The War on Normal People

The War on Normal People Plot Summary

Introduction

American society is heading for a dramatic transformation unlike anything we've experienced before. Imagine walking through a modern factory that once employed hundreds of workers, now running with just a handful of technicians monitoring automated systems. Picture the millions of truck drivers, retail workers, and office staff whose livelihoods are threatened by technologies already being deployed today. This isn't some distant future scenario – it's a reality unfolding right now in communities across America. For decades, we've operated under the assumption that technological progress creates more jobs than it displaces. But the current wave of automation powered by artificial intelligence is fundamentally different. It targets not just routine manual labor but increasingly complex cognitive tasks across all sectors of the economy. This book explores how automation is reshaping work, society, and human purpose. It explains why this time is different, how our economic system is failing to distribute the benefits of technological advancement, and proposes bold solutions like Universal Basic Income and a reimagined social contract. For anyone concerned about their economic future, their children's prospects, or the kind of society we're creating, understanding the great displacement ahead is the first step toward building a more humane future.

Chapter 1: The Rise of Automation and Its Impact on Traditional Employment

The impact of automation on traditional employment isn't a distant future problem – it's happening now, though most Americans don't yet realize its full scale. Since 2000, the United States has lost approximately 5 million manufacturing jobs, with studies showing that nearly 80 percent of these losses were due to automation rather than outsourcing. But this is just the beginning. The current wave of technological change is unprecedented in both scope and speed, affecting virtually every sector of the economy simultaneously. Unlike previous technological revolutions that primarily replaced physical labor, today's technologies can perform increasingly complex cognitive tasks. Artificial intelligence can now diagnose diseases, write articles, manage investments, and handle customer service interactions. Self-driving vehicle technology threatens to eliminate millions of trucking and delivery jobs – the most common occupation in 29 states. Retail workers face similar displacement as e-commerce continues to decimate traditional stores, with tens of thousands of locations closing annually. Even knowledge workers like paralegals, financial analysts, and radiologists find aspects of their work increasingly performed by sophisticated software. What makes this automation wave particularly disruptive is its timing and economic context. It's occurring against a backdrop of already high inequality, stagnant wages for most workers, and declining job quality. When factory automation accelerated in the 2000s, many displaced workers never found comparable employment. Instead, they dropped out of the workforce entirely, turned to disability benefits, or settled for lower-paying service jobs. The data shows labor force participation has steadily declined, with nearly 95 million working-age Americans now outside the workforce entirely – a number that continues to grow. The traditional narrative that technological progress always creates more jobs than it destroys is increasingly questionable. While previous transitions eventually generated new types of work, the current pattern shows job growth concentrated in either low-wage service positions or high-skill technical roles requiring advanced education. The middle-skill jobs that once provided stable incomes for those without college degrees are precisely the ones most vulnerable to automation. And the pace of change means workers have less time to adapt through retraining. This great displacement isn't just an economic phenomenon but a profound social one. Communities built around industries now being automated face devastating ripple effects as local businesses close, property values decline, and tax bases erode. The psychological impacts are equally severe, with studies linking job displacement to increases in substance abuse, depression, family breakdown, and even suicide. The evidence is clear in the statistics showing rising "deaths of despair" among middle-aged Americans in economically distressed regions. As we face this technological revolution, policymakers and business leaders remain largely complacent, assuming market forces will eventually create new opportunities. But the evidence suggests this faith may be misplaced. Without intentional intervention, automation may continue to concentrate wealth among those who own the technology while leaving millions of workers permanently displaced, creating societal tensions that threaten the very stability of our democracy.

