Speaker 1: Pushkin, this is solvable. On Jacob Weisberg, we're pledging one
Speaker 1: billion dollars per year to alleviate extreme poverty in New
Speaker 1: York City. New York's problems are a microcosm of America's
Speaker 1: economic challenges. But how far we'll even a billion dollars
Speaker 1: get us in the biggest city in the country. Across
Speaker 1: the country, millions more people are struggling with unemployment, unpaid bills,
Speaker 1: and sometimes hunger. And for those who are poor to
Speaker 1: begin with, things maybe even worse. If a family winds
Speaker 1: up in our shelter system, we are spending six thousand
Speaker 1: dollars per month on that family, And so if you
Speaker 1: spend a fraction of that keeping someone in their home
Speaker 1: and they don't wind up in our shelter system, it's
Speaker 1: actually a win. Andrew Yang became a household name running
Speaker 1: for president on a platform of a guaranteed income for everyone.
Speaker 1: Now he's running for mayor of New York City, and
Speaker 1: his message is similar. He wants to get cash into
Speaker 1: the hands of people who need it urgently. Eleven US
Speaker 1: cities have committed to versions of cash assistance programs or
Speaker 1: guaranteed income, including Stockton, California, Hudson, New York, Saint Paul,
Speaker 1: and Pittsburgh. Eighty five percent of Americans are for a
Speaker 1: cash relief during the pandemic, and fifty five percent are
Speaker 1: for an in perpetuity. Is this another example of something
Speaker 1: where you just have to invent a local version of
Speaker 1: it because the more rationalized national solution isn't available to you. Well,
Speaker 1: you said it, I didn't, Jacob. New York is a
Speaker 1: city with over eight million people. If something works here,
Speaker 1: it could work anywhere. Yang's plan could provide a powerful
Speaker 1: case study for the rest of the country. I'm Andrew Yang,
Speaker 1: and my solvable is extreme poverty in New York City.
Speaker 1: We can solve it, we can eradicate it. Andrew Yang
Speaker 1: is pushing for a new kind of universal basic income.
Speaker 1: This time it's targeted, which is an oxymoron. How can
Speaker 1: you support something universally but deliver it selectively. I started
Speaker 1: by asking him to explain how something like UBI could
Speaker 1: work in New York City. So you do have to
Speaker 1: draw lines and parameters. You know, it's not feasible for
Speaker 1: us to give all eight point three million New Yorkers
Speaker 1: a certain amount of cash, So we are targeting the
Speaker 1: half a million New Yorkers who are in extreme poverty,
Speaker 1: and our goal is to lift them up so that
Speaker 1: they have at least a certain baseline level of resources.
Speaker 1: It's more of a guaranteed minimum income in New York
Speaker 1: City than it is a universal basic income that we're
Speaker 1: looking to implement. And where do you set the baseline?
Speaker 1: What would be the monthly payment to someone now in
Speaker 1: extreme poverty in New York City. So the monthly payment
Speaker 1: to get the five hundred thousand porous New Yorkers out
Speaker 1: of extreme poverty averages out to two thousand dollars per
Speaker 1: person per year. So we're pledging one billion dollars per
Speaker 1: year to alleviate extreme poverty in New York City. And
Speaker 1: just in terms of the numbers, can two thousand dollars
Speaker 1: really lift someone out of poverty? That doesn't sound like
Speaker 1: a lot of money, especially in New York spread over
Speaker 1: a year. Well, extreme poverty is defined as half the
Speaker 1: poverty level, and so you have people that are making five,
Speaker 1: eight ten thousand dollars a year that two thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year would be an extraordinary boost for them. And
Speaker 1: the two thousand dollars is an average level. Some will
Speaker 1: get one, some will get three. It pushes them to
Speaker 1: a level where they're very very basic needs have a
Speaker 1: higher chance of being met. But we have a comprehensive
Speaker 1: anti poverty agenda to supplement this cash relief. If you
Speaker 1: look at the population who struggling with poverty in New
Speaker 1: York City, it overlaps very heavily with the twelve percent
Speaker 1: of New York City residents who are unbanked. And a
Speaker 1: lot of this population is undocumented where they're scared to
Speaker 1: try and access basic financial services because they're afraid that
Speaker 1: they'll get targeted in some way. So right now they're
Speaker 1: spending hundreds of dollars a year that they don't have,
Speaker 1: in some cases even thousands on check cashers, money lenders,
Speaker 1: pawn shops that are charging you serious rates. So we
Speaker 1: can simultaneously integrate more of the New Yorkers who are
Speaker 1: struggling the most into our financial system in a way
Speaker 1: that gets them away from these check cashers and money
Speaker 1: lenders that are charging them and also get some money
Speaker 1: into their hands to help meet their basic needs. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I know you have this interesting idea of a
Speaker 1: people's bank. Can you explain how that would work in
Speaker 1: New York? So the People's Bank is nonprofit fund that
Speaker 1: we will use to augment the resources available to community
Speaker 1: development financial institutions, which includes credit unions, and a lot
Speaker 1: of these CDFIs are doing great work reducing the unbanked
Speaker 1: population because they're in these communities. They're trying to plug
Speaker 1: people in to the financial system, and so the People's
Speaker 1: Bank is a way to get more resources to the
Speaker 1: organizations that are touching people and doing the work every day.
