Explore the vast range of titles available.

Peer review is an essential part in the publication process, ensuring that Separations maintains high quality standards for its published papers.[...]

Businessman Andrew Yang on Aug. 20 said recovery from the pandemic is only possible with leadership change during his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang dropped out of the 2020 presidential race on Feb. 11 after campaigning on giving every American $1,000 each month.

Comedian Dave Chappelle campaigned for 2020 presidential candidate and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang in Columbia, S.C. on Jan. 29.

This article examines the contentious debate surrounding Universal Basic Income (UBI)—an unconditional, equal, and permanent cash payment providing basic needs for all citizens—from an ideological left–right perspective. It analyzes key arguments made by proponents and opponents on both sides, showing how the core disagreement centers on whether UBI should replace or supplement most of the existing welfare system. The article then critically evaluates these arguments through an empirical analysis of UBI case studies in Iran, Alaska, and Switzerland, examining UBI’s impacts on labor supply, inequality, poverty, and political support. Findings suggest: (1) UBI need not reduce employment and could enhance it in certain demographics. (2) Its effect on inequality is significant, but the direction of influence depends on generosity and progressivity. (3) Broad public backing requires stable funding sources separate from politics and preferably a public framing as a civic entitlement rather than another welfare policy. Ultimately, the crux of the left-right debate, and the key to a viable UBI policy acceptable to both sides, rests on the specific funding mechanism and its integration with the existing welfare system.

This study uses data from Google Trends and Twitter to analyze how public interest and sentiment towards Universal Basic Income (UBI) changed across all 50 states and Washington D.C. between 2018 and 2021. We specifically selected this time period as it includes both Andrew Yang’s UBI campaign during the Democratic primaries in 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when UBI gained attention due to the federal government’s unconditional cash payment to almost all citizens. To overcome the limitations of sporadic opinion polls, we built on a recent development of the rescaling method to generate longitudinal Google Trends and conducted Twitter sentiment analysis. We observed a modest rise in public interest in UBI during Andrew Yang’s campaign, especially in blue states, and a significant increase across all states at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although it quickly waned, the level of public attention became elevated compared to the pre-pandemic level. Contrary to previous studies, our analysis also reveals that overall sentiment became less positive after the peak interest during the pandemic, as more people engaged in online discussions.

This three-part free verse poem encapsulates my response as a Filipina American peminist scholar to the increasingly hostile anti-Asian violence aided and abetted by 45 amid this pandemic through a critique of Andrew Yang's naive \"We Asian Americans are not the virus . . . \"

Universal basic income (UBI) is a centuries-old policy proposal in which every citizen is granted a regular cash payment to provide basic security. One defining concept of a UBI is that it is unconditional, unlike most modern social welfare programs. While decades of pilot data suggest UBI to be superior to traditional means tested assistance, public support is divided and heavily based on stereotypes of dependency and negative consumption effects. A mixed-method research design was utilized to explore the projected behavioral response to UBI of current and former recipients of traditional assistance, in regard to themselves and others. Responses indicate that the majority of participants would not alter their current work arrangements and would rather plan for future financial stability while assuming that other Americans would quit working and spend the money irresponsibly. These results suggest that even among welfare recipients, neoliberal and conservative narratives of dependency and irrationality persist.

This essay explores recent developments surrounding the Fourth Industrial Revolution, particularly as they relate to the challenge of technological unemployment. In an age of advanced robotics and artificial intelligence (Al), so warns the philosopher-historian Yuval Noah Harari, ordinary people may become unemployable, unable to contribute to society, and therefore be declared a “useless class.” In contrast to such a dystopian view, futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom envision a digital utopia, while more realistic optimists emphasize that Al will ultimately create more jobs than it destroys. As an alternative to these perspectives, this essay proposes a Judeo- Christian approach that, independently of traditional frameworks of paid work, affirms the unique value and dignity of all human beings by highlighting the theological significance of human creativity, the balance between work and play, love as an overarching framework for life, and the role of human beings as ethical decision-makers.

Believe it or not, 16th-century policy ideas can still be found in 21st-century political discourse.1 In 1516, universal basic income (UBI) was suggested as a “cure for theft”; in 2019, it was the basis of former U.S. presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s platform.2 Other political figures, such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and former president Barack Obama, have also endorsed it.3 But what is UBI, and is it really as desirable as its advocates claim?UBI’s supporters characterize it as a political policy whereby the government distributes a regular stipend to each and every citizen, unconditionally. Although, at first glance, this might seem ideal to some, the reality is that governments can’t actually distribute money, they can only redistribute it. That is, they must first forcibly take money from some people in order to give it to others.4 This policy is economically dubious, but the more fundamental issue is the moral status of UBI.5