Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 23, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
The Wing’s feminist work expands online
I
n a world so androcentric,
The Wing exists as a feminist
utopia
and
organization
whose mission is to connect “a
growing community of women
across the country and globe,
gathering
together
to
work,
connect, and thrive.” It provides a
range of services, like child care,
temperatures set for women’s
bodies, a women-focused lending
library,
conference
rooms,
showers, a calendar of events
ranging from former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton to feminst
icon Gloria Steinem to actress
Kerry Washington, pump rooms,
chairs ergonomically designed
for a range of women’s bodies,
podcast studios and a café.
And the female-oriented work
and community space just got
better.
The Wing recently announced
an online networking platform
for members. One of the most
important aspects of the platform
is a LinkedIn-like job board
where members can post and
hire for jobs, as well as post their
own resumes and availability
for freelance projects. Members
can also message each other and
connect online.
With their online expansion,
The Wing is broadening their
feminist work into online spaces
beyond their physical spaces in
cities like New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Boston, Washington,
D.C. and London.
In a time when fourth-wave
feminist ideals finally started
to
hit
mainstream
America
in
the
#MeToo
Movement
but ultimately ended in the
confirmation of Supreme Court
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who
was credibly accused of sexual
assault, the work The Wing is
doing is critically important.
Audrey Gelman, one of the
co-founders of The Wing, recently
told Kara Swisher of the “Recode
Decode” podcast, “(The company
is) about building a community …
(Our members) use it as a place, as
a community, as a network, as a
place to meet people.”
Gelman also noted how The
Wing was developed in the
fashion of women’s clubs in the
early 20th century. “We were very
inspired to create something that
was obviously more modern and
progressive and diverse, but that
had some of the spirit of those
clubs,” she said. While some have
pushed back on the company for
centering women, The Wing’s
website states, “The Wing is a
diverse community open to all.”
And if men were to enter the
premises, in Gelman’s words, “No,
we don’t taze them or anything.”
Additionally,
Gelman
discussed how their new online
jobs network eliminates some of
the bias that hinders women on
broader platforms like LinkedIn.
“Women are less likely to apply for
jobs if they don’t have exactly the
number of years of experience, so
we coach people about the right
way to post jobs to discourage
that and to encourage people
who
may
have
untraditional
backgrounds, etc., to apply,” she
said. “And just, obviously, making
sure that we’re building in safety
and moderation from the very
beginning, rather than having to
add it after a scandal.” Gelman
went on to tell Swisher the
company does not receive profit
from their new online platform as
it is just another tool to improve
women’s lives.
The
title
page
of
The
Wing’s website brands itself as
“advancing women by gathering
them together.” In many ways
this is true, but The Wing is doing
so much more. It is giving their
members the tools to hire from —
and be hired by — an incredible
community of women for jobs that
may have fallen victim to gender
bias on other job-posting sites.
In doing so, The Wing is
engaging in the actual work
of feminism. They are helping
women promote each other
in the workplace in order to
disrupt the “old boys club” that
has allowed men to maintain
their systematic dominance for
so long.
This work continues to be
desperately needed. In early
September,
Forbes
released
their list of the 100 most
innovative leaders. It included
just one woman, Ross Stores
CEO Barbara Rentler, whose
picture they did not even bother
to include. In fact, there were
more men named Stanley (and
Michael and Mark and John and
David and Jeffrey and Robert and
Brian separately) than women
on this list. And while Forbes
could have included innovators
like Susan Wojcicki, Indra Nooyi,
Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer
Hyman or The Wing co-founder
Audrey Gelman herself, it is true
that women lead just 5.4 percent
of S&P 500 companies — just
0.4 percent of which are women
of color. The Wing’s platform
enables women to uplift and
amplify other women, which is
a step in the right direction for
improving these disparities.
