Reddit reviews The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future

We found 13 Reddit comments about The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Check price on Amazon

13 Reddit comments about The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future:

u/kenny4351 · 92 pointsr/Ask_Politics

Canadian YangGang here. Disregarding all his policies (because we don't want a debate here), I'll be going over a few characteristics and achievements about Andrew Yang that appeals to me, and the majority of his supporters:

He's not a career politician, he's an entrepreneur, humanitarian and problem-solver. He knows how to speak on the ground level and relates to a lot of people. Doesn't use "political-speak".
He's not stuck to any ideologies but instead is very malleable and follows the data, or the "MATH" so to speak. If data points one way, you'll be sure to find Andrew Yang there. (Therefore his policies are also fluid).
He speaks in numbers, which speaks to a lot of students, engineers, programmers, etc. (who are the majority of his supporters, myself included).
He's a futurist (although he jokes he's a "present-ist" cuz everyone else is behind). He is very knowledgeable in the technology of the future and he is very aware of current internet trends (unlike the majority of his competition).
He's the guy the Republicans thought Trump would be, but isn't. And a lot of his supporters consider him as the new Bernie 2.0 of the 21st century. In fact, the majority of his supporters were once BernieBros. Essentially he has a lot of bi-partisan appeal. His slogan is "It's not left, it's not right, it's forward!".
He's a literal genius. The smartest candidate on that debate stage and I'm not even exaggerating this. At the age of 12 he completed in the 0.5 percentile in SAT scores. He has also completed the LSAT with a score of 178/180 which is insane. But probably one of his best educational accomplishments was that he completed the GMAT with a score of 780. To put this into perspective, the average score of someone that gets accepted to Harvard is 730. Yang is 50 points ABOVE that, which is a near impossible feat.
He founded Venture for America which is a non-profit organization that helps facilitate new entrepreneurs into the current job market and start new businesses. He created thousands of jobs throughout the country. He was honored by the Obama administration for this work, and received medals.
Despite being 44 years old, he's a really laid back, funny and charismatic guy. If you watch any of his long-form interviews, whether Joe Rogan, H3H3, or Ben Shapiro, you'll catch him throwing jokes and laughing quite often. Try this 9 minute speech and look at the faces of the DNC board behind him (skip to the last minute if you like).
He's the resident bad boy of the Democratic party. Just check out his childhood and school photos, complete with anti-establishment gusto 😂
He can play basketball, piano, skateboard, he's into video games and memes. Not sure if you caught it in last night's debate or the debate prior, but he even uses memes as ammo for the debates. For example, last night was Chapelle's modern solutions meme which he used against Warren. The debate prior, he used the Joker meme to defend his $120,000 give away to 10 families in an interview. I think the Yang subreddit has a lot to do with this.
Yang's campaign advisers are young, and most likely check out Yang's subreddit quite often. I get the sense that they're people just like you and me, not corporate cogs in some machine. This is Zach, his campaign manager. Their bromance is very real :')
Anyone who's read his book, the War on Normal People, will know that Yang was bullied in school and was often ridiculed. These were transformative years for him, and helped developed his personality. In parties, he would often find the wallflower in the room and start a conversation with them to make them feel appreciated. He's extremely wholesome, sympathetic, caring and forgiving.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

Edit: Links

Edit 2: Thanks for the silvers strangers!

u/happy-dude · 28 pointsr/changemyview

Most of his evidence is provided in the first 2/3 of his book, The War on Normal people. There is an audiobook available on YouTube if you have time in your commute to listen.

The problem of present-time thinking in that immigrants or globalization is causing the loss of jobs is that, while that may be a factor, the entire world is investing in automation in a scale that's difficult to comprehend. The moment when the tech hits a productivity and cost point that exceeds human capacity, it will overtake that employment sector FAST.

You can't have self-driving cars on the road with a 2% accident rate. But you can bet on 5G being implemented within 5 years so tel-operation of vehicles is a reality, at least until self-driving tech is perfected.

For automation, the enormous task that economists can't undertake is looking at the investments that big companies are making. Billions in research and development, and that is only glanced at by investors (not economists). All you really have to do to get a glimpse at the future is follow the money. Make no mistake: AI is already creating art, music, and diagnosing health issues. The question is when it will come, and what we will do about it.

Please also note that Universal Basic Income is not mutually exclusive with a Federal Jobs Guarantee. They can co-exist together, but there are reasons why UBI should come first.

