by Andrew Yang
Reading that list probably makes one yearn for a simpler time. A better approach today would be to try to supercharge the existing interests and opportunities of businesses, people, and local organizations. A UBI would go a long way in this direction. For example, let’s imagine a local nonprofit providing after-school recreation for underprivileged kids. It has five employees making $30,000 a year right now. With a UBI, they might be able to hire seven employees at $21,000 a year instead, a 40 percent increase in staffing, because people with a level of financial security might take the job for less. The same would go for a school’s ability to utilize volunteers to provide teacher support, a church’s ability to enlist mentors, and so on. Dutch professor Robert J. van der Veen and economist Philippe van Parijs observed that a UBI will bring down the average wage rate for attractive, intrinsically rewarding work. The fun things that people want to do that are socially and personally rewarding will pay less, but many more people will want to do them anyway. Jobs and purpose will in part be provided by more people teaching children, coaching others, caring for loved ones, and the like.
There will also be a dramatic expansion of painting, making music, shooting videos, playing sports, writing, and all of the creative pursuits many Americans would love to try, but can’t seem to find the time for today. Many people have some artistic passion that they would pursue if they didn’t need to worry about feeding themselves next month. A UBI would be perhaps the greatest catalyst to human creativity we have ever seen.
Perhaps most crucially, endless new businesses would form. If you are in a town of 5,000 people in Missouri and everyone is struggling to get by, starting, say, a bakery may not be that attractive. But with a UBI, there will be an additional $60 million being spent in that town next year. You personally will have an income to fall back on if the bakery doesn’t work out. Now, the bakery may strike you as a great idea. Getting your friends and family excited about it would be a lot easier, too. This would play out over and over again throughout the economy, resulting in millions of new jobs—4.7 million according to the Roosevelt Institute’s analysis. A UBI would address a significant proportion of the lack of work through increased humanity, caring, creativity, and enterprise.
That said, we are going to have to do much more.
Picture the average truck driver who gets sent home in 2026. Let’s call him Ted. He’s 49, has health problems, dropped out of college after a year, had a series of construction jobs, and then was a trucker for 12 years before automation eliminated his job. He lives in a modest mobile home in Oklahoma. He has a child but is no longer with the mother, who lives a couple of towns away, and sees his son once or twice per month. He has some hobbies and interests that involve the outdoors. He’s used to being on the road four days a week and talking to his fellow truckers on the radio. He likes to drink. He was brought up Christian but hasn’t been to church in years. There aren’t many job opportunities for Ted nearby, and he doesn’t want to move. Thanks to his savings, the Freedom Dividend, and the settlement he received from the Trucker Transition Act of 2022, he can get by financially if he’s frugal. Left to his own devices, Ted will likely spend a lot of time watching TV, drinking, and having his health deteriorate. The goal is for Ted to acquire a set of interests and relationships that replace the structure that work used to provide.
Now, let’s imagine Ted is in his home in Oklahoma, settling into his recliner watching videos on his TV—he doesn’t like the new VR goggles some of the kids use. He gets a message on his phone. It says, “One of your neighbors, Annie, could use some help changing her propane tank. Would you like to help her?” It includes a profile picture of Annie, who is a 60-year-old woman who lives nearby. Ted shrugs and responds “Yes” and puts in a time for later that day. At one p.m., Ted drives over to Annie’s house and swaps out her depleted propane tank for a new one from Lowe’s. His back hurts a little as he moves the tank, but it makes him feel useful. Annie profusely thanks him and they make some small talk. Annie worked as a secretary at a nearby hospital—her wrists are fragile. It turns out her children went to the same high school as Ted.
Ted returns to his house. Later, he gets a message saying, “Thanks for helping Annie! You have earned 100 Social Credits. You now have 1,600 Social Credits banked. You have earned 14,800 Social Credits over your lifetime.” He also gets a message from Annie saying, “Thank you for the help. You’re a lifesaver.” He replies, “No problem. Happy to help.” He takes on an assignment like this once or twice a day—generally moving something around or picking someone up. He’s hoping to meet someone with a dog that he can borrow for the next time his son visits. His boy likes dogs. He could post a request on the Tulsa Digital Social Credit Exchange but would prefer not to—he doesn’t really like asking for help. He prefers to help others and earn credits. He has his eye on a couple of deals for Thunder tickets or to buy a tent at Cabela’s. He used a bunch of Social Credits to pay for a fishing trip earlier in the year. His local poker game just started using Social Credits instead of dollars, too—a couple of the guys had just started volunteering at the local youth center so they were swimming in credits.
Maybe you smirked in disbelief at my concept of Social Credits, but this scenario is based on a system currently in use in about 200 communities around the United States called time banking. Time banking is a system through which people trade time and build credits within communities by performing various helpful tasks—transporting an item, walking a dog, cleaning up a yard, cooking a meal, providing a ride to the doctor, and so on. The idea was championed in the mid-1990s in the United States by Edgar Cahn, a law professor and antipoverty activist as a way to strengthen communities.
