I'm a conservative and Andrew Yang is definitely worth listening to. No divisiveness, no BS. He's a smart guy and I highly suggest you listen to what he has to say. IMO he is the candidate for educated people. A lot of people don't like Ben Shapiro, but this is a productive and civil conversation between two smart people and I loved it. Just thought I would share.
| +89 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 22 | 2d | |
| +56 | How to sound more eloquent? | 26 | 17h | |
| +40 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 10 | 1d | |
| +35 | Interviews Are So Fake | 20 | 1d | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 1h | |
| +29 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 13 | 1d | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 5d | |
| +24 | Chaotic Insane investment banker who passed away in the 90s or 2000s | 12 | 5d | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 20h | |
| +20 | Being Christian in investment banking | 12 | 2m |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Yang has a lot of good ideas. I find him to be incredibly intelligent and genuine, albeit not particularly polished.
Like most millennial darling candidates though, he won't win.
Sad that this is true. Although I genuinely hope this is wrong.. we shall see. Not holding my breath though.
Agreed with points above and I am big supporter of Yang as well.
I think he's very good at putting forward solutions in a non-partisan ways. He presents his solutions logically. I feel as if a lot of people on the right would/will support him if/when they hear from him.
I think he has made some decent points in previous debates, but was I the only one that thought his comment on climate change was a little bizarre and pushing him towards unelectable? He pretty much said that we are all fucked and the only people to survive are those that can move to high altitude
He has some interesting ideas, but overall has too many policies that would increase costs / the size of government, with few good revenue or cost cutting ideas.
I like him as a person, I like how he presents his ideas a lot even though I disagree with almost the entirety of his platform. I would love it if more politicians followed his lead as far as the way he approaches politics because it’s a much more productive discourse.
The greatest
I don't get the $1000/mo stipend? As raw cash wouldn't it just push the cost of living up? It seems to make more sense to give people things that make permanent change like cheaper education/healthcare or subsidizing basic living needs for the very poor. For example, offering heavily subsidized college VS that $1000 a month seems more sensible? But yes, definitely agree. He is a lot less "RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH" like the other morons running. AOC is like the dem version of Trump.
That's a good point I guess. Either way he's definitely a better candidate than anyone else.
> "it does seem better to give people discretional income rather than "free" stuff such as healthcare and education"
Cool! Everyone will get a $1,000 monthly weed, alcohol, and cocaine budget!
It probably would cause some mild inflation but it would depends on each product’s supply curve. Overall, I think people generally overestimate the amount of inflation from this type of policy similar to minimum wage hikes. Minimum wage is bad because it causes unemployment and artificially squeezes margins for businesses (more go bust and less CF for capex, etc.)
Creating $2-3 trillion of money annually would not be inflationary?
I have a high opinion of Yang as an individual but disagree with virtually everything he says, especially with regard to UBI.
I like UBI actually but it should NOT be given out at a fixed rate. The distribution should be tied to revenues from the VAT, which would act as a proxy for changes in GDP.
You should listen to the rest of Shapiro. He is being polite to his guest but Shapiro obliterates UBI in other forums.
I think for the sake of election, he should drop the whole UBI thing. Maybe make a big push after the election (assuming he’s won) or a second term (assuming he’s won and wants to run again).
Not that I disagree with UBI, but to make him more relatable to more people. Right now he’s “the millennial guy who wants to give people free money”. Not going to win many states outside of CA (which is a stretch as is) on that premise.
If he drops UBI, increases his marketing to make him a household name to older people in red states without becoming “the enemy”.. he might just have a shot.
He’s what this country needs, not what this country wants. America is like a 16 year old girl choosing a prom date. Sure, that nice guy who is in AP classes will pick her up on time.. but the appeal of the loud mouthed jock who banged all her friends just keeps her attention.
UBI and scrapping social programs for those who are opting in. It's the most libertarian thing possible. And I'm coming around on the consumption tax, as well.
If I were Yang, I'd talk about all the hot Trump issues, with a non-socialist sense of rationality I think he's capable of and 10x better than Trump. That's all he needs, a message for unifying the country around these hot button issues.
You want Yang to target people who voted for Trump in the Dem primary and you believe that to be an effective election strategy..?
For concerns of inflation, we haven't had significant inflation in at least a decade in the US. Not to mention, I think with the information available, price discovery capabilities, access to tools and resources, if anything, people will probably use the UBI money to do more things to take advantage of the modern economy.
Yang is a nice smart guy, and I wish him well. But I do oppose his policies.
Let's start with UBI, which he calls the "Freedom Dividend."