Implementation-wise, a FJG is prone to problems because it is guaranteed income with a work-requirement. What about those who cannot work like caregivers, and stay-at-home parents? They are doing some of the most important work in our society, so what are they owed? What happens in a FJG when I am bad at the job, hate my boss, or in general working towards an unclear goal? What if those job positions are on the verge of automation and will not exist in the future? Do we continue doing work inefficiently just for the sake of having a body to fill it? What happens if I don't want to work for the government? And even more terrifying, what happens if the government shuts down?

These are only a few of the logistical issues with a FJG, and there are much more. Those difficult-to-answer questions themselves have immeasurable costs and bureaucracy.

Let's go to UBI. One of the core things about universal basic income that you're misunderstanding is that it isn't all about the money; first and foremost it decouples economic value and worth from individual self-worth. The Freedom Dividend is a return from the government recognizing that every American citizen innately has value and potential. The Freedom Dividend is pegged at $12,000 at year for a reason: that is the US poverty line. What the Freedom Dividend provides is the bare necessity to survive, put food on the table, clothes, and perhaps when combined with other individuals, a roof over your head. It is the ability to ensure better outcomes for yourself and those around you.

If you ever studied Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, you'll know what I am talking about.

Beyond the bare necessities, it also provides agency to better your own life and to fail gracefully. Knowing that you have basic income, would you continue doing a job that you don't like? UBI gives some economic leverage and negotiating power such that you can better argue for better work hours or salary. It is assurance that you can cut hours if necessary to go home and spend time with your children knowing that your income won't disappear the next month. UBI provides consent in employer-employee relationships, where there is an out to toxic/abusive/manipulative work environments.

Regarding financial "failure," check out this article on how the current US welfare system is built in a way that punishes the needy. However, poverty isn't the lack of character... It's just the lack of money.

Regarding

reducing incentives to work: This is untrue; if I were paid more, am I inclined to work less? People have an innate need for work and meaning, and UBI will not change that. All you have to do to inflect is ask yourself, family, and friends: what would you do if you won one of those $1,000 lottery scratch cards? Work is rarely on top of mind: they're going to spend it on other things like bills, debt, goods. These factors means it is pro-work because, where there is money being spent, there are jobs to be filled. Human-Centered Capitalism is important in this, because it puts economic value on more of the work society values and just not things that are great for GDP.
cutting other social services: Social welfare programs will still be funded and staffed, people just have the ability to opt-in for the Freedom Dividend if it serves them better, see the Medium article I posted
subsidizing employers: as mentioned before, UBI creates a scenario where a paid job isn't the only thing that provides the bare necessities to survive. Instead, it creates mobility and leverage for the employee; the employee can negotiate for better pay or hours thanks to UBI. If not, the employee can seek work elsewhere since the current employer no longer satisfies their needs and they aren't dependent on that sole source of income.

Going back to FJG and UBI, I'd argue that UBI should come first. As mentioned before, it provides negotiating leverage where there wasn't any before not only in this specific situation, but in EVERY employee-employer relationship. Please check out this panel of interviewers for a discussion between candidates -- there are many questions relating to UBI and FJG.

I apologize for such a lengthy and scattered response. There were many interconnected concerns that you had that seemed to be founded on misinformed foundations. I am not trying to change your mind, but I hope I framed the discussion and provided some resources that allows you do continue your own research from here. Please check out the many YouTube interviews with Andrew Yang and Scott Santens, who is a UBI advocate and expert.

Finally, regarding some of Andrew Yang's weaker policies. Proposals can and will change once in office. One strength of Yang is that he provides substance to his flagship policies, which allows substantial discussions on mechanics and feasibility. For weaker policies such as blockchain voting, you have to look at it like other candidates: is the spirit of the policy moving the needle in the right direction? Experts in the field are unsure about the feasibility of blockchain voting, but that does not mean that we should not approach it with a problem set in attempt to understand how it can help in future voting tech. Same with geo-engineering in his climate policy: there has been research done to suggest that geo-engineering cannot be done at a scale that substantially changes temperature with current funds and the timeframe, but that should not stop the government from looking into the techniques and possibilities, researching it themselves to see if there is a viable path forward. That is the spirit of the blockchain policy: there is a lot of talk about why there is promise and why there isn't, but no one has tried anything.

u/wwsq-12 · 4 pointsr/aznidentity

u/Erratic567 · 2 pointsr/YangForPresidentHQ

Part 2 of 3:

