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?