With every technological disruption, there is short term pain but new types of jobs that we previously could not have imagined, are created. That is a direct result of technology enabling people to become more productive and do more with less. I don't doubt that AI and automation are disruptive, but I am not convinced of Yang's dystopian vision of a world where millions of people have literally nothing to do for work.
How will we pay for it? Will this replace entitlement programs or serve as a "complement?" Yang's stump speech constantly brings up Amazon, and he tells people that Amazon is a "trillion dollar company that paid zero in taxes last year." Well, their equity value is indeed a trillion dollars, and they did not pay federal income tax in FY 2018. Yang is smart enough to know that companies pay income tax off their earnings before tax (which in FY 2018 was around $11.6 billion). And Amazon was not even profitable until around 2014/2015, and due to carry loss forward, they are able to significantly reduce their tax overhead. In addition, our tax code allows companies to deduct expenses on capital investments and RSUs for employees. If Yang thinks those tax statutes are "unfair," then that's fine. But singling out companies and distorting the tax situation is disingenuous.
In addition, even if we were to "heavily tax" big tech, that's not enough money to pay for UBI. Yang has suggested a % of big tech transactions going to UBI. This is totally separate from taxes: it is the federal government demanding a cut of the revenue to fund a government program. That is a dangerous step, one that fundamentally reshapes the relationship between business and government. Next, Yang has suggested that people can opt into UBI and forego entitlement programs. How would that work? Would one make that decision as soon as he turns 18 and then be exempt from FICA tax if he chooses UBI? How about those who have paid FICA tax for years but wants UBI? Would it make sense to cut them off from social security and medicare despite having paid into it? Yang also talks about having a VAT on top of his proposed tax increases. Yowza! That is approaching Bernie levels of taxation.
There is a contradiction inherent in Yang's central thesis. On one hand, Yang argues that automation will render most jobs obsolete (e.g. retail, food, trucking, clerical, back office). At the same time, Yang states that UBI will lead to massive economic stimulation due to people spending that cash, resulting in many new jobs created throughout local communities. Huh? If those jobs will be replaced by robots, then why would UBI result in creation of new jobs? What is the mechanism that will make that happen?
UBI will result in perverse disincentives to work and to be productive. It is true that $1k/month is not enough for say a family of four. But millennials and Gen Z already have a high % living at home with parents. If you are a single guy living at home and don't pay rent, $1k/month is enough to get by. With guaranteed income coming in, many will just fuck around, paly video games, and render themselves permanent wards of the state.
Aside from UBI, other policies that I disagree with.
-Yang wants to decriminalize illegal entry into the U.S. and give illegal aliens taxpayer funded health insurance and give them path to citizenhip. Total dealbreaker. -Yang supports Medicare for All, a program that will cost trillions, destroy private health care, and significantly decrease the number of providers while increasing wait times. -Yang wants to eliminate the Electoral College, a key element of our unique Constitutional republic and federalism.
Yang is a smart technocrat who would do well in strategy consulting or other white collar jobs. But he would be a terrible POTUS.
I feel like you're holding him to a standard that we haven't ever held politicians to. Who has a plan that's paid for?
Agree with you he's being dishonest on Amazon. But IMHO it pales in comparison to the usual lies I hear from politicians.
On your 3 bullet points (immigration, Medicare for All and Electoral College) I have the same views you do. But we're in such bad shape as a country that I feel the need to take risks like voting for a candidate and hoping that his worst ideas don't get passed. In Yang's case I think your 3 bullets are examples of things that wouldn't actually happen.
Only in the USA could you have low 7 figure net worth and still be at risk of a total wipe-out over a medical event, which is bound to happen in late age...
Medicare for All is probably the only long-term sustainable path. At the very least, a single payer needs to be in place to set prices for even private insurance companies. Assess the current system...pretend employer pays $10k in premiums for an employee, the health insurance co pays out only $8k in coverage to maintain profitability. What is the health insurance co doing besides diversifying? The govt can do that more cheaply without a 20-30% margin requirement. I hear on the debate stage Democrats against Sanders/Warren saying people love their private health insurance don't want to give it up for Medicare for All...who actually loves their private health insurance? I work for a large HF with a decent plan, and I'm young so my costs are low and I don't love my plan... I can only imagine most of America has a worse healthcare plan.
Increased wait times are a bit of a myth. If I feel some joint pain, I'm still waiting a week before my primary physician has availability. And if I just show up to some random spot, I may be billed depending on how my health insurance classifies that visit. Private insurance hasn't worked out, it hasn't contained costs, and to continue to believe in it is ignoring all the positives that the rest of the OECD has with nationalized healthcare systems and cherrypicking the negatives.
