'I Was Andrew Yang's First 'Freedom Dividend' Recipient - When He Fired Me'

[Eric J in MN]

Then, Andrew Yang became president of the company. He had taught a couple of classes over the years, so I knew him already, but he was not at all involved in the company's operations before then. He promoted me to Senior Director just after he started, and again, I hit all of my growth targets.

Imagine my surprise, then, that on the third day that I was back to work after my honeymoon in 2007, Andrew Yang fired me. Our private discussion, in his office with the door closed, began with Andrew's remarks that because I was married, I wouldn't want to continue working as hard as I had been. That as a wife, I'd be focused on my new life.

https://www.gothamgazette.com/opinion/8801-i-was-andrew-yangs-first-freedom-dividend-recipient-he-fired-me

[JI7]

1. not surprised

[LincolnRossiter]

2. Yeeesh. Talk about cringeworthy.

NT

[Beakybird]

3. I hope he fades. Article doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[brush]

9. Sounds like a right wing hit piece. Don't just accept it as fact.

[Siwsan]

4. Interesting read, that's for sure.

I'm someone who thinks anyone with no government experience, who is running for POTUS, might have less than altruistic intentions. That goes double for 'businessmen' and 'entrepreneurs'.

[dalton99a]

5. Typical tech bro

Elon Musk fired his assistant of 12 years because she asked for a raise

[Polly Hennessey]

6. Not sure I buy into her accusation.

Would like to hear Andrew Yang’s version. Did she complain before he became a household name? Timing is questionable.

[Sherman A1]

7. It certainly appears to be questionable timing

and I too would like to hear both sides of this story.

[Politicub]

8. This is a right-wing hit piece on Yang and his UBI approach.

If what she said happened -- that she was let go for being "a wife" -- then she could have sued Yang and won. That would have been justice. Instead, she accuses him of bribery. Something about this story is off.

Until you reach the end of the story. There she reveals her right-wing agenda:

The “freedom dividend” means that workers are no longer believed to be valuable, that they can't learn new skills, develop new industries and adapt to an ever-evolving existence in our great country. What a depressing approach to the future!

[Sapient Donkey]

13. That could also be coming from the left too.

There are arguments against his form of UBI that also come from folks on the left. The main thing is that with his UBI plan people can either keep whatever benefits they receive now, or they can opt to get the "freedom dividend" that starts at like $1k/mo (I'm sure you know this) The argument against this that I've seen from the left is that this is meant to be replacement for all the welfare programs and $1,000/mo isn't enough for people with kids and/or disabilities that prevent them from having any employment. This isn't really a fair argument because they are ignoring the fact that under yang's plan they would be able to maintain their current situation. Yang's UBI works out to be more of an income supplement.

But if it's paid for with a VAT, then it's likely there will be some increases in goods and services that will hit everyone. So those people who are barely surviving on welfare will end up feeling that even if the increases are fairly small. After all, the less money you have the more value a single dollar has to you. Ya know? I'm certain we've all been in situations at one point in our lives in which $20 had a similar importance to us than a $1,000 might have had at some other point in our lives. There is also the concern that even if there are changes made in welfare programs to compensate for the increases, then those people will still be economically stagnant. They won't get that same boost as those who are able to find moderately paying full-time employment. So there are worries it will make people apathetic about minimum wage increases or whatever else. I'm sure there are plenty of other arguments I left out.

I see some valid points being made. I don't agree with it all, but it's something that should be discussed and debated. Sadly most of the time these "discussions" are not actually discussions of pros and cons, but just people trying to prove themselves right at all costs. Which usually means ignoring what they don't want to acknowledge and making stretches to support whatever point they are trying to make.

[rogue emissary]

10. Question to those that think this is just a hit peace.

How is this a hit peace if the information in it is true?

[Sapient Donkey]

12. Well, Yang denies that is why he fired her

Based on her comments about his platform it's clear she doesn't agree with his idea of UBI. Also, she says he violated her economically and ruined her financially despite her having two years of full pay. Also, why did she take so long to come out about this? He announced his candidacy back in 2018, and his popularity shot up around February of this year when he went on a popular podcast and began getting more time on other media. Then, of course, we had the last few debates.

Why do we believe one person over the other person? I suppose it could be true, but the fact she is speaking out against his platform too makes me wonder what her motives are. Also, if Yang came out with a detailed account of why he fired her, would that be a violation of her privacy and how would that go over?

[Skidmore]

11. My hairdresser and I were

discussing candidates during my appointment. She's not impressed with Yang or his supporters. She's a solid Democrat in her thirties. Said she thinks that he's looking for a problem he's actively creating to assuage his conscious. Says his followers give the appearance of waiting for an allowance. She had researched studies done on the basis of his proposal and they do not have good outcomes.

Just reporting. Rule of thumb: never argue with someone who has scissors near your head.