Chapter 2: Economic Transformation: From Industrial Jobs to Modern Displacement

The transformation of America's economic landscape has been decades in the making, though its pace has accelerated dramatically in recent years. The post-World War II era saw American manufacturing dominance that created millions of stable, well-paying jobs accessible to workers without college degrees. This period from roughly 1945 to 1975 represented a unique historical moment when median wages rose alongside productivity, unions were strong, and a high school graduate could reasonably expect to support a family in middle-class comfort. This industrial paradigm began unraveling in the late 1970s through a combination of forces. Corporate priorities shifted toward maximizing shareholder value rather than balancing the interests of workers, communities, and investors. Financial deregulation allowed capital to flow more freely across borders, while technological advances made it easier to relocate production. The ratio of CEO to worker pay, which stood at 20-to-1 in 1965, has exploded to over 270-to-1 today. During this same period, union membership fell by half, weakening workers' collective bargaining power. The most profound shift, however, has been the decoupling of productivity from wages. Since the 1970s, worker productivity has continued climbing dramatically while median wages have stagnated. This divergence represents a fundamental break in the social contract that had previously ensured economic growth benefited workers across the income spectrum. Today, nearly all productivity gains flow to capital owners rather than labor, with the top 1 percent capturing approximately 52 percent of income growth since 2009, while most Americans struggle with stagnant or declining real incomes. Technology's role in this transformation has evolved significantly. Early automation primarily affected repetitive physical tasks in factories, but today's technologies can handle increasingly complex functions across all sectors. Machine learning systems can now perform medical diagnoses, legal research, financial analysis, and creative work previously thought immune to automation. The dividing line isn't white-collar versus blue-collar work, but rather routine versus non-routine tasks. Even highly educated professionals find aspects of their work vulnerable to automation if those tasks follow predictable patterns. The consequences of this economic transformation are visible in communities nationwide. Regions once supported by manufacturing now struggle with abandoned factories, declining populations, and eroding tax bases. New job creation increasingly concentrates in a handful of superstar cities like San Francisco, New York, and Boston, while most counties actually see more businesses close than open each year. Geographic inequality has reached unprecedented levels, with only five metro areas accounting for as many new businesses as the rest of the nation combined between 2010 and 2014. For displaced workers, the statistics are sobering. Studies tracking manufacturing workers who lost jobs found that years later, over 40 percent remained either unemployed or had dropped out of the workforce entirely. Only 3 percent completed retraining programs. Many others settled for lower-paying service jobs or relied on disability benefits, with applications rising most dramatically in regions hit hardest by automation. These patterns suggest the coming wave of technological displacement may produce similar or worse outcomes unless policy responses change dramatically.

Chapter 3: The Geography of Inequality in Modern America

America has transformed from a relatively uniform economic landscape to one marked by stark geographic divides. Today, your economic prospects depend heavily on where you live, creating what amounts to multiple different economies within one nation. At the high end are dynamic coastal hubs like San Francisco, New York, and Boston, characterized by knowledge-intensive industries, soaring real estate prices, and an influx of college graduates from across the country. These superstar cities generate tremendous wealth but have become increasingly inaccessible to those without advanced degrees or existing wealth. The contrast with post-industrial regions is striking. Former manufacturing centers like Youngstown, Ohio, which once boasted one of the nation's highest homeownership rates and median incomes, have experienced devastating economic and social decline. After losing its steel industry, Youngstown's population plummeted from 170,000 to under 65,000. Similar patterns played out in Gary, Indiana; Camden, New Jersey; and dozens of other former industrial centers. These communities face a troubling cycle where job losses lead to population decline, which reduces the tax base, degrades public services, and further accelerates economic deterioration. This geographic sorting creates powerful feedback loops. Regions losing their economic base typically see their most educated and entrepreneurial residents leave first – precisely those most capable of helping revitalize the community. The data shows Americans moving across state lines at historically low rates, with mobility declining most among those with less education. Middle-sized cities find themselves increasingly caught between these extremes, dependent on a handful of anchor institutions like universities or hospitals while struggling to retain talent and attract investment. The impact of geography extends well beyond economics. Research by economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren reveals that children who grow up in certain counties earn 25-35 percent less as adults than similar children raised in more prosperous areas. Moving a child from a low-opportunity to high-opportunity area increases their lifetime earnings substantially with each additional year spent in the better environment. This suggests geographic inequality increasingly determines intergenerational mobility. Technology and automation accelerate these divides in multiple ways. New job creation concentrates overwhelmingly in technology hubs, with 75 percent of venture capital flowing to just three states – California, New York, and Massachusetts. Meanwhile, the jobs most vulnerable to automation cluster in already-struggling regions. Retail closures hit hardest in areas with declining populations and lower incomes, creating "retail deserts" alongside existing food deserts. When factories automate, the new positions often require advanced technical skills beyond the reach of many displaced workers. The experience of communities themselves differs dramatically based on economic trajectory. Places experiencing growth tend to demonstrate optimism, entrepreneurship, and civic engagement. In contrast, regions facing decline often develop cultures of pessimism where residents apologize for their communities and young people view success as synonymous with leaving. As one resident of a declining industrial town remarked, "Change is a four-letter word around here. The only change we've seen the last 20 years has been bad." This psychology of scarcity creates self-reinforcing cycles that make economic revitalization increasingly difficult.