Surveys show that most Americans prefer their private insurance plans over a government run system. Private plans allow for a much wider primary network coverage, and the U.S. has the best hospitals and health services in the world. The problem of course is the cost. But the key driver of high cost is that private plans are linked to employment, and employer payment of health care for its workers is tax deductible. This perverse incentive has encouraged costs to go up. The best way to fix this is not via single payer or public option but to sever private plans from employment altogether. Use a combination of tax credits and HRAs to allow people to purchase private plans on the free market (the current system is not a free market) regardless of their employment status, with those plans allowed to be transferred across state lines. Also, Medicaid should be reserved for the truly indigent, and Medicare should be based on need rather than age. But reforming government sponsored plans will be very difficult politically.
Read about countries with public healthcare: how long it takes to schedule an emergency check in with a specialist or primary physician, how to get personalized care, how the standard of care decreases because there’s no competition to provide the best care
it sounds like you have a naive view on the aspects of healthcare that matter most when you’re sick
Read about countries with public healthcare: how long it takes to schedule an emergency check in with a specialist or primary physician, how to get personalized care, how the standard of care decreases because there’s no competition to provide the best care
it sounds like you have a naive view on the aspects of healthcare that matter most when you’re sick
I disagree with point #1. This time it really will be different due to artificial intelligence. The Industrial Age replaced manual labor but opened up a vast amount of skilled labor positions and low-level information work. The technology age we are in is replacing vast amounts of low-level information work but as opened up a tremendous amount of high-level information work such as software development, consulting, etc... What happens when AI manages the systems which manages the systems which manage the robots? What happens when AI produces the code that produces the code which creates new software? I don't see any parity here with new job creation - only high-level creative information work will be left such as strategy implementation, product management, development management, etc... The analyst and manager positions will be removed, only VP's will be needed to provide direction.
There is already an insane amount of administrative waste at F500 corporations - many could replace 20-30%+ of the workforce by automating away data entry and paper pushing jobs. The real jobs that will be high in demand moving forwards are the skilled labor positions that won't be automated away due to the much higher costs of hardware development which include sensors, machine interfaces, etc... and the physical resources to produce these robots. Electricians, plumbers, maintenance technicians, etc... are all in very high demand and will continue to be while entry-level accounting, law, and IT positions will continue to get hammered by a combination of automation and offshoring.
Agree that there will be disruption for many lower-level white collar jobs. This actually increases the need for reduced immigration and shifting more high school kids to vocational schools and training programs rather than taking out government subsidized loans for worthless degrees at mediocre colleges.
Put it this way. A Democrat who ran on increasing the social safety net and introducing massive entitlement programs while proposing freezing all immigration for say 20 years, would win in a landslide. The argument is that the fruits of the American economy should be reserved for its existing citizens and until the fundamentals change, we need to close our doors. Of course, that person would get destroyed in the primary since white liberals are obsessed with de facto open borders and virtue signaling.
Side question - is anyone surprised that such an intelligent candidate / clear thinker has emerged without the typical finance / consulting / political / F500 work background? Makes you wonder..
I mean dude is double Ivy, then Big Law, then was a senior exec into CEO at Manhattan Prep because of his connection with an Exeter buddy. He's the epitome of blue blood finance/consulting/political background
His edu background is blue blood no question - but otherwise, big law stint was under a year and Manhattan Prep although is a widely known brand was reportedly worth 11m close to the time of sale to Kaplan. Understand deal closed a little higher, but still, wouldn't exactly consider that a big business. Or am I missing something here?
Andrew who? That is what most people will think when they hear his name at a Debate. He needs to needs to do some bashing of the other candidates. Tulsi Gabbard did that and she was in the headlines for a couple days. If he has a clean record there is no way they can really come back at him. It is very hard to go against establishement dems like hilary and biden
I'm not at all convinced he can't win.
Non-traditional candidates never win right? Well except for 2016.
But 2016 was just a one time freak event right? I don't know, Ross Perot got far in 92 before giving up way too early in the view of most politics experts.
But thats just two incidents right? Yes but its a small denominator too: there's only been 10-15 elections in what we would call modern times.
So thats like 7-10% of elections with a highly non-traditional candidate getting far, and should be adjusted upward for the fact that one of those instances was the last election.
Then I'd adjust upward even further for the fact that nobody at the top of the race looks very strong, for all kinds of reasons that y'all don't need me to explain.
And to me that's why Yang is currently at 13% to win the nomination and 11% to win the presidency on PredictIt. Not saying it will happen but its totally plausible in my opinion.