Yang is a kind of defector from the knowledge-worker class he once epitomized as an Ivy League-educated corporate lawyer and chief executive of a test-prep company. The seven years he spent building a nonprofit called Venture for America, matching graduates of top colleges with start-ups in Rust Belt cities, made him acutely conscious of both the injury that his cohort has done (and is working tirelessly to expand) in the service of corporate America, and the volatile reaction this injury has stirred up. His campaign is an attempt to fashion a technocratic response to populist demands — by simply giving people money. The overt emphasis on being an Asian American math nerd frames his signature policy, a universal basic income (UBI) of $1,000 per month for every American adult, as a responsible, sober-minded and data-driven measure to “rebalance the economy,” rather than the giveaway it looks like. The core mission of Yang’s campaign is to get people to see UBI, which he calls the “Freedom Dividend,” as the former rather than the latter, and he’s exploiting every angle he can — including stereotypes — toward that end.

Frustration with how little conventional politicians have done to address the onslaught from the next wave of technological disruption drove Yang into the presidential race. It’s a phenomenon he describes at length in his book, “The War on Normal People.” He says: “Donald Trump in 2016 said he was going to make America great again, and what was Hillary Clinton’s response? America’s already great,” adding, “That was not the right answer.” In Yang’s view, the right answer is a permanent stimulus routed through the pockets of every American to help them build a post-automation economy.

His belief is that, eventually, an American working class told to accept an ever-reduced standard of living — while the corporate beneficiaries of our system show indifference toward the despair, suicide, alcoholism and opiate abuse afflicting those left behind — could lash out with a fury that makes Trump look like a mild precursor. When Yang explains that “Trump got many of the problems right,” even if the president gets many solutions wrong, it is this dynamic he has in mind, and it is this economic wound that he proposes to heal with UBI and a raft of other policies focused on rescuing Americans from the zero-sum “mind-set of scarcity” currently deranging our politics.

Andrew Yang speaks to voters at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 9 in Des Moines. His emphasis on being an Asian American math nerd helps him pitch one of his central policy ideas: a universal basic income. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

Yang has somehow used the bleakest vision of any candidate to generate the most fun of all the campaigns: He has tweeted video of himself playing Rachmaninoff on the piano, skateboarded, crowd-surfed, done the Cupid Shuffle and challenged Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to a game of one-on-one basketball. The #YangGang calls out instances when their candidate is left off mainstream media infographics — neglect that only feeds their ardor. They love it when he revels in his underdog status, as he did when he tweeted, “It’s all fun and games until Andrew Yang passes you in the polls.”

Yang has cracked the code on how to be something that doesn’t have much precedent in our political culture: an Asian American man able to summon and inspire large, enthusiastic crowds across the country in support of his bid for national leadership, charismatic enough to commandeer a spotlight that no one had wanted to train on him. After interviewing him, Politico senior politics editor Charlie Mahtesian tweeted: “Yang was much better than some of the veteran pols we’ve seen before in the office — easy to see why he’s got a following. Authentic, comfortable in his own skin, able to articulate a coherent reason for running, minimal amount of b.s. in answers to a wide range of questions.” (Two other Democratic contenders, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), have Asian roots but don’t conspicuously frame themselves as Asian American candidates.)

It turns out that being this figure doesn’t entail being a scold about race. As Yang brought his Asian jokes to the televised debates (there’s also the one about knowing a lot of doctors), some Asian American progressives took him to task for embracing a facially positive stereotype that, in their view, is “reaffirming toxic tropes” and traps Asian Americans within a “model minority” framing. These critics were voicing the general strictness on matters of identity to which we are all supposed to defer these days. This month, Yang met with some of them and explained that while he respected and understood their objections, he sees it differently. And he’s not an outlier: In one 2018 study, when asked if people nowadays “don’t take racism seriously enough” or if they’re “too sensitive about things to do with race,” 73 percent of Asian Americans said people are “too sensitive,” more than the 60 percent overall who said the same.

u/GolokGolokGolok · 2 pointsr/YangForPresidentHQ

2/3

Yang is a kind of defector from the knowledge-worker class he once epitomized as an Ivy League-educated corporate lawyer and chief executive of a test-prep company. The seven years he spent building a nonprofit called Venture for America, matching graduates of top colleges with start-ups in Rust Belt cities, made him acutely conscious of both the injury that his cohort has done (and is working tirelessly to expand) in the service of corporate America, and the volatile reaction this injury has stirred up. His campaign is an attempt to fashion a technocratic response to populist demands — by simply giving people money. The overt emphasis on being an Asian American math nerd frames his signature policy, a universal basic income (UBI) of $1,000 per month for every American adult, as a responsible, sober-minded and data-driven measure to “rebalance the economy,” rather than the giveaway it looks like. The core mission of Yang’s campaign is to get people to see UBI, which he calls the “Freedom Dividend,” as the former rather than the latter, and he’s exploiting every angle he can — including stereotypes — toward that end.