Speaker 1: The other thing that the People's Bank is going to
Speaker 1: do is it's going to work with traditional financial institutions
Speaker 1: to have a safe bank account for folks of any status.
Speaker 1: So you can walk into a city bank with an
Speaker 1: id NYC open to save bank account under the People's
Speaker 1: Bank brand name of the People's Bank seal. So it's
Speaker 1: a way to integrate people in the financial system by
Speaker 1: getting more resources to community organizations and also having like
Speaker 1: a trusted seal that will give them confidence that they
Speaker 1: can get a bank account even at like they're a
Speaker 1: local branch. A lot of people talk about doing that
Speaker 1: nationally through the post office, which is in fact what
Speaker 1: they do in some other countries. In France, I know
Speaker 1: you can do your banking at a small scale at
Speaker 1: the post office. Is this another example of something where
Speaker 1: you just have to invent a local version of it
Speaker 1: because the more rationalized national solution isn't available to you. Well,
Speaker 1: you said it, I didn't, Jacob, but I was for
Speaker 1: postal banking when I was running for president. It's common sense,
Speaker 1: the no brainer. Other countries do it. You know, you
Speaker 1: have to give the post office like more things to do, frankly,
Speaker 1: like in a lot of these places, because like you
Speaker 1: know that the carriage of mail isn't necessarily sustaining it.
Speaker 1: And so let's say that you have that vision running
Speaker 1: for president, and then you're like, hey, I'm running for
Speaker 1: mayor of New York City, Now, like, what can we
Speaker 1: do that's going to try and solve some of the
Speaker 1: same problems. And that's actually a pretty good example of
Speaker 1: the way we're approaching New York City's problems is obviously
Speaker 1: you have different operating realities, you have different levels of resources,
Speaker 1: But what can you do with the resources that you
Speaker 1: have that actually solve some of the same problems. New
Speaker 1: York presents a special case, Andrew, because it's such an
Speaker 1: expensive place to live, and based on studies I've read
Speaker 1: in the past, for people who didn't go to college.
Speaker 1: There are very few jobs in New York, in the
Speaker 1: New York area that provide a middle class income first family.
Speaker 1: I think the unionized building trades are, you know, probably
Speaker 1: the only major source of middle class something resembling a
Speaker 1: middle class living for people who don't have college degrees.
Speaker 1: Does your plan really address the depth of that problem,
Speaker 1: that there's just a mismatch between what a cost to
Speaker 1: live here and what jobs pay if you if you
Speaker 1: don't have some higher education. Well, Jacob, you're you're pointing
Speaker 1: out some of the long running problems in New York City,
Speaker 1: and they're all tied together. So one thing you're describing
Speaker 1: is you have an economy that disproportionately will reward folks
Speaker 1: who are skilled and have certain levels of education. And
Speaker 1: that's true nationwide, but it's it's more true in New
Speaker 1: York City. To your point, the fact that there are
Speaker 1: actually meaningful unions and organizations fighting for folks who don't
Speaker 1: have college degrees has been an enormous path to the
Speaker 1: middle class for ten hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers,
Speaker 1: and that actually distinguishes New York from a lot of
Speaker 1: other environments. I mean, like like, the unions are a
Speaker 1: more powerful presence for mobility here than they are in
Speaker 1: other parts of the country. So then you have folks
Speaker 1: who are not unionized and who have low levels of education,
Speaker 1: and to your point, a lot of them are just
Speaker 1: scraping by. You have to try and attack the affordability issues,
Speaker 1: and the most intractable of them is clearly housing. Just
Speaker 1: living in New York City is very expensive, to your point,
Speaker 1: and so that's something that we have to try to
Speaker 1: invest in at a much higher level than we have.