Chapter 4: Scarcity vs. Abundance: How Mindsets Shape Society

The divide between abundance and scarcity fundamentally shapes how people experience America today. Those living with abundance – typically highly educated professionals in prosperous regions – operate with assumptions and mindsets dramatically different from those navigating scarcity. Understanding this psychological gap is crucial to addressing the challenges automation presents. In environments of abundance, individuals tend toward optimism, experimentation, and long-term thinking. They can afford to take entrepreneurial risks, invest in education, and delay gratification. The typical entrepreneur comes from a background of relative privilege – with access to capital, family support networks, and safety nets that make risk-taking feasible. Studies confirm that the most common shared trait among successful entrepreneurs isn't a particular personality type but access to resources. Even in failure, those with abundance mindsets can usually recover and try again, building resilience and experience. Contrast this with the experience of scarcity, where immediate needs dominate thinking and constrain possibilities. Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir and Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan conducted groundbreaking research demonstrating how financial stress impairs cognitive function. In one study, merely contemplating an unexpected $3,000 expense caused poor participants to perform worse on intelligence tests by the equivalent of 13 IQ points – nearly a full standard deviation. Similar experiments showed that financial stress significantly reduces self-control and decision-making quality. This "bandwidth tax" explains behaviors often misattributed to character flaws. When survival demands consume mental resources, long-term planning becomes nearly impossible. Monthly income volatility – averaging 30-40 percent for low-income households – forces constant crisis management. Unpredictable work schedules, common in retail and service jobs, create additional stress and prevent consistent routines. The resulting mindset prioritizes immediate survival over future possibilities, making it extraordinarily difficult to pursue education, saving, or entrepreneurship. These mindset differences manifest in community dynamics as well. Regions experiencing economic growth develop cultures of possibility and experimentation. In contrast, declining areas often exhibit defensive pessimism, where lowered expectations serve as protection against disappointment. Residents develop what one sociologist called "defensive localism" – skepticism toward outside ideas and emphasis on immediate practical concerns rather than abstract possibilities. These attitudes aren't personality defects but rational adaptations to environments where optimism has repeatedly led to disappointment. Technology further amplifies these divides. In abundance, technology represents opportunity and expanded possibilities. In scarcity, it primarily threatens livelihoods without offering clear alternatives. The paradox is that technological abundance – the capacity to produce more with less human labor – creates economic scarcity for those displaced. Rather than generating shared prosperity, automation's benefits flow primarily to technology owners and investors while costs concentrate among vulnerable workers and communities. The great challenge ahead is transforming our economic system to ensure technological abundance creates social abundance rather than exacerbating scarcity. This requires recognizing that market mechanisms alone won't distribute technology's benefits widely enough to prevent social fragmentation. It also means acknowledging that traditional policy responses like job retraining programs, while valuable, typically reach only a small percentage of those needing assistance and often fail to connect participants with stable employment.