Frustration with how little conventional politicians have done to address the onslaught from the next wave of technological disruption drove Yang into the presidential race. It’s a phenomenon he describes at length in his book, “The War on Normal People.” He says: “Donald Trump in 2016 said he was going to make America great again, and what was Hillary Clinton’s response? America’s already great,” adding, “That was not the right answer.” In Yang’s view, the right answer is a permanent stimulus routed through the pockets of every American to help them build a post-automation economy.

His belief is that, eventually, an American working class told to accept an ever-reduced standard of living — while the corporate beneficiaries of our system show indifference toward the despair, suicide, alcoholism and opiate abuse afflicting those left behind — could lash out with a fury that makes Trump look like a mild precursor. When Yang explains that “Trump got many of the problems right,” even if the president gets many solutions wrong, it is this dynamic he has in mind, and it is this economic wound that he proposes to heal with UBI and a raft of other policies focused on rescuing Americans from the zero-sum “mind-set of scarcity” currently deranging our politics.

Yang has somehow used the bleakest vision of any candidate to generate the most fun of all the campaigns: He has tweeted video of himself playing Rachmaninoff on the piano, skateboarded, crowd-surfed, done the Cupid Shuffle and challenged Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to a game of one-on-one basketball. The #YangGang calls out instances when their candidate is left off mainstream media infographics — neglect that only feeds their ardor. They love it when he revels in his underdog status, as he did when he tweeted, “It’s all fun and games until Andrew Yang passes you in the polls.”

Yang has cracked the code on how to be something that doesn’t have much precedent in our political culture: an Asian American man able to summon and inspire large, enthusiastic crowds across the country in support of his bid for national leadership, charismatic enough to commandeer a spotlight that no one had wanted to train on him. After interviewing him, Politico senior politics editor Charlie Mahtesian tweeted: “Yang was much better than some of the veteran pols we’ve seen before in the office — easy to see why he’s got a following. Authentic, comfortable in his own skin, able to articulate a coherent reason for running, minimal amount of b.s. in answers to a wide range of questions.” (Two other Democratic contenders, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), have Asian roots but don’t conspicuously frame themselves as Asian American candidates.)

It turns out that being this figure doesn’t entail being a scold about race. As Yang brought his Asian jokes to the televised debates (there’s also the one about knowing a lot of doctors), some Asian American progressives took him to task for embracing a facially positive stereotype that, in their view, is “reaffirming toxic tropes” and traps Asian Americans within a “model minority” framing. These critics were voicing the general strictness on matters of identity to which we are all supposed to defer these days. This month, Yang met with some of them and explained that while he respected and understood their objections, he sees it differently. And he’s not an outlier: In one 2018 study, when asked if people nowadays “don’t take racism seriously enough” or if they’re “too sensitive about things to do with race,” 73 percent of Asian Americans said people are “too sensitive,” more than the 60 percent overall who said the same.

u/DragonGod2718 · 2 pointsr/elonmusk

>Pete, to me, seems to be more thought out.

Have you read Andrew's Book?

u/YangQuotes2020 · 2 pointsr/YangForPresidentHQ

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8

Extra credit: https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414212/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=war+normal+people&qid=1568177230&s=gateway&sr=8-2

u/Mayln · 2 pointsr/YangForPresidentHQ

I suppose you can just buy from Amazon and Andrew will get 10%-15% royalties. https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414212/r

u/entheox · 2 pointsr/pics

If you want all of the facts and figures behind what he's saying, check out his book The War on Normal People. Or spend some time listening to his longform interviews to get more familiar with his goals and what he's trying to accomplish. Just search for Andrew Yang on YouTube, he's done a ton of really great interviews recently. I can link you some if you'd like.

u/aoxunwu · 1 pointr/YangForPresidentHQ

PART 2/3:

Yang is a kind of defector from the knowledge-worker class he once epitomized as an Ivy League-educated corporate lawyer and chief executive of a test-prep company. The seven years he spent building a nonprofit called Venture for America, matching graduates of top colleges with start-ups in Rust Belt cities, made him acutely conscious of both the injury that his cohort has done (and is working tirelessly to expand) in the service of corporate America, and the volatile reaction this injury has stirred up. His campaign is an attempt to fashion a technocratic response to populist demands — by simply giving people money. The overt emphasis on being an Asian American math nerd frames his signature policy, a universal basic income (UBI) of $1,000 per month for every American adult, as a responsible, sober-minded and data-driven measure to “rebalance the economy,” rather than the giveaway it looks like. The core mission of Yang’s campaign is to get people to see UBI, which he calls the “Freedom Dividend,” as the former rather than the latter, and he’s exploiting every angle he can — including stereotypes — toward that end.