Speaker 1: And I think there are opportunities there, in part because
Speaker 1: right now, frankly, vacancies in rental apartments are at multi
Speaker 1: decade highs because of COVID. Our hotels are eighty to
Speaker 1: ninety percent unoccupied because we're missing so many tourists. There
Speaker 1: are opportunities to convert some of the buildings right now
Speaker 1: that are vacant and unused too affordable housing, to try
Speaker 1: and have the opportunity meet the need. Your presidential campaign
Speaker 1: captured a lot of people's imagination because this was a
Speaker 1: big idea and also it's interesting background is a neither
Speaker 1: left nor right idea, but it was a lot more
Speaker 1: money for a lot more people. It really was universal,
Speaker 1: and it really was something resembling a minimum standard of
Speaker 1: living for everybody. This plan, by comparison, just seems not
Speaker 1: that much money for that not that many people. Is
Speaker 1: that just the fiscal reality of New York City that
Speaker 1: this is all you can do? Well, Jacob, I think
Speaker 1: that most people realize that if Andreang had his way,
Speaker 1: we'd all beginning one thousand dollars a month at this point,
Speaker 1: I think that doesn't go fire it up like with COVID,
Speaker 1: I'd probably be more like the two thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: month level. And I think there are really creative ways
Speaker 1: that we can get more buying power to the hands
Speaker 1: of New Yorkers. So there are yeshivas in Brooklyn that
Speaker 1: ask the parents of the children to buy two thousand
Speaker 1: dollars worth of vouchers to locally own small businesses. They
Speaker 1: buy these vouchers, they then use them at the locally
Speaker 1: owned small businesses. The businesses turn them into the yeshiva,
Speaker 1: and then the yeshiva takes a cut, let's call it
Speaker 1: fifteen percent. So this is a massive fundraiser every year
Speaker 1: for the yeshivas, and the small businesses win because they're
Speaker 1: getting a lot of business that they might not have
Speaker 1: gotten otherwise. If New York City were a country, we
Speaker 1: would be the eleventh biggest economy in the world. We're
Speaker 1: a very vast, diverse economy. There are ways that we
Speaker 1: can get buying power into people's hands that get funneled
Speaker 1: straight to locally owned small businesses in a way that's
Speaker 1: value multiplying. And so when you look at the problems
Speaker 1: we're trying to solve, we do have a crisis among
Speaker 1: restaurants and small businesses where thousands are closing, thousands of
Speaker 1: others aren't sure whether they're going to make it and
Speaker 1: so and then we have food lines for blocks. We
Speaker 1: have seven hundred thousand missing jobs. There are creative ways
Speaker 1: that we can get value into people's hands that will
Speaker 1: circulate in a way that will help our communities directly.
Speaker 1: So when you talk about some of the physical realities
Speaker 1: we face, you know, New York City is not the
Speaker 1: federal government. We can't conjure up one point nine trillion.
Speaker 1: But there are things that we can do that we'll
Speaker 1: get value into people's hands. That's one reason I'm running
Speaker 1: for mayors. I think I can do more to help
Speaker 1: turn us around. At two thousand dollars a year. It
Speaker 1: isn't really an issue, but a lot of people who
Speaker 1: object to the idea of a UBI are simply concerned
Speaker 1: that it will disincentivize people to work. And you know,
Speaker 1: and this is the argument about welfare, you know, going
Speaker 1: back decades, whether it should be conditioned on work or
Speaker 1: whether it should be offered in the form of a
Speaker 1: guaranteed job. Obviously, your proposals go very strongly in the
Speaker 1: direction of non conditionality. Can you explain why you think
Speaker 1: that's not a problem with the idea of UBI, That
Speaker 1: is why UBI doesn't make it possible for people who
Speaker 1: would otherwise be working fuller part time to not work well.
Speaker 1: First on, lately out the objection, so people know what
Speaker 1: they are, and you can imagine what they are. Number
Speaker 1: one is how do we pay for it? And number
Speaker 1: two is what will people do with the money? When
Speaker 1: the Cares Act was passed and we put twelve hundred
Speaker 1: dollars into people's hands, and this was a very small
Speaker 1: fraction of the two point two trillion in the Cares Act,
Speaker 1: we could have given everyone in America six thousand dollars
Speaker 1: and still had billions left over in the cars Act,
Speaker 1: but most of the money went to companies and institutions
Speaker 1: of various kinds. So number one, now Americans are like, oh,
Speaker 1: we actually had the money, you know, like we could
Speaker 1: have done this if we wanted to at any point.