Chapter 5: The Social Costs: Families and Communities in Crisis

The social fabric of America is unraveling in communities hardest hit by economic transformation, creating a crisis that extends far beyond unemployment statistics. Since 2000, mortality rates have increased for middle-aged white Americans – an unprecedented trend in a developed country during peacetime. Researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton identified rising "deaths of despair" from suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related diseases as the primary causes, linking these directly to economic dislocation and loss of status. Family formation and stability have declined dramatically alongside economic opportunities. The proportion of working-class adults who marry has plummeted from 70 percent in 1970 to only 45 percent today, with the decline accelerating after 2000 as manufacturing jobs disappeared. Research by MIT economist David Autor demonstrated that when manufacturing work becomes less available in a community, marriage rates decline significantly. Men without stable employment become less attractive as potential partners, creating a cascade of social consequences. The opioid epidemic represents perhaps the most devastating manifestation of this crisis. Approximately 59,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016 alone, exceeding deaths from car accidents and making overdose the leading cause of death for Americans under 50. While prescription opioids initially drove this epidemic, many users have transitioned to heroin and synthetic opioids like fentanyl as prescriptions became harder to obtain. The geography of addiction closely tracks economic distress, with the highest overdose rates in regions hardest hit by job losses. Children bear the brunt of these social disruptions. With marriage rates declining but childbearing continuing, the proportion of children born to unmarried parents has more than doubled since 1980, reaching 40 percent nationwide. Single parenthood – disproportionately affecting mothers – creates tremendous financial and emotional stress, particularly in regions with few support systems. Research shows boys raised without fathers present suffer more negative effects than girls, including higher rates of behavioral problems and lower educational attainment. Communities themselves experience cascading failures as economic prospects diminish. Local institutions that once provided social cohesion – churches, civic organizations, neighborhood groups – struggle to maintain membership and resources. Voluntary associations of all types report declining participation, with membership in organizations like PTAs, recreational leagues, and service clubs down 25-50 percent since the 1960s. This erosion of social capital further reduces communities' resilience and ability to address collective challenges. Public institutions face similar strain. As property values decline in struggling regions, tax bases erode while needs for social services increase. Schools face particular challenges, caught between diminishing resources and growing responsibilities to support children from unstable homes. Local governments often resort to raising fees and fines to compensate for lost tax revenue, creating additional burdens for already-struggling residents and sometimes producing predatory relationships between municipalities and citizens. These social costs create self-reinforcing cycles of decline. Children growing up in distressed communities experience toxic stress that impairs cognitive development and emotional regulation. Adults develop mindsets of scarcity that prioritize immediate survival over long-term planning. Communities lose social trust and collective efficacy – the belief that neighbors can work together effectively to solve problems. Without intervention, these patterns can persist across generations, permanently diminishing human potential in affected regions.