Frustration with how little conventional politicians have done to address the onslaught from the next wave of technological disruption drove Yang into the presidential race. It’s a phenomenon he describes at length in his book, “The War on Normal People.” He says: “Donald Trump in 2016 said he was going to make America great again, and what was Hillary Clinton’s response? America’s already great,” adding, “That was not the right answer.” In Yang’s view, the right answer is a permanent stimulus routed through the pockets of every American to help them build a post-automation economy.

His belief is that, eventually, an American working class told to accept an ever-reduced standard of living — while the corporate beneficiaries of our system show indifference toward the despair, suicide, alcoholism and opiate abuse afflicting those left behind — could lash out with a fury that makes Trump look like a mild precursor. When Yang explains that “Trump got many of the problems right,” even if the president gets many solutions wrong, it is this dynamic he has in mind, and it is this economic wound that he proposes to heal with UBI and a raft of other policies focused on rescuing Americans from the zero-sum “mind-set of scarcity” currently deranging our politics.

Yang has somehow used the bleakest vision of any candidate to generate the most fun of all the campaigns: He has tweeted video of himself playing Rachmaninoff on the piano, skateboarded, crowd-surfed, done the Cupid Shuffle and challenged Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to a game of one-on-one basketball. The #YangGang calls out instances when their candidate is left off mainstream media infographics — neglect that only feeds their ardor. They love it when he revels in his underdog status, as he did when he tweeted, “It’s all fun and games until Andrew Yang passes you in the polls.”

Yang has cracked the code on how to be something that doesn’t have much precedent in our political culture: an Asian American man able to summon and inspire large, enthusiastic crowds across the country in support of his bid for national leadership, charismatic enough to commandeer a spotlight that no one had wanted to train on him. After interviewing him, Politico senior politics editor Charlie Mahtesian tweeted: “Yang was much better than some of the veteran pols we’ve seen before in the office — easy to see why he’s got a following. Authentic, comfortable in his own skin, able to articulate a coherent reason for running, minimal amount of b.s. in answers to a wide range of questions.” (Two other Democratic contenders, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), have Asian roots but don’t conspicuously frame themselves as Asian American candidates.)

It turns out that being this figure doesn’t entail being a scold about race. As Yang brought his Asian jokes to the televised debates (there’s also the one about knowing a lot of doctors), some Asian American progressives took him to task for embracing a facially positive stereotype that, in their view, is “reaffirming toxic tropes” and traps Asian Americans within a “model minority” framing. These critics were voicing the general strictness on matters of identity to which we are all supposed to defer these days. This month, Yang met with some of them and explained that while he respected and understood their objections, he sees it differently. And he’s not an outlier: In one 2018 study, when asked if people nowadays “don’t take racism seriously enough” or if they’re “too sensitive about things to do with race,” 73 percent of Asian Americans said people are “too sensitive,” more than the 60 percent overall who said the same.

u/RBIlios · 1 pointr/YangForPresidentHQ

Frustration with how little conventional politicians have done to address the onslaught from the next wave of technological disruption drove Yang into the presidential race. It’s a phenomenon he describes at length in his book, “The War on Normal People.” He says: “Donald Trump in 2016 said he was going to make America great again, and what was Hillary Clinton’s response? America’s already great,” adding, “That was not the right answer.” In Yang’s view, the right answer is a permanent stimulus routed through the pockets of every American to help them build a post-automation economy.

His belief is that, eventually, an American working class told to accept an ever-reduced standard of living — while the corporate beneficiaries of our system show indifference toward the despair, suicide, alcoholism and opiate abuse afflicting those left behind — could lash out with a fury that makes Trump look like a mild precursor. When Yang explains that “Trump got many of the problems right,” even if the president gets many solutions wrong, it is this dynamic he has in mind, and it is this economic wound that he proposes to heal with UBI and a raft of other policies focused on rescuing Americans from the zero-sum “mind-set of scarcity” currently deranging our politics.

