidates, even though he was polling better than most of the field. CNN's Chris Cillizza attributed Yang's lack of coverage to his political inexperience, his "different" policies, and comparisons to Ron Paul, not intentional malice by the media. Axios
stated that while Yang was polling in the top six of the Democratic
primary and "getting plenty of online attention", he was "being treated
by the media like a bottom-tier candidate". Krystal Ball of The Hill stated that there was "a persistent pattern of ignoring Yang's candidacy" among media outlets such as CNN.
Yang poses for a selfie with supporters in September 2019 at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines.
On September 5, Yang tweeted that "Sometimes honest mistakes happen. But NBC and MSNBC seem to omit me on the regular."
On November 23, 2019, following the MSNBC-hosted November debate in
which Yang received the least speaking time and was not called upon for
the first 30 minutes of the two-hour debate, Yang publicly rejected a
request to appear on MSNBC unless the network would "apologize on-air,
discuss and include our campaign consistent with our polling, and allow
surrogates from our campaign as they do other candidates'"An analysis from Business Insider
found that Yang received significantly less speaking time at debates
than would be expected by his polling numbers, and that Yang had the
highest deficit between actual and expected speaking time of any
candidate during any of the Democratic debates.
In November 2019, Business Insider reported that Yang was
faring significantly better than many other Democratic candidates
despite a lack of mainstream media coverage. In a December 2019 interview with NBC News,
Yang suggested that him being Asian American may have played a role in
the lack of media coverage. According to NBC News, some Yang supporters
have "resorted to harassment", including targeting "reporters who have
written about or addressed criticisms of Yang", but Yang stated that he
did not agree with such behavior. In late December 2019, Yang ended his boycott of MSNBC, stating that he preferred to "speak to as many Americans as possible."
On February 7, The New York Times published an article
based on some of the experiences of Yang's former employees. It stated
that Yang was insensitive toward race and gender while discussing issues
of racism and sexism, and also mentioned examples of his social
awkwardness, such as him pressuring employees to participate at company karaokes. Fox News described the article as a "hit piece".
On November 22, 2020, former MSNBC producer Ariana Pekary tweeted that
Yang was on a list of presidential candidates that the MSNBC show The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell was instructed not to interview.
Democratic primary debates
2019
First debate
"MATH", which appears on Yang's hat and pin, is an acronym for "Make America Think Harder".
In qualifying for the first Democratic primary debate, Yang met the 65,000 donor criterion on March 11, 2019. He also met the polling criterion, with 18 polls at 1% or higher. The Democratic National Committee determined at random that Yang would participate in the second night of the first debate, which took place in Miami on June 27.
During the debate, Yang was asked only two questions. He had the
least airtime of any candidate on both nights, speaking for a total of
only two minutes and 56 seconds. After the debate, Yang, along with fellow candidates Marianne Williamson and Eric Swalwell,
complained of microphone issues not allowing them to speak unless
called upon when other candidates seemed to be able to freely interject
at all times, though NBC denied the claim. The issues spurred frustration from Yang supporters and prompted #LetYangSpeak to trend on Twitter much of the following day. An NBC spokesperson said, "At no point during the debate was any candidate's microphone turned off or muted", but Yang and his supporters provided video footage that they said showed Yang speaking up but not being heard.
Second debate
The criteria for qualifying for the second debates were the same as for the first debates. Yang was assigned to participate in the second night of the second debate, which took place in Detroit on July 31.
During the debate, Yang answered questions on topics including
civil rights, health care, immigration, party strategy, climate, and the
economy. Yang spoke for a total of 8.7 minutes, which was again the least time of any candidate on both nights. He was the only second-night candidate who did not spend any time in "back-and-forths" with other candidates. Yang drew attention for his decision to not wear a necktie in either debate. In his closing statement, Yang criticized the media and compared the debate format to reality television.
Yang's use of the phrase "It's not left, it's not right, it's forward"
in his closing statement has been compared to a similar slogan used by
the Green Party of Canada and the Dutch political party National Alliance.
Third debate
To
qualify for the third round of debates, "candidates are required to
both have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support
in four polls". On June 28, Yang reached 130,000 donors, thus meeting the fundraising criterion.