Chapter 6: Universal Basic Income: A Potential Solution for the Future

As automation transforms the economy, Universal Basic Income (UBI) has emerged as perhaps the most promising comprehensive solution. The concept is straightforward: provide every adult citizen with a regular cash payment sufficient to meet basic needs, regardless of work status or income. This approach acknowledges that in an economy where technological advancement increasingly decouples productivity from employment, we need new mechanisms to distribute prosperity. The historical roots of UBI run surprisingly deep across the political spectrum. Thomas Paine advocated a version in 1796 as compensation for the "loss of natural inheritance" through private land ownership. Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed a guaranteed income in 1967 as necessary to abolish poverty directly. Milton Friedman proposed a "negative income tax" to replace welfare programs more efficiently. Even Richard Nixon nearly enacted a guaranteed income program in 1969, with legislation twice passing the House of Representatives before stalling in the Senate. Modern experiments demonstrate UBI's practical viability. Alaska has distributed annual dividends from oil revenues to all residents since 1982, typically $1,000-2,000 per person. The program enjoys overwhelming popularity across party lines and has reduced poverty while supporting local economies. More recent trials in Canada, Finland, and Kenya show promising results. Iran implemented a nationwide cash transfer program in 2011 that functions similarly to UBI, with research finding no reduction in work effort and significant improvements in well-being. The Freedom Dividend – a UBI of $1,000 monthly for every American adult – would provide immediate financial stability while stimulating economic activity in struggling regions. Unlike traditional welfare programs, UBI eliminates poverty traps that discourage work by reducing benefits as income rises. Recipients maintain strong incentives to work, as additional earnings don't reduce their basic income. This approach respects individual agency by trusting people to make their own decisions rather than prescribing specific services or purchases. Financing such a program, while substantial, remains feasible through multiple mechanisms. A value-added tax (VAT) of 10 percent – half the European average – could generate significant revenue while primarily affecting luxury consumption. Additional funding could come from carbon taxes, financial transaction fees, and reduced spending on existing programs that UBI would partially replace. Economic growth resulting from increased consumer spending would further offset costs, with one analysis projecting that implementing UBI would grow the economy by over 12 percent. Beyond economics, UBI addresses deeper human needs for security and dignity. Current welfare systems often humiliate recipients through invasive eligibility requirements and restrictions on spending. UBI recognizes that everyone deserves a foundational level of economic security regardless of market value. This approach enables unpaid but socially valuable work – parenting, caregiving, community service, creative pursuits – that markets systematically undervalue. It also provides space for people to pursue education, training, or entrepreneurship without fear of destitution. Critics worry UBI might reduce work effort, but evidence from existing programs shows minimal impact on employment. The Alaska dividend and Native American casino payments have not reduced work hours significantly. Most people want to work and contribute; UBI simply ensures they can meet basic needs while seeking meaningful participation. When pilot programs do show reduced work hours, it's typically among young parents spending more time with children or students focusing on education – socially beneficial choices.

Chapter 7: Human Capitalism: Building a New Economic Framework

Our current economic system prioritizes capital efficiency above all else, optimizing for profit maximization while treating human well-being as an afterthought. As automation accelerates, we need a fundamental reorientation toward what might be called Human Capitalism – an economic framework that explicitly values people over profit and measures success by how well the economy serves human needs. This shift begins with reconsidering how we measure economic progress. GDP, our primary economic metric, was created during the Great Depression specifically to track industrial production. Its inventor, economist Simon Kuznets, explicitly warned that "the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from measurement of national income." Yet we continue treating GDP growth as synonymous with societal well-being, despite mounting evidence of their divergence. A Human Capitalism framework would expand our metrics to include indicators like median income, health outcomes, environmental sustainability, and measures of well-being and social connection. Markets excel at certain functions but systematically undervalue many essential activities. Parenting, caregiving, community service, artistic creation, environmental stewardship – these generate tremendous social value but minimal market reward. A Human Capitalism approach would recognize these contributions through mechanisms like a Digital Social Credit system where people earn points for socially beneficial activities that markets don't compensate. These credits could be exchanged for experiences, recognition, or goods, creating an entire parallel economy around social good. Institutions would require significant redesign under Human Capitalism. Healthcare would shift from fee-for-service models that reward treatment volume toward value-based approaches focused on patient outcomes and prevention. Education would emphasize character development, creativity, and adaptability alongside technical skills, recognizing that many future jobs will require distinctly human capabilities machines can't replicate. Government would take a more active role in directing technology development toward human-centered applications rather than simply maximizing efficiency. Corporate governance represents another crucial reform area. The shareholder primacy doctrine that has dominated since the 1980s effectively subordinates all other stakeholders – workers, communities, customers, the environment – to investor interests. Human Capitalism would balance these considerations through benefit corporation models, employee ownership, and regulations ensuring companies internalize social and environmental costs rather than externalizing them onto society. Technology policy would focus on ensuring automation's benefits flow widely rather than concentrating among technology owners. This might include digital dividends from data usage, public ownership stakes in heavily subsidized industries, and progressive taxation of technology-driven profits. The goal isn't to impede technological progress but to ensure its gains benefit humanity broadly rather than exacerbating inequality. Perhaps most fundamentally, Human Capitalism requires reimagining work itself. As automation eliminates many traditional jobs, we need to expand our conception of meaningful contribution beyond market employment. This means valuing care work, community service, environmental stewardship, and creative pursuits as legitimate forms of productivity deserving social recognition and material support. The freedom dividend would provide the economic foundation for this broader understanding of work. The transition won't be easy. Powerful interests benefit from the current system and will resist change. Many people have internalized market values so deeply they struggle to imagine alternatives. But historical perspective reminds us that capitalism has evolved significantly before – from mercantilism to industrial capitalism to the mixed economies of the mid-20th century. Each transition required reimagining economic principles in response to technological and social change. The automation revolution demands a similarly fundamental rethinking.