In the past, I have been critical
of sorority-like feminism found
in Instagram posts and T-shirts
emblazoned
with
feminist
mantras like “The Future is
Female.” Too often, this type
of feminism does not include
any work, as poet bell hooks
says, to “end sexism, sexist
exploitation and oppression.” It
stops short of work and settles for
individual feel-good actions that
do nothing to actually dismantle
funadmentally white supremacist
and
patriarchal
systems
of
oppression.
But I applaud The Wing for
its efforts to create spaces for
women to thrive and uplift each
other by taking, as Gelman says,
“iterative steps forward to make
life easier for women.” The word
“empowerment” is tossed around
so much that is has almost lost
all meaning, but in this case, The
Wing is truly empowering women
in significant, structural ways.
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
Yang and UBI — possible even if not probable
TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN
VARNA KODOTH | COLUMN
Writing from a rich place
“
I’m already discredited, I’m
already politicized, before
I get out of the gate,” The
late author Toni Morrison said
in an interview with Hilton Als
from The New Yorker Magazine.
Morrison went on: “‘I can accept
the labels’ — the adjectives like
‘black’ and ‘female’ that are often
attached to her work — ‘because
being a black woman writer is not
a shallow place but a rich place
to write from. It doesn’t limit my
imagination — it expands it. It’s
richer than being a white male
writer because I know more and
I’ve experienced more.’”
Morrison
beautifully
vocalizes the process by which
our identities are internalized
and
subconsciously
influence
what we produce. While this
idea applies to a diverse range
of disciplines and is not limited
to writing by any means, it
actually prompts a particularly
introspective question to grapple
with: to what extent do our
identities contribute to “good”
writing and also in a way, inform
our writing? On the flip side, how
do our identities impact how our
audiences’ view and understand
our
writing?
While
“good”
writing is a social construct at its
core, for exploration let’s follow
Morrison’s working definition
to say “good” writing signifies
richness in content.
I’ll start: I am a liberal, Indian-
American woman and daughter
to immigrants. Now that you
know this about me, does your
perception change as you read
the rest of this column?
It absolutely does, and you’re
lying to yourself if you object. It
is the blatant truth that our core
identities such as race, gender
and political affiliations affect
the way we interpret the world
just as much as it affects the
way the world views us and our
work. Most writers are opposed
to labels, but I wholeheartedly
disagree and side with Morrison
that they actually expand the
richness of our writing. Morrison
has never shied away from
being a “black woman writer.”
In fact, it’s essential to take
into account race, gender and
political affiliations of any author,
lecturer or instructor. Productive
dialogue results from confronting
different
opinions,
and
our
viewpoints are reflections of
our values and belief systems. In
order to properly engage with a
text, it’s necessary to look beyond
the superficial and instead take
into account the factors that play
a role in the creation of the text.
It’s important to view the
characteristics
that
make
us
unique, whether it be cultural,
spiritual or political, as a shared
experience.
Learning
together
is arguably the most successful
method by which to expand our
understanding of humanity. It’s
important
to
force
ourselves
and others into uncomfortable
spaces
and,
paradoxically,
to
grow
comfortable
with
the
uncomfortable. That being said,
Morrison’s being a “black woman
writer” does not automatically
make it her “responsibility to be
a teaching tool for white people”
about Black culture, in the same
way that Malcolm Gladwell isn’t
writing to an audience consisting
of 21-year old Indian-American
women like myself. Morrison’s
work and lasting legacy is defined
by her ability to create a new
space for women like herself. Her
writing founded new perspectives
on “Blackness” and beautifully
exposed deeply personal and
moving stories of Black women.
A personal favorite of mine, Toni
Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye,” tells
the story of Pecola Breedlove,
a young Black girl who prays
every single day for the beauty
of blue eyes. This story addresses
society’s obsession with beauty
and beauty standards set forth
by whiteness. Through Pecola’s
idolization
of
“beauty,”
the
reader witnesses the way in
which this toxic, normalized
precedent of beauty operates
from a young age and persists
into
adulthood.
Morrison
explains her purpose in the
forward of “The Bluest Eye.” This
text serves as a medium through
which to reclaim racial beauty.