After Yang had received what he considered to be his fourth qualifying
poll, the DNC revealed that qualifying polls conducted by different
organizations would not be counted separately if they were sponsored by
the same DNC-approved sponsor. The ruling was controversially disclosed
by the DNC on July 30, less than one day after Yang had obtained 2% in
four polls, rather than on July 19 when the second of these polls had
been completed. In spite of this, Yang qualified for the third debate after receiving 2% support in his fourth qualifying poll on August 8. The debate was held in Houston on September 12.
In his opening statement, Yang promised to "give a Freedom
Dividend of $1000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families". During the debate, he addressed topics including health care, immigration, foreign relations, the War on Terror, corporate lobbying, and education and charter schools. Yang spoke for a total of 7 minutes 54 seconds, which was again the least time of any candidate.
Some campaign-finance experts have questioned using campaign
funds for payments such as those Yang promised in his opening statement,
on the grounds that federal law bars personal use of campaign funds.
However, Yang has said he has consulted lawyers about the proposal and
that "he would not gain the same scrutiny if he gave money to a media
company or consultants" instead of directly to Americans. On September 12, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian announced on Twitter his support for Yang's proposal and offered to finance it. On September 13, tech entrepreneur Justin Sun pledged to give $1.2 million to 100 Americans in 2020, saying that he wanted "Yang to help him select the recipients".
In the 72 hours after the debate, Yang's campaign raised $1 million and
collected "more than 450,000 email addresses from people who entered
the online raffle", of which over 90% were new email addresses.
Fourth debate
The qualification requirements for the fourth debate mirrored those of the third debate, and Yang qualified before August 22. The debate was held on October 15 in Westerville, Ohio.
Yang spoke for a total of eight and a half minutes, which was the fourth-least time of all candidates. During the debate, Yang stated his support of impeaching Donald Trump,
but that it would not solve the issues that got Trump elected, such as
job displacement through automation. He also discussed the economy,
taxation, foreign policy, the opioid crisis, big tech, and personal data as a property right. Yang proposed decriminalizing opioids, a stance that candidate Beto O'Rourke agreed with. Candidates Julian Castro
and Tulsi Gabbard said that Yang's Freedom Dividend policy "was a good
idea, and something they would consider if elected president", while
candidate Cory Booker argued for a $15 minimum wage over UBI.
Vox called UBI one of the winners of the debate, saying
that Yang's campaign "has already elevated the idea in [American] policy
discourse".
Chris Cillizza of CNN called Yang one of the winners of the debate,
observing that Yang had a "remarkable rise in this race" and "is already
having a significant impact on the conversation within the Democratic
Party". The New York Post similarly labeled Yang a winner, saying that he "knows how to break through by speaking like a regular person". On Twitter, Meghan McCain praised Yang for starting the conversation on automation, calling it "incredibly impressive".
Fifth debate
For
the fifth debate, participants were required to attain at least 3%
support in four national polls and have at least 165,000 individual
donors. Yang received his fourth qualifying poll on October 8 after
having previously met the donor requirement. The debate was held in Atlanta on November 20.
Yang spoke for a total of 6 minutes 43 seconds, the least time of any candidate.
Yang said that climate change and artificial intelligence were among
his top priorities. When Yang was asked what he would tell Russian PresidentVladimir Putin if he was elected, Yang responded that he would tell Putin, "Sorry, I beat your guy."
Critics of the debate noted that it took over 30 minutes for the
moderators to let him speak. Yang's short total speaking time and the
long period of time before he was brought in sparked accusations from
critics, including fellow candidate Tulsi Gabbard, of debate hosts MSNBC
and The Washington Post suppressing Yang's speaking time.
The incident sparked protests outside of the debate studio from Yang's
supporters, who chanted "M-S-N-B-C, hands off our democracy!".
On Twitter, Glenn Greenwald
said: "Yang's answer about the actual threats of the 21st century was
way too smart, thoughtful and substantive for cable news and
presidential political generally. Few things will affect humanity more
than Artificial Intelligence in this century."
CNN's Chris Cillizza listed Yang as among the debate's winners, saying
that he "came across as, by far, the most relatable candidate on the
stage". Chris Churchill of Times Union wrote: "The other candidates blabbered on about millionaires and billionaires or the bad man in the White House while Yang, bless his heart, repeatedly turned the focus to families and children." Dana Brownlee of Forbes called Yang's closing statement a "Mic Drop Performance" and "refreshing and riveting".
Sixth debate
In qualifying for the December debate, Yang met the donor requirement prior to August 15.
By December 10, he had received the four required polls, becoming the
seventh candidate and the only nonwhite candidate to qualify for the
debate. The debate was held on December 19 in Los Angeles, California.