Summary

The Labor Revolution illuminates how automation is fundamentally reshaping our economic landscape in ways far more profound than previous technological transitions. Throughout history, new technologies have displaced certain jobs while creating others, but today's artificial intelligence, robotics, and software systems can perform increasingly complex cognitive tasks across virtually all industries simultaneously. This isn't just about manufacturing robots or self-checkout kiosks – it's about algorithms diagnosing diseases, writing news articles, reviewing legal documents, and driving vehicles. The evidence shows we're experiencing not just cyclical disruption but a permanent restructuring of work itself. The central insight this transformation offers is that we must decouple economic security from traditional employment. Rather than desperately trying to preserve jobs that technology makes obsolete, we should embrace automation's productivity while ensuring its benefits are widely shared through mechanisms like Universal Basic Income. This requires rethinking our economic priorities to measure success by human flourishing rather than GDP growth or corporate profits. By implementing the Freedom Dividend, reforming healthcare and education, and creating new social currencies that value contributions markets ignore, we can build a future where technological abundance creates shared prosperity rather than concentrated wealth alongside mass displacement. The challenge isn't technological but political and moral – summoning the collective will to choose abundance over scarcity and human dignity over market fundamentalism.

About Author

Loading...

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang is an entrepreneur, author, philanthropist, non-profit leader, and former 2020 presidential candidate. After working as a lawyer and executive at several early-stage technology companies, Andrew eventually became CEO of an education company that became #1 in the country. He then started a national entrepreneurship non-profit, Venture for America, which worked to empower thousands of young entrepreneurs to bring their dynamism to communities across the country, from New Orleans and Baltimore to Denver and Detroit.Andrew was named a Presidential Ambassador of Entrepreneurship by the White House under the Obama administration and a Champion of Change for his work with Venture for America. Initially dubbed a "longer than long shot" candidate by the New York Times in 2018, Andrew became a top-tier contender for the presidency, raising nearly $40 million in grassroots funding. With a vision to rewrite the rules of the United States economy through a “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for every American adult, Andrew became one of the most exciting stories in the 2020 race. Andrew's nationwide support, known as the “Yang Gang,” propelled him to seven Democratic primary debates, outlasting six senators, four governors, three members of congress, two mayors, and one secretary.Following this unexpected run for president, Andrew formed the non-profit Humanity Forward, successfully lobbying Congress for direct cash relief for struggling American families during the pandemic while simultaneously distributing over $8 million directly to struggling families. From his presidential and New York mayoral runs, Andrew has seen first-hand what’s preventing our country from getting things done, and he is now directing his energies towards fixing the machinery of our stagnant democracy. With FORWARD: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, Andrew lays out the case for a variety of democracy reform measures that can unclog the pipes of our system and realign the incentives of legislators with the wellbeing of the American people.--

Read more