Speaker 1: And then number two, how would you spend the money?
Speaker 1: It's manifest and how people actually did spend the money,
Speaker 1: because when they got the twelve hundred dollars, they spent
Speaker 1: it on food and fuel, their basic needs and keeping
Speaker 1: a roof over their head, and it did not transform
Speaker 1: their personalities, it didn't change their work ethic. And so
Speaker 1: now like the objections that people have really been kind
Speaker 1: of demonstrated not to be as compelling by our own experience,
Speaker 1: you know. And it's one reason why cash relief now
Speaker 1: is so front and center in our national conversation as
Speaker 1: to what to do. Eighty five percent of Americans are
Speaker 1: for a cash relief during the pandemic, and fifty five
Speaker 1: percent are for it in perpetuity. But I think that
Speaker 1: the thought amount of work ethic, it's very deeply baked
Speaker 1: into the American psyche. The odds of people starting a
Speaker 1: small business in their community would skyrocket if both they
Speaker 1: had a certain amount of money they could rely on
Speaker 1: and if everyone in their community had a certain amount
Speaker 1: of money to spend. How is New York's fiscal condition
Speaker 1: looking ahead? Which is another way of asking the question
Speaker 1: of how affordable it would be to create and expand
Speaker 1: this program. You know, going back decades, of course, the
Speaker 1: city had a fiscal crisis and was essentially bankrupt. But
Speaker 1: in recent years its revenue is very much spurred by
Speaker 1: the boom and the real estate market, and it's been
Speaker 1: pretty flash. I mean, budgets have grown and you know,
Speaker 1: they haven't been big shortfalls. But post COVID, obviously we
Speaker 1: don't know what the city is going to look like,
Speaker 1: what property values are ultimately going to settle in at
Speaker 1: it's the city in good fiscal shape or terrible fiscal shape.
Speaker 1: The city is in bad fiscal shape. You're looking at
Speaker 1: multibillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, for the next
Speaker 1: let's call it four years. Some of the numbers, Jacob,
Speaker 1: that I have top of mind. We've lost twenty seven
Speaker 1: thousand lives, seven hundred thousand jobs, sixty million tourists who
Speaker 1: used to support three hundred thousand of those jobs. Several
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people have left New York City, including some
Speaker 1: people who are frankly very high taxs payers and earners.
Speaker 1: Some way, ridership is down seventy percent. Let's call it
Speaker 1: a four to five billion dollars deficit on a budget
Speaker 1: of eighty eight billion or so, and we're not even
Speaker 1: sure whether that's the precise level because some of these
Speaker 1: things are still playing out. Midtown commercial real estate is
Speaker 1: eighty two percent unoccupied, which is devastating not just for
Speaker 1: those organizations and their landlords over time, but also security
Speaker 1: guards and the food trucks and the street level retail
Speaker 1: that ordinarily would have that those commuters every day. This
Speaker 1: is a really, really dark time for New York City,
Speaker 1: and there's no guarantee it comes back the way that
Speaker 1: we wanted to. We should know that that's what we're facing.
Speaker 1: I guess someone could come and give you, like the
Speaker 1: rosier version what I just described, but I'm a numbers
Speaker 1: guy that those are just the realities we're facing now.
Speaker 1: You were asking in the context of this particular universal
Speaker 1: or in my case not universal, like a guaranteed minimum
Speaker 1: income in New York City. I do want to tell
Speaker 1: a story that pushes us in that direction. I talked
Speaker 1: to a philanthropist here in New York. She ran a
Speaker 1: foundation that gave new moms baby clothes and formula and strollers,
Speaker 1: and then when COVID hit, they just converted to cash.
Speaker 1: They were like, well, we can't give you all the
Speaker 1: stuff because you know it's tough for this environment, so
Speaker 1: it's going to send you money. And then it turns
Speaker 1: out that that worked really well. They're like, hey, maybe
Speaker 1: we should stick to this. So there are a lot
Speaker 1: of philanthropists who had similar experiences, and I'm optimistic that
Speaker 1: we're going to be able to augment our resources by
Speaker 1: teaming up with some of the nonprofits and foundations in
Speaker 1: the city to say, look, this is the most effective
Speaker 1: thing we can do to alleviate poverty directly by putting
Speaker 1: money into people's hands, because if you keep people in
Speaker 1: more stable situations in New York City, Jacob, we actually
Speaker 1: save a lot of money. Yeah. I think a question
Speaker 1: coming up in the debates is surely going to be
Speaker 1: whether this is the best use of a billion dollars
Speaker 1: to alleviate poverty in New York. You know, you could
Speaker 1: do a lot about housing and homelessness with a billion dollars.