Yang spoke for 10 minutes 56 seconds, the least time of any
candidate. He discussed issues including foreign policy, the economy,
climate change, impeachment, immigration, human rights, and racial equality.
Yang criticized the lack of minority participation in the debate,
saying that it was an "honor and disappointment" to be the only nonwhite
participant.
CNN's Chris Cillizza named Yang one of the winners of the debate,
saying that "Yang's answers on any question he was asked were miles
away from how his rivals answered them". Dylan Scott of Vox
praised Yang's performance, saying that he "nailed his answer on being
the only nonwhite candidate on stage" and that he "made a short and
eloquent case" for the Freedom Dividend.
2020
Seventh and eighth debates
Yang
met the donor threshold, but did not meet the polling requirement to
qualify for the seventh debate, which occurred on January 14, 2020.
Yang suggested that the DNC commission additional polls in an attempt
to increase the diversity of candidates, but the committee responded
that it would "not sponsor its own debate-qualifying polls of
presidential candidates during a primary", citing the established
practice of using independent polling for qualification.
On January 26, Yang qualified for the eighth debate, which was held in New Hampshire on February 7. According to editors of The New York Times, Yang gave the second-worst performance of the night. Jamelle Bouie
said he "knows how to turn a question to his priorities," but "doesn't
have anything to say beyond his pitch for a cash giveaway." Elizabeth Bruenig
said he "seems like a cool guy, and perhaps like the ideal candidate
... in a parallel universe where capital and labor cooperate with kindly
comity." Will Wilkinson said, "Yang has brought a welcome fresh perspective to the race, but he didn't have his best night."
Policies
More than 160 policies are listed on Yang's campaign website.
Yang's platform had three main aspects: UBI, "Human-Centered
Capitalism" and "Medicare for All", which he "supports the spirit of",
but did not commit to. His platform also included numerous other proposals; more than 160 policies were listed on his campaign website.
Yang stated that the problem of job displacement through automation was the main reason Donald Trump ended up winning the 2016 presidential election,
stating that based on data, "There's a straight line up between the
adoption of industrial robots in a community and the movement towards
Donald Trump." Many of his policies, including the Freedom Dividend, were structured as a response to this issue.
Yang's signature policy was the "Freedom Dividend", a $1,000-per-month universal basic income (UBI) to all US citizens age 18 or older, regardless of employment status. Yang stated that this would have helped compensate for the loss of jobs to automation and artificial intelligence
and that it would have fostered "healthier people, less stressed out
people, better educated people, stronger communities, more volunteerism,
[and] more civic participation". Citing forecasting by the Roosevelt Institute, Yang stated that the dividend "would create up to 2 million new jobs" in the US. The dividend would have been opt-in, and would not have been given to those who chose to remain in certain welfare programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, WIC, and Supplemental Security Income. Other programs would have stacked on top of the dividend, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, housing assistance, and veteran's disability benefits.
A
sign carried by supporters of Yang during a pro-UBI march in Berlin,
Germany. It reads "What would you do with an extra $1000 per month?"
Yang proposed funding the dividend—estimated to cost $2.8 trillion a year—through several avenues, including a 10% value-added tax on business transactions, a 0.1% tax on financial transactions, taxing capital gains and carried interest at normal income rates, a $40/ton carbon tax, and removing the wage cap on Social Security payroll tax. According to Yang, a value-added tax is necessary to combat tax avoidance by major technology companies like Amazon and Google, which routinely use accounting tricks to pay little in income tax.
Yang stated that "hundreds of billions in new economic growth and
value" would have been generated through the dividend and that it would
have saved billions of dollars on incarceration, homelessness services, and emergency room health care.
On the topic of whether the dividend should have included the
wealthiest citizens, Yang stated that it should have been universalized
"so it's seen as a true right of citizenship, instead of a transfer
from rich to poor". Yang did not support raising the federal minimum wage
but supported each state's right to do so, remarking that the Freedom
Dividend would have rendered a federal minimum wage increase less
necessary.
Fellow 2020 Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, and Julian Castro stated their openness to UBI.
At a 2019 conference organized by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, economist and Harvard professor Greg Mankiw said of the Freedom Dividend:
I am attracted to something along the lines of the policy
now being championed by Andrew Yang ... It's pretty easy to see how
this idea would work. Value-added taxes are essentially sales taxes;
they're used in a lot of European nations, and they've proven
remarkably efficient ways to raise revenue, and because the dividend is
universal, it would be simple to administer.
