What is Reddit's opinion of The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

By popularity on Reddit, this product is:

#27 in Political Commentary & Opinion books

#8 in Labor & Industrial Relations books

#8 in Labor & Industrial Economic Relations books

15 reviews of this product found across Reddit:

The War on Normal People. It has little to nothing to do with his candidacy FYI, mostly just about how bad the situation is for regular Americans (from multiple perspectives) and how much worse it is about to get. Highly recommend

Edit: also I believe there's a free audio version out there if you don't want to buy!

If you want a good read on the subject, I recommend this: The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future

Declining birth rates across the board coupled with cavernous blue-collar trades shortages, plus artificial intelligence and robotics moving at a light speed 6G/7G network pace over the next 20 years? Yeah, there’s nothing more important than this.

I posted once in r/politics about how he even got Ben Shapiro agreeing with him and within minutes, got replies that that’s how they knew Yang was a terrible candidate because Shapiro agreed with him. Republicans don’t hold the exclusive rights to groupthink.

Want to really have your mind blown? Read his book: The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316414212/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabc_S6kQFbWM2NXAC

Out of context for that single sentence. Of course some games can be stimulating. But it was just part of his overall point that it's harder to find decent jobs for young people currently when he wrote that book. Per that overall page and point from the book:

>"Of course I believe people should go out into the real world. Get a good job....leave the world a better place, and so on. I've tried to do it myself. It's the substance of life and humanity."

He did not propose every young lazy guy or teen should just "aspire" to be neets. Rather his UBI could be helpful for those who want extra help to make it in the economic world such as for tuition or rental costs of living. Even emphasized encouraging more small and individual businesses. Which was his business and involvement helping small business outside of his campaigning, so in that sense he was also a real businessman candidate and did not live on a career in politics, hired or appointed by a political or social issue organization, or being a public servant. He also wanted to do away with inefficient welfare and disability programs overrun with cheating recipients, and replace it all with his proposed brand of ubi responsibly paid for by vat on automation or certain production processes, or other fair wealth transfers. It's all in the book. In general, a far more moderate dem, like the dems used to be generations ago.

Well, actually The War on Normal People costs $9.99 on Amazon.

Canadian YangGang here. Disregarding all his policies (because we don't want a debate here), I'll be going over a few characteristics and achievements about Andrew Yang that appeals to me, and the majority of his supporters:

He's not a career politician, he's an entrepreneur, humanitarian and problem-solver. He knows how to speak on the ground level and relates to a lot of people. Doesn't use "political-speak".
He's not stuck to any ideologies but instead is very malleable and follows the data, or the "MATH" so to speak. If data points one way, you'll be sure to find Andrew Yang there. (Therefore his policies are also fluid).
He speaks in numbers, which speaks to a lot of students, engineers, programmers, etc. (who are the majority of his supporters, myself included).
He's a futurist (although he jokes he's a "present-ist" cuz everyone else is behind). He is very knowledgeable in the technology of the future and he is very aware of current internet trends (unlike the majority of his competition).
He's the guy the Republicans thought Trump would be, but isn't. And a lot of his supporters consider him as the new Bernie 2.0 of the 21st century. In fact, the majority of his supporters were once BernieBros. Essentially he has a lot of bi-partisan appeal. His slogan is "It's not left, it's not right, it's forward!".
He's a literal genius. The smartest candidate on that debate stage and I'm not even exaggerating this. At the age of 12 he completed in the 0.5 percentile in SAT scores. He has also completed the LSAT with a score of 178/180 which is insane. But probably one of his best educational accomplishments was that he completed the GMAT with a score of 780. To put this into perspective, the average score of someone that gets accepted to Harvard is 730. Yang is 50 points ABOVE that, which is a near impossible feat.
He founded Venture for America which is a non-profit organization that helps facilitate new entrepreneurs into the current job market and start new businesses. He created thousands of jobs throughout the country. He was honored by the Obama administration for this work, and received medals.
Despite being 44 years old, he's a really laid back, funny and charismatic guy. If you watch any of his long-form interviews, whether Joe Rogan, H3H3, or Ben Shapiro, you'll catch him throwing jokes and laughing quite often. Try this 9 minute speech and look at the faces of the DNC board behind him (skip to the last minute if you like).
He's the resident bad boy of the Democratic party. Just check out his childhood and school photos, complete with anti-establishment gusto ��
He can play basketball, piano, skateboard, he's into video games and memes. Not sure if you caught it in last night's debate or the debate prior, but he even uses memes as ammo for the debates. For example, last night was Chapelle's modern solutions meme which he used against Warren. The debate prior, he used the Joker meme to defend his $120,000 give away to 10 families in an interview. I think the Yang subreddit has a lot to do with this.
Yang's campaign advisers are young, and most likely check out Yang's subreddit quite often. I get the sense that they're people just like you and me, not corporate cogs in some machine. This is Zach, his campaign manager. Their bromance is very real :')
Anyone who's read his book, the War on Normal People, will know that Yang was bullied in school and was often ridiculed. These were transformative years for him, and helped developed his personality. In parties, he would often find the wallflower in the room and start a conversation with them to make them feel appreciated. He's extremely wholesome, sympathetic, caring and forgiving.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

Edit: Links

Edit 2: Thanks for the silvers strangers!

Most of his evidence is provided in the first 2/3 of his book, The War on Normal people. There is an audiobook available on YouTube if you have time in your commute to listen.

The problem of present-time thinking in that immigrants or globalization is causing the loss of jobs is that, while that may be a factor, the entire world is investing in automation in a scale that's difficult to comprehend. The moment when the tech hits a productivity and cost point that exceeds human capacity, it will overtake that employment sector FAST.

You can't have self-driving cars on the road with a 2% accident rate. But you can bet on 5G being implemented within 5 years so tel-operation of vehicles is a reality, at least until self-driving tech is perfected.

For automation, the enormous task that economists can't undertake is looking at the investments that big companies are making. Billions in research and development, and that is only glanced at by investors (not economists). All you really have to do to get a glimpse at the future is follow the money. Make no mistake: AI is already creating art, music, and diagnosing health issues. The question is when it will come, and what we will do about it.

Please also note that Universal Basic Income is not mutually exclusive with a Federal Jobs Guarantee. They can co-exist together, but there are reasons why UBI should come first.

Implementation-wise, a FJG is prone to problems because it is guaranteed income with a work-requirement. What about those who cannot work like caregivers, and stay-at-home parents? They are doing some of the most important work in our society, so what are they owed? What happens in a FJG when I am bad at the job, hate my boss, or in general working towards an unclear goal? What if those job positions are on the verge of automation and will not exist in the future? Do we continue doing work inefficiently just for the sake of having a body to fill it? What happens if I don't want to work for the government? And even more terrifying, what happens if the government shuts down?

These are only a few of the logistical issues with a FJG, and there are much more. Those difficult-to-answer questions themselves have immeasurable costs and bureaucracy.

Let's go to UBI. One of the core things about universal basic income that you're misunderstanding is that it isn't all about the money; first and foremost it decouples economic value and worth from individual self-worth. The Freedom Dividend is a return from the government recognizing that every American citizen innately has value and potential. The Freedom Dividend is pegged at $12,000 at year for a reason: that is the US poverty line. What the Freedom Dividend provides is the bare necessity to survive, put food on the table, clothes, and perhaps