For example, in Brattleboro, Vermont, today, 315 members of the local time bank have exchanged 64,000 hours of mutual work over the past eight years. The Brattleboro time bank was started by two graduate students with 30 members in 2009 and has grown each year. Amanda Witman, a 40-year-old single mother, wrote about her experience: “Three years ago, I was in a tough spot. My husband and I had separated, and I was in a large house that needed lots of repairs. I was home-schooling my kids and working part-time from home doing website customer service. I had a huge financial challenge. My friends knew I was overwhelmed, and more than one said I should join the Brattleboro Time Trade. At first I thought, Who has time to trade? Then I learned that you can run a deficit—get help immediately and pay back the time when you’re able. So I posted requests on the website to fix up my house. I’d hoped one or two members would respond, but a bunch of people ended up offering assistance. Randy Bright fixed holes in the wall and replaced my water-pressure tank. Other people hauled a bunch of stuff to the dump, replaced ancient wiring and helped me plant a vegetable garden. Before joining the group, I never would have been comfortable requesting all that help. But you don’t feel like you’re pestering anyone, because people happily volunteer for the jobs and they always show up with a smile. And even though I’m so tight on time, I’ve always been able to find jobs that fit my schedule, like baby-sitting or making someone a meal. In fact, my whole family pitches in. I’ll tell my kids—Everest, 15, Alden, 14, Ellery, 11, and Avery, 9—that we’re stacking wood for our neighbor in order to get our light fixture fixed. It makes them feel useful. In fact, we’ve come to realize the value of some of our hobbies, like making music. Once, we earned four time-trade hours by playing together as a family at a local garden party: two fiddles, a guitar and a pennywhistle!”
Said Randy Bright, the 49-year-old handyman on the other end of the exchange, “When I joined, it was clear that handy people were in high demand. And, since I am divorced, I thought, Great, I’ll meet single women! That hasn’t panned out yet, but I have expanded my circle of friends. I’ve used some of my time-trade hours for home-cooked meals. It has aided me financially, too: I’ve developed a referral network that has helped get my own energy-efficiency business off the ground. My private business keeps me busy, but I still do time trades, and I often
donate the hours I earn. The trades give me something intangible that just makes me feel good. I especially like showing my daughter, Nora (who’s 14 and often comes along to help out) that not every exchange is about money.”
Edgar Cahn, the founder of Time Banking, was the former speechwriter for Robert F. Kennedy, who was looking for new ways to fight poverty at a time when “money for social programs [had] dried up.” He wrote, “Americans face at least three interlocking sets of problems: growing inequality in access by those at the bottom to the most basic goods and services; increasing social problems stemming from the need to rebuild family, neighborhood and community; and a growing disillusion with public programs designed to address these problems.” He proposed that time banking could “[rebuild] the infrastructure of trust and caring that can strengthen families and communities.”
Despite the success of time banks in communities like Brattleboro, they have not caught hold that widely around the United States in part because they require a certain level of administration and resources to operate.
Now imagine a supercharged version of time banking backed by the U.S. government where in addition to providing social value, there’s real monetary value underlying it. This new currency—Digital Social Credits (DSCs or Social Credits)—would reward people for doing things that serve the community. The government would seed each market with an initial investment, but administrators would be local. DSCs would be targeted toward regions and communities that demonstrate a need for increased cohesion. You would earn a number of Social Credits anytime you do something for a neighbor—babysit a child, staff a garage sale, fix an appliance, play music at a party, and so on. You would also get Social Credits anytime you volunteer at the local shelter, participate in a town fair, coach the Little League, take a new course, paint a mural, play in a local band, mentor a young person, and so on. Existing organizations could award and earn Social Credits based on how many people they assist.
The government could put up significant levels of DSCs as prizes and incentives for major initiatives. For example, “100 million DSCs to reduce obesity levels in Mississippi” or “1 billion DSCs to improve high school graduation rates in Illinois” and then let people take various actions to collect it. Companies could help meet goals and create and sponsor campaigns around various causes. Nonprofits and NGOs would generate DSCs based on how much good they do and then distribute it back to volunteers and employees. New organizations and initiatives could be crowdfunded by DSCs instead of money, as people “vote” by sending points in. Events and media that draw crowds would receive DSCs based on the number of people that attend or upvote it; the currency would become a new way to support journalism, creativity, and local events.
Some might ask, “Why create a new digital currency instead of just using dollars?” First, people will respond to points in a different way than they would if they were paid very low monetary amounts. If you tell me I’m getting $2 to do something, I may ignore it. But if it’s 200 points, I’ll find it strangely compelling. People right now spend countless hours becoming Yelp Elite, King Wazers, Mayors on Foursquare, Google Local Guides, and other online equivalents based upon points and social rewards.