There are elements to Pecola’s
story
that
resonate
within
Morrison and are intended to
ignite a fire within Black females
to enact change. Her stories must
be understood within the context
of her life experiences as a Black
woman in order to receive the
level of attention and response
that her writing demands.
It’d be a disservice to the
author, their experiences and
ourselves
to
tip-toe
around
discussing a writer’s text with
regards to their identities. What
comprises our identity is meant
to be displayed proudly to our
audiences. Sharing our innermost
traits and ideologies with those
who are open-minded will benefit
the masses by creating an open and
inclusive learning environment.
This is my final request: In an
attempt to not be racist, don’t go
so far as to be “color-blind” as
plenty of colleagues and friends
joke. Excluding and confronting
race as if it is a taboo subject only
further contributes to ingraining
the racist rhetoric that exists
within society. Here’s a general
rule of thumb: If it makes you
uncomfortable
to
talk
about
social and personal identities,
then that’s a clear sign to use
these formative years to educate,
engage and encourage yourself.
Become comfortable with the
uncomfortable.
Varna Kodoth can be reached at
vkodoth@umich.edu.
T
he 2020 presidential
election is over a year
away, and it’s already
running
at
full
speed. A field of more
than 20 Democratic
candidates
has
already
been
cut
in
half,
and
the
remaining
candidates are laser
focused on setting
themselves
apart
from the rest of the
pack. The spectrum
ranges from ultra-
progressives
such
as
Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren,
D-Mass.,
and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,
to more moderate candidates
like former Vice President Joe
Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg
of South Bend, Ind. The most
recent
Democratic
debate
saw the presidential hopefuls
discuss the most pressing issues
to voters for the 2020 election:
health
care,
gun
violence,
immigration and trade.
The
one
thing
all
the
candidates have in common:
political experience in one form
or another. Except, that is, for
Andrew Yang.
Yang, an Ivy League lawyer
turned entrepreneur then non-
profit founder, is running on a
central platform surrounding
universal basic income, labeled
by Yang and his campaign
as the “Freedom Dividend.”
The Freedom Dividend is a
proposed governmental social
program
that
gives
every
U.S. adult $1,000 a month for
the rest of their lives. On the
surface, this might seem to be
the first step toward a socialist
utopia
and
not
something
feasible in America. However,
when weighing the costs and
benefits of such a program,
it becomes more complicated
than labeling it simply as
“socialist” or “impossible.”
The economics of Yang’s
Freedom
Dividend
are
anything but straightforward,
as there are different estimates
on the exact costs and benefits
associated
with
his
policy.
According to Yang’s website,
the cost of UBI will be offset
through a variety of new taxes
and reduction in government
spending. First of all, Yang plans
to fund the Freedom Dividend
through something called a
Value Added Tax, or VAT. This
is a type of consumption tax
that taxes products whenever
value is added, at any point
in its supply chain — from
production to the final sale.
Almost
all
industrialized
countries employ some form of
VATs and it is most commonly
found among countries in the
European Union (the only major
industrial country who does
not use a VAT is the U.S.). In
addition to a new VAT, Yang says
funding for UBI would come
from a reduction in current
government expenditures, new
revenue generated by economic
growth as a result of the policy
and increasing taxes on things
such as financial transactions,
capital
gains
and
carbon
pollution.
In reality, funding UBI may
not be as simple as Yang makes
it out to be. According to the
UBI Center, a think
tank
researching
universal
basic
income
policies,
when
factoring
in
all forms of revenue
generation
that
would occur on top of
all the separate costs,
Yang’s
Freedom
Dividend would add
about
$1.4
trillion
to the budget deficit
annually. The Tax Foundation
published their own calculations
that put the net effect at just
under $1.5 trillion. That is not
to say that implementing UBI
necessarily increases the deficit.
Those same reports conclude a
version of UBI can be revenue
neutral but only with different
variables
plugged
in.