Andrew Yang speaks to voters at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 9 in Des Moines. His emphasis on being an Asian American math nerd helps him pitch one of his central policy ideas: a universal basic income. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

Yang has somehow used the bleakest vision of any candidate to generate the most fun of all the campaigns: He has tweeted video of himself playing Rachmaninoff on the piano, skateboarded, crowd-surfed, done the Cupid Shuffle and challenged Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to a game of one-on-one basketball. The #YangGang calls out instances when their candidate is left off mainstream media infographics — neglect that only feeds their ardor. They love it when he revels in his underdog status, as he did when he tweeted, “It’s all fun and games until Andrew Yang passes you in the polls.”

Yang has cracked the code on how to be something that doesn’t have much precedent in our political culture: an Asian American man able to summon and inspire large, enthusiastic crowds across the country in support of his bid for national leadership, charismatic enough to commandeer a spotlight that no one had wanted to train on him. After interviewing him, Politico senior politics editor Charlie Mahtesian tweeted: “Yang was much better than some of the veteran pols we’ve seen before in the office — easy to see why he’s got a following. Authentic, comfortable in his own skin, able to articulate a coherent reason for running, minimal amount of b.s. in answers to a wide range of questions.” (Two other Democratic contenders, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), have Asian roots but don’t conspicuously frame themselves as Asian American candidates.)

It turns out that being this figure doesn’t entail being a scold about race. As Yang brought his Asian jokes to the televised debates (there’s also the one about knowing a lot of doctors), some Asian American progressives took him to task for embracing a facially positive stereotype that, in their view, is “reaffirming toxic tropes” and traps Asian Americans within a “model minority” framing. These critics were voicing the general strictness on matters of identity to which we are all supposed to defer these days. This month, Yang met with some of them and explained that while he respected and understood their objections, he sees it differently. And he’s not an outlier: In one 2018 study, when asked if people nowadays “don’t take racism seriously enough” or if they’re “too sensitive about things to do with race,” 73 percent of Asian Americans said people are “too sensitive,” more than the 60 percent overall who said the same.

Yang with supporters at a campaign event in New York in May. Their signs reference the candidate's ideas about "human capitalism" and his "MATH" slogan: Make America Think Harder. (Andres Kudacki/For The Washington Post)

The criticisms fundamentally miss Yang’s objectives. His humor breaks the ice surrounding the first thing you notice about him — and the thing audiences are least prepared to parse. It has the paradoxical effect of highlighting how few of the identity-based hopes or antagonisms plaguing other candidacies affect the Asian American guy “who wants to give everyone $1,000 a month.” Asian Americans, only about 6 percent of the population and heavily clustered in a few states, are often overlooked as a group. But given the overheated rhetoric surrounding other identity categories, for Yang, this lack of visibility could turn out to be a strength.

In the hierarchy of the schoolyard, the Andrew Yangs of the world were often the quarry of white bros like podcaster and “Saturday Night Live” washout Shane Gillis. But in the world run by Big Data, it’s Yang who is the New York millionaire with ties to Silicon Valley. When Yang forgave Gillis for mocking him as a “Jew C----,” it wasn’t just out of electoral expediency (though it was that, too) but because he believes that the key to stability between America’s hinterlands and urban areas, to averting the civil disorder he spells out in his book, is a truce. After watching Gillis’s comedy, Yang decided he wasn’t the evil pariah that the progressive consensus assessed but instead “a still-forming comedian from central Pennsylvania.” This magnanimity isn’t a capitulation, it’s a sign of strength.

Yang grasps that, despite the grievances many Asian Americans justifiably hold about discrimination, members of the best-educated and highest-earning group in America shouldn’t linger on victimhood.

u/ImNotExpectingMuch · 1 pointr/YangForPresidentHQ

Phone/text bank
Buy "The War on Normal People" - I think Yang is making personal contributions from the profits of this book? https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414212/ref=asc_df_0316414212/?tag=hyprod-20&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=334173482617&amp;hvpos=1o1&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=2035394017383040635&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=m&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=9052022&amp;hvtargid=pla-659476821549&amp;psc=1
Donate to Steve Dannely's patreon. I just got confirmation from him that anyone (even foreigners) can donate to him, since he isn't an official PAC and not working with the campaign. https://www.patreon.com/stevedannely

u/EvilBertMacklin · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Help yourself.
The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316414212/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_fgG1DbC39BDJV