You have a good point, I just feel slightly differently in sizing up the average voter. My observation is that everyday people are a little smarter than they seem. For example, I've noticed during tax season everyday people are suddenly tax experts; the same guy who jokes that he sucks at math suddenly sounds like a whiz when talking about his itemized deductions vs. his personal cap and so forth. People are reasonably smart when they want to be.
Also, I've noticed a lot of people grasp challenging concepts even when they can't articulate it. They hear a smart idea and they aren't sharp enough verbally to express why it's smart, but on a gut level they know that it is. I think they see the rare thoughtful politician and feel deep down that there's something right about the person, even if they don't understand every bit of what's being said.
My hero
https://media1.giphy.com/media/Lncgorx7ZG8rZZK9Hf/giphy-downsized.gif" alt="Andrew Yang- Opinions?" />
Closest candidate to Libertarian we have on the ticket. Very smart, genuine guy too. I don't get that weird gross "politician" feeling with him like i did with Hillary and many others. I really hope his candidacy ramps up and he gains more traction *sigh
Aside from immigration (as libertarians are de facto open borders), I don't see how Yang is close to libertarian, as he would massively expand the scope, size, and function of the federal government. Sure, he's not as crazy as Bernie/Warren/Kamala/Buttigieg/Beto, but that's not saying much.
I dont think thats true at all. The most government expansion talks about is UBI, which im on the fence about since i dont think i know enough to really make a call. The rest of his ideas are very hands off, capitalist ideas especially for businesses. Even his UBI idea is quite hands-off and capitalist in a sense, since he always states that people can do whatever they want with it, unlike other government programs where this money is only allowed to purchase food, or rent, etc. He also calls for an OPTIONAL social healthcare system, where you are able to buy in to this 'social healthcare' plan, or choose to go with your own provider. Nothing here is really forced, which leads me to my opinion.
In what ways do you see him expanding the government and its power?
This is correct - there is nothing libertarian about free money from the Federal government... I don't view him as a serious political candidate, but he brings up good points we as a society need to get in front of before its too late.
He's a bit premature with the "automation IS destroying all the jobs (even though it very well could over the next 2-3 decades)" idea but the ramifications of self-driving cars and automated POS checkout systems are something we really need to get in front of considering the sum of individuals working in transportation or front-line retail. He also made excellent points during a certain interview about truck drivers not being able to replace $50k+ incomes considering most do not have a college degree nor training/experience applicable to other positions.
You should visit the Amazon store. If that tech goes mainstream for retail you'll watch 3-4% of the labor force evaporate practically overnight. Technology is advancing at a higher rate with every year that passes, so if anything his estimates of taking 2-3 decades are optimistic. Low skill jobs will all be the first to go, and the vast majority of people are low skill.
Veritatis repudiandae sunt nemo. Esse debitis totam quas. Corporis sed omnis iure sit nisi. Voluptatem quisquam aut unde alias non labore adipisci. Enim explicabo cupiditate non optio ea similique. Omnis est nulla ipsa ad aut eum.
Est quaerat eum rerum dolorum itaque quis. Temporibus rerum occaecati aspernatur. Quaerat cumque quidem rem quia veritatis rerum unde consequatur. Cum molestiae qui asperiores quibusdam tenetur ut sed. Impedit vitae nulla inventore dolores. Asperiores sapiente officia dolores sed laudantium ipsum et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Modi nulla qui quo deserunt. Veritatis nostrum velit aut fugit nostrum aperiam.
Ex aut quo nulla sint tenetur laboriosam molestiae non. Officia quos ut amet iure. Quia error adipisci incidunt vitae blanditiis dolor.
Nesciunt fugiat ducimus doloribus hic aut et est. Eum quia quod qui illo iste veritatis. Et iusto omnis vel et nesciunt. Commodi consequuntur id sed sapiente sint autem.
Et similique veniam corporis iste excepturi aut. Ratione et quo quis inventore veniam ad sed sapiente. Consequatur delectus ipsa enim repellat. Excepturi tempore modi esse accusantium. Quasi nihil laborum et quis.
Fuga excepturi non sed repellat. Repellat est quod et nostrum culpa porro esse. Enim quo fuga qui exercitationem. Et sunt impedit distinctio recusandae et ea quam.
Nihil alias nihil ab voluptas quaerat odit. Laudantium ut omnis praesentium sit illum eaque qui sit. Aut nam eaque est id ut.
Facere blanditiis est et facilis expedita quia. Quidem harum quo tempore vitae quae quia non. Est autem cumque rerum et non.
Adipisci aut quaerat veritatis. Nam exercitationem aut numquam aut animi laudantium id sit. Et rerum officiis mollitia occaecati reiciendis ipsam et.