For
example, the VAT rate would
have to be closer to 22 percent
and the freedom dividend would
have to be reduced from $1,000
to $750 — as opposed to Yang’s
10 percent proposal — according
to the Tax Foundation.
The sticker cost is not the only
concern in regard to UBI. Other
worries include that of inflation:
If every American is receiving
$1,000 guaranteed each month,
won’t prices just increase at
the same rate? In short, not
really. Inflation tends to arise
from the supply of money, or
governments’ printing of new
money, and Yang’s UBI plan is
funded through “established”
money (taxes on money already
in circulation). We could expect
prices to increase marginally,
but only as a result of taxes
increasing
production
costs.
Yang’s main argument is that
for the average consumer the
net benefits would outweigh
these marginal price increases.
Another common concern is
that
cash
transfer
systems
discourage
people
from
working. However, $12,000 a
year is not enough to live off
of, so naturally people will still
need to work. In fact, a report
published by MIT researchers
that looks at cash transfer
programs in six developing
countries found “no systematic
evidence that cash transfer
programs discourage work.”
For those who claim UBI could
never work in the United States
and is only possible in wealthy
Scandinavian countries, there
is already one U.S. state that
has been practicing UBI since
the ‘70s: Alaska. Alaska set up
the Alaskan Permanent Fund in
1976 which generates revenue
from oil and mineral leases to
fund an annual stipend. Not only
do Alaskans now receive more
than $2,000 a month, a working
paper from the National Bureau
of Economic Research shows
that
the
implementation
of
Alaska’s UBI did not decrease
work in the state — a clear
reinforcement of UBI’s benefits.
There are other somewhat
intangible,
yet
incredibly
attractive, benefits to UBI as
well. An example that Yang
often speaks of is compensation
for work that is currently
undervalued, such as a stay-at-
home mom taking care of young
children
or
people
putting
more resources into creative
projects. It could also help small
businesses compete with larger
retailers, something incredibly
important to local communities
and cultures. It’s impossible to
calculate the exact economic
benefit from these examples,
but they are invaluable to our
society. UBI is one way to
support them.
Universal basic income is a
mixed bag that comes with clear
benefits and setbacks. While the
economics show it is technically
feasible, and has even been
successful in the U.S., it seems
Americans are still hesitant
to embrace UBI with open
arms. According to a recent
Gallup poll, only 48 percent of
Americans support UBI as a
way to help Americans who lost
their jobs because of advances
in artificial intelligence, and
the data suggests a major split
between
pro-UBI
younger
voters and anti-UBI older voters.
Essentially, the argument over
UBI boils down to political will.
On one hand, the benefits it
would generate both abstractly
and in real terms are genuinely
exciting
and
theoretically
possible. On the other hand,
Yang’s current plan would be
a massive economic burden on
the system as it stands today.
Would the benefits be worth
the increased debt? Or the
increased taxes needed to make
it revenue neutral? I’m not yet
convinced it would be.
Ultimately, I find myself torn
on UBI and Yang as a candidate.
He seems to be the Democratic
Party’s
ultimate
wild
card:
breaking
away
from
the
traditional progressive policies
supported by other candidates
while also avoiding the typical
anti-Trump rhetoric found in
the rest of the field. Many people
like to throw around the word
“electability” when talking about
who deserves support, but I’m
cautious of such ideas. After all,
an entrepreneur with no name
recognition has no business being
tied in the polls with the likes
of Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., yet
here we are. Even if Yang does not
become the Democratic nominee,
his ideas are refreshing and
worth talking about. Whether
you are a moderate Democrat, a
strong progressive or a curious
conservative, you should give
Andrew Yang and UBI deserve
more attention.
Timothy Spurlin can be reached at
timrspur@umich.edu.
TIMOTHY
SPURLIN
The economics of
Yang’s Freedom
Dividend are
anything but
straightforward
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. Letters should
be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the
writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
They are helping
women promote each
other in the workplace
in order to disrupt the
“old boys club”
To what extent
do our identities
contribute to
“good” writing?