Speaker 1: You could do a lot for the public schools given
Speaker 1: those other pressing needs, do you think it really makes
Speaker 1: sense to be categorical about supplementing cash income well, Jacob,
Speaker 1: but one of the problems you cited is homelessness, and
Speaker 1: I'm very confident that putting resources into people's hands it's
Speaker 1: going to reduce the crisis of homelessness that we're seeing
Speaker 1: in New York City. If a family winds up in
Speaker 1: our shelter system, we are spending six thousand dollars per
Speaker 1: month on that family. And so if you spend a
Speaker 1: fraction of that keeping someone in their home and they
Speaker 1: don't wind up in our shelter system, it's actually a win.
Speaker 1: One of the things I've committed to is reducing the
Speaker 1: level of street homelessness by more than fifty percent in
Speaker 1: my first term, and it is doable. We can invest
Speaker 1: in safe haven beds and mental health resources and supportive
Speaker 1: housing and more assertive interventions to get people the help
Speaker 1: that they need. So what I would argue is that
Speaker 1: this extreme poverty relief program will actually reduce some of
Speaker 1: the other problems that you're talking about, whether it be
Speaker 1: homelessness or public safety or education. Because obviously a lot
Speaker 1: of these people have families, and it's very difficult for
Speaker 1: a child to learn if they're in extreme poverty. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you can imagine what that that that's like.
Speaker 1: I talked to someone yesterday who grew up in poverty,
Speaker 1: and he said that his last meal of the week
Speaker 1: was school lunch on Friday, and then he didn't eat
Speaker 1: again until school lunch on Monday. You know, so you
Speaker 1: can imagine the learning environment, you know that for that child.
Speaker 1: So cash relief touches a lot of other problems. We
Speaker 1: need to invest in the other problems, obviously directly, but
Speaker 1: I would argue that this is actually something that will
Speaker 1: make those other solutions more effective. I'm curious about why
Speaker 1: extreme poverty and cash relief is the problem that you've
Speaker 1: really devoted your career to at this point. I mean, personally,
Speaker 1: is there How did you come to this? Did you
Speaker 1: experience poverty at some point in your life? Did you
Speaker 1: witness extreme poverty? Jacob, I'm I'm the child of immigrants,
Speaker 1: but I had a relatively privileged upbringing in like a
Speaker 1: middle class household, and you know, in Upstate New York
Speaker 1: in the suburbs. For me, I came to this because
Speaker 1: I spent years running an organization Venture for America that
Speaker 1: I founded that was creating jobs around the country in
Speaker 1: the Midwest and the South primary and I became convinced
Speaker 1: that our economy is transforming in ways that will leave
Speaker 1: millions and millions of us behind. It already is I mean,
Speaker 1: and the pandemic has sped it up. Experts have called
Speaker 1: it the fourth Industrial Revolution. If you play out what
Speaker 1: impact technology will have on our labor force, it's going
Speaker 1: to be disruptive to the lives of tens of millions
Speaker 1: of Americans. Most common jobs in the economy are retail,
Speaker 1: call centers, food service, food prep, truck driving, and manufacturing.
Speaker 1: And what you've heard is that all we're going to
Speaker 1: retrain them. But then as soon as you dig into
Speaker 1: the realities of retraining like that, the programs don't work.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. You're not going to take a
Speaker 1: thousand coal miners and turn them into coders. The fact is,
Speaker 1: if you actually follow up after you have the press
Speaker 1: release saying we're going to trade coal miners as coders,
Speaker 1: then you get there and they're working at Sam's Club.
Speaker 1: So I arrived at universal basic income because I saw
Speaker 1: it as inevitable as a response to these economic changes, like,
Speaker 1: we have to make this investment now. So that's why
Speaker 1: I ran for president. We won the argument right now
Speaker 1: at this point, though, our government is not functioning in
Speaker 1: a way that you know, if majority of Americans want something,
Speaker 1: it passes. So that's why I'm so passionate about it. Jacob.
Speaker 1: There's just so much unnecessary, untold human misery that we
Speaker 1: can just alleviate tomorrow if we just decided to do so.