Skeptics of UBI cite a decrease in the growth of automation and doubt that the impacts of new technology will be negative; according to Rich Lowry, "as technology makes some jobs obsolete, it creates the space for new ones". Contrarily, Yang cited studies demonstrating that the retraining of displaced manufacturing workers had success rates of 0–15%. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that the dividend would cost over $3 trillion annually (more than three-fourths of the federal budget).
Some UBI advocates stated that the Freedom Dividend would have
negatively affected low-income citizens; Yang's campaign stated that the
cost of basic necessities would not have increased significantly, while
the cost of luxury goods
would have. Yang's campaign also stated that the dividend would have
decreased the amount of time spent "interacting with an unwieldy
bureaucracy". Economics professor Melissa Kearney
opined that UBI would not significantly reduce inequality, and that she
has found "no compelling evidence that ... giving people money will
generally lead to any appreciable increase in work or successful
business creation".
Economy
Yang
supported "human-centered capitalism", which he stated would have been
"geared towards maximising human well-being and fulfillment" instead of
corporate profits. Yang criticized several commonly cited economic metrics as misleading; for instance, he prefers labor force participation rate to the unemployment rate and believes that median income and life expectancy are more accurate at measuring the health of the economy than GDP.
Yang called for personal data to be treated as a property right,
saying: "Data generated by each individual needs to be owned by them,
with certain rights conveyed that will allow them to know how it's used
and protect it." He opposed the deregulation of Wall Street, supported regulating social media as a public utility, and promoted a ban on robocalls. Yang proposed a new type of credit system designed to incentivize traditionally unpaid caregiving contributions.
He supported free financial counseling, stating that "it's important to
ensure Americans have the knowledge they need to save and invest
properly". Yang criticized the economic and environmental impacts of the penny and supported ending production of the coin.
Electoral reform
Yang
supported the implementation of what he called "democracy dollars",
wherein voting age citizens would have received a $100 "use it or lose
it" democracy voucher
each year to give to candidates. The policy aimed to counteract
corporate donations resulting from political lobbying and the decision
of Citizens United v. FEC. According to Yang, democracy dollars would have drowned out money from organizations like the National Rifle Association of America by a factor of eight to one.
Yang was a proponent of ranked-choice voting, supporting New York City's implementation of the practice and expressing a desire for it to be "the norm" nationwide. On April 3, 2019, Yang came out in favor of lowering the national voting age
to 16. While other candidates expressed openness towards the idea, Yang
was the first to make it an official part of his platform.
Equal Citizens gave Yang's democracy reform policies an "A+" rating, which is the highest possible ranking.
Energy and climate change
On August 26, 2019, Yang released his climate change plan, which involved nuclear power, zero-emission transportation, geoengineering, a carbon tax, and a renewable electric grid. Yang supported a Green New Deal and favored a reduction in carbon emissions with an emphasis on climate engineering. In addition to revitalizing the Environmental Protection Agency,
his platform called for a Global Geoengineering Institute to form
inter-governmental partnerships. Yang was a proponent of bringing the
United States back into the Paris Climate Agreement.
Healthcare
In addition to UBI and human-centered capitalism, single-payer healthcare was initially a fundamental aspect of Yang's platform.
However, his policy proposal released in December 2019 eschewed from it
in favor of a plan that focused more on lowering costs and expanding
coverage.
Prior to releasing the proposal, Yang clarified that while he supported
Medicare for All, he "would keep the option of private insurance". He
stated his goal was to "demonstrate to the American people that private
insurance is not what [they] need" and that Medicare for All is
"superior to [their] current insurance". He believed that such an approach would make holistic and preventive care more feasible. He also used to support free marriage counseling. His policy proposal did not contain a public option. HuffPost described it as "the most conservative health care plan in the Democratic Primary".
In March 2019, after an anonymous Twitter user asked Yang if he had an opinion on routine infant circumcision, Yang responded that he was against the practice. Yang later called himself "highly aligned with the intactivists"
("intactivists" referring to opponents of the practice) and stated that
"history will prove them even more correct." Yang called the evidence
for circumcision being medically beneficial "shaky" and suggested that
as president, he would support giving new parents more information about
this decision.