Second, everyone will feel much more open and comfortable sharing balances if it’s a new social currency. You want people to advertise and reinforce their behavior. Behavior is much more likely to be reinforced if it’s social and recognized. That’s one reason why people are more likely to lose weight or achieve fitness goals when they are part of a group effort.
Third, by creating a new currency, the government could essentially induce billions of dollars of positive social activity without having to spend nearly that amount.
As individuals rack up DSCs, they would have both a permanent balance they’ve earned over their lifetime and a current balance. They could cash in the points for experiences, purchases with participating vendors, or support for causes, and transfer points to others for special occasions. As their permanent balance gets higher, they might qualify for various perks like throwing a pitch at a local ballgame, an audience with their local congressperson, or meeting their state’s most civic-minded athlete or celebrity. Maybe the community’s leading DSC earner would even get a special trip to the White House. People and companies could use cash to buy DSCs—this would help fund the system—but these DSCs would appear as a different color and be clearly purchased, not earned.
We could create an entire new parallel economy around social good.
The most socially detached would be the most likely to ignore all of this. But many people love rewards and feeling valued. I get obsessed with completing the 10-punch card for a free sandwich at my local deli. We could spur unprecedented levels of social activity without spending that much. Heck, DSCs could become cooler than dollars, because you could advertise how much you have and it’s socially acceptable. If you wanted to spur adoption, you could target various rewards and campaigns toward particular demographics and areas; things done for people with lower levels of DSCs could count for extra.
The DSC system would be an example of harnessing market dynamics to spur social good. The federal government would help set up and fund the platform but it would be up to local governments, nonprofits, individuals, and companies to figure out the best ways to achieve various goals. The overall goal would be to improve social cohesion and maintain high levels of engagement for people in a post-work economy.
The Freedom Dividend would elevate society beyond a need for subsistence and scarcity. The Digital Social Credit would tie together communities and give people a way to both generate value and feel valued regardless of how the market regards their time.
NINETEEN
HUMAN CAPITALISM
Imagine an AI life coach with the voice of Oprah or Tom Hanks trying to help parents stay together or raise kids. Or a new Legion of Builders and Demolishers that installs millions of solar panels across the country, upgrades our infrastructure, and removes derelict buildings while also employing tens of thousands of workers. Or a digital personalized education subscription that is constantly giving you new material and grouping you with a few other people who are studying the same thing. Or a wearable device that monitors your vital signs and sends data to your doctor while recommending occasional behavior changes. Or voting securely in your local elections via your smartphone without any worry of fraud.
Each of these scenarios is possible right now with current technology. But the resources and market incentives for them do not exist. There is limited or no market reward at present for keeping families together, upgrading infrastructure, lifelong education, preventative care, or improving democracy. While our smartphones get smarter each season, propelled by tens of billions of dollars, our voting machines, bridges, and schools languish in the 1960s.
This is what we must change.
At present, the market systematically tends to undervalue many things, activities, and people, many of which are core to the human experience. Consider:
• Parenting or caring for loved ones
• Teaching or nurturing children
• Arts and creativity
• Serving the poor
• Working in struggling regions or environments
• The environment
• Reading
• Preventative care
• Character
• Infrastructure and public transportation
• Journalism
• Women
• People of color/underrepresented minorities
And now, increasingly,
• Unskilled labor and normal people
• Meaningful community connections
• Small independent businesses
• Effective government
There were periods when the market supported some of these things more than it does today. Today, it needs to be steered to do so. The United States has reached a point where its current form of capitalism is faltering in producing an increasin
g standard of living for the majority of its citizens. It’s time for an upgrade.
THE NEXT STAGE OF CAPITALISM
Adam Smith, the Scottish economist who wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, is often regarded as the father of modern capitalism. His ideas of an invisible hand that guides the market, division of labor, and that self-interest and competition lead to wealth creation have been so deeply internalized that today we take most of them for granted. Our general thinking today is to contrast capitalism with socialism, which arose in the 1800s and advocated social ownership or democratic control of industries. Karl Marx published Das Kapital in 1867 and argued that capitalism contained internal tensions that would oppress the working class, who would eventually rise up and take control. Our perception is that capitalism—embodied by the West and the United States—won the war of ideas by generating immense growth and wealth and elevating the standard of living of billions of people. Socialism—represented by the Soviet Union, which collapsed in 1991, and China, which moderated its approach in the 1980s—didn’t work in practice and was thoroughly discredited.
This simplistic assessment misses a couple important points. First, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist system. There have been many different forms of Western capitalist economies going back centuries, ever since money was invented around 7,000 years ago. The market feudalism of the Middle Ages evolved into the expansionist mercantilism of European trading companies, which evolved into the industrial capitalism of 20th-century America, and into the welfare capitalism of the 1960s when the United States and many other advanced countries established safety net programs like Medicaid. Our current form of institutional capitalism and corporatism is just the latest of many different versions.