Speaker 1: But you're making a bed, aren't you? That the economic
Speaker 1: future is going to be fundamentally different from the past.
Speaker 1: In the past, when jobs, hard physical jobs have disappeared
Speaker 1: because of automation and trade, generally workers have moved up
Speaker 1: the value chain. The United States has produced products with
Speaker 1: bigger value add and ultimately standard of living increases. And
Speaker 1: when you talk about this idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
Speaker 1: isn't it making an assumption? Obviously, the individual stories are
Speaker 1: entirely real, and there are there structural displacement of jobs.
Speaker 1: But when you look at the economy as a whole,
Speaker 1: are you can in set really is our future that
Speaker 1: is having a really significant segment of society that is
Speaker 1: structurally unemployed ako, it's our present. Look around, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean you have the ranks of the long term
Speaker 1: unemployed rising every week because of the pandemic. This is
Speaker 1: no longer speculative. This is the reality we are faced
Speaker 1: with right now. And even the first industrial revolution of
Speaker 1: the turn of the century involved masked riots and unrest.
Speaker 1: Labor days inaugurated because of riots that caused a number
Speaker 1: of deaths. And this industrial revolution is faster, nastier, broader,
Speaker 1: it's going to touch more industries. You can just look
Speaker 1: around and see very clearly that we are disintegrating by
Speaker 1: the numbers. You know, you ask any economists and say, hey, like,
Speaker 1: are these folks that are losing their jobs? Are they
Speaker 1: like finding new opportunities? We are moving across state lines
Speaker 1: at lower levels that we have in decades. So the
Speaker 1: adaptation is not happening. The disintegration is. And the question
Speaker 1: is how quickly will we acknowledge it and do something
Speaker 1: about it? Yeah, and what can listeners do about this problem?
Speaker 1: And I'm not talking about supporting your campaign for mayor,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about whether or not you're elected mayor. What
Speaker 1: can listeners do about elevating the economic status of the
Speaker 1: worst off new Yorkers. Well, you switched the topics there, Jacob,
Speaker 1: because first I thought you were like, what can we
Speaker 1: do to elevate universal basic income or as a national solution,
Speaker 1: and then it was like helping New Yorkers. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you want to help New Yorkers, you should donate
Speaker 1: to food pantries and nonprofits that are meeting people's needs
Speaker 1: right now. I mean, that's very direct. You should be
Speaker 1: supporting local businesses yourself. You should be tipping generously. You
Speaker 1: should just be like putting money into people's hands in
Speaker 1: any way you can. If you think that I'd make
Speaker 1: a good leader of New York's revival, certainly I would
Speaker 1: love your support. And at a national level, we just
Speaker 1: need to keep pushing folks, particularly frankly like folks who
Speaker 1: are more on the right, to say that this is
Speaker 1: pro business, it's pro jobs, it's pro humanity. I'm happy
Speaker 1: to say that at this point this is not a
Speaker 1: left or right idea. It's forward and if we can
Speaker 1: build consensus around it, we have a chance to alleviate
Speaker 1: poverty in our time, not just in New York but
Speaker 1: everywhere in the US. Andrew, Andrew standing you recovering recovered
Speaker 1: from COVID nineteen. I hope you're feeling better, boy. It
Speaker 1: must be tough campaigning when you have that illness. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Jacob. I feel much better now, but it
Speaker 1: was a nasty number of days. But you know, I
Speaker 1: appreciate the sentiment. We're going to get through this time.
Speaker 1: But COVID is definitely something that you should take very,
Speaker 1: very seriously. Andrew Yang is running from mayor of the
Speaker 1: City of New York. To learn more about universal Basic
Speaker 1: Income and guaranteed minimum Income, check out the links in
Speaker 1: our episode notes. Solvable Senior producer is Jocelyn Frank, Research
Speaker 1: and booking by Lisa Donn, Managing and producer is Catherine Girardou,
Speaker 1: and our executive producer is Mia Lobell. Special thanks this
Speaker 1: week to Heather Faine, Kadija Holland, Maya Konig, Emily Rostek,
Speaker 1: Eric Sandler, Carly Migliori, John Schnars, Christina Sullivan, and Maggie Taylor.
Speaker 1: Solvable is a production of Pushkin Industries. If you like
Speaker 1: the show, please remember to share, rate, and review it.
Speaker 1: It really helps to get the word out. You can
Speaker 1: find Pushkin podcasts wherever you listen, including on the iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app and Apple podcasts. I'm Jacob Weisberg.