However, Yang did not support a ban on the practice and later clarified
that he supported the ability of parents to make this choice for
religious or cultural reasons. Intactivists described this position as
incompatible with their movement, with Intact America's Georganne Chapin
describing his statement as backtracking and suggesting that it was
simply due to political pressure. Major politicians commenting on infant
circumcision has been rare, with Yang being the only candidate for the
2020 Democratic presidential nomination to discuss the issue.
Abortion
Yang is pro-choice.
He supports "the right to privacy of American women" and the right for
women "to choose in every circumstance and provide resources for
planning and contraception". He said that he would have nominated
pro-choice judges who "support a woman's right to choose".
Corruption and bureaucracy
Yang supported creating two new Cabinet positions, with one being responsible for cybersecurity while the other would have emphasized the "attention economy" and focused on regulating the addictive nature of social media. He also proposed hiring a White House Psychologist to focus on mental health
issues. To stem corruption, Yang supported increasing the salaries of
federal regulators but limiting their private work after they leave
public service. He also supported cutting the number of federal employees by 15–20%.
Drug policy
Yang supported the legalization of cannabis and the decriminalization of opioids (including heroin) for personal use, but he did not support legalizing or decriminalizing cocaine. He cited the drug policy of Portugal, which he believes to be similar, as evidence of the potential effectiveness of his drug policy. He stated that he would have pardoned all prisoners serving sentences for low-level, non-violent marijuana offenses had he been elected. Yang tweeted that the United States "should explore making psilocybin mushrooms legal for medical and therapeutic use particularly for veterans".
Gun control
Yang supported "common sense licensing policy" for firearms, the implementation of universal background checks
to restrict the ability of people with a history of violence, domestic
abuse, or violent mental illness to acquire firearms, and the offering
of financial incentives for smart guns. Yang also proposed a ban on assault weapons.
Yang speaks at the Presidential Gun Sense Forum in Iowa.
Yang advocated for gun companies to "pay a fine when their product is
used to kill an American" in order to realign incentives to deal with
the problem of arms manufacturers' stocks going up after mass shootings. He supports "an increase in the availability of mental health resources".
Yang called the act of buying a gun and using it in a mass shooting
"the last two steps" for a mass shooter and stated that the US must also
tackle the various steps that cause a shooter to buy and use a gun in a
mass shooting in the first place.
Yang proposed ending active shooter drills in U.S. schools, or
making them optional. He argued that "the trauma and anxiety the process
causes far outweigh the likelihood of a real-life shooting", citing a
statistic that "the likelihood of a public school student being killed
by a gunman is 'less than 1 in 614 million'".
He also "criticized several school districts across the country which
use theatrical recreations including firing blank rounds at students and
using fake blood to imitate a real mass shooting".
Foreign policy
Yang supported American international alliances, including NATO. He stated that he would have repealed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and returned the power to initiate wars to Congress.
Yang backed a more aggressive policy toward Russia, saying that "Russia is our biggest geopolitical threat, because they've been hacking our democracy successfully." He supported expanding sanctions against Russia via the Magnitsky Act in order to counter "Russian expansionism". He also proposed strengthening security coordination with Ukraine to protect the country from Russia.
Yang did not support making public colleges tuition-free, but did support investing in community colleges to drastically reduce their tuition. Yang proposed forgiving some student loan debt, improving efficacy of funds invested in education, and increasing the accountability of educational institutions. He supported affirmative action, believing that there has "never been a truly objective process" for college admissions, owing to "preference for legacies". He said that he viewed the rising cost of tuition as one of the greatest issues facing higher education.
He identified an increase in administration staff as the cause of the
rising cost, and supported tying federal fund access to affordability
and accessibility to curb the excess.
Immigration
Yang supported the DREAM Act, a bill that would protect migrants who entered the United States illegally as minors. He proposed creating a new category of residency that would allow certain undocumented migrants to gain citizenship after 18 years in the country. He advocated for increased financial support for ports of entry and environmental protections around the Rio Grande and stated that he would have used technology to secure the Mexico–United States border. Yang said that immigrants were being scapegoated
for the problem of job displacement through automation, stating that
"If you go to a factory here in Michigan, you will not find wall-to-wall
immigrants, you will find wall to wall robots and machines."
Yang
proposed creating a "Legion of Builders and Destroyers", headed by a
"Commander", that would have performed upkeep on infrastructure as well
as combat urban decay by destroying blighted buildings. The Legion would have been authorized to ignore local ordinances if they conflicted with Legion activities. Yang proposed redirecting 10% of the budget of the United States Armed Forces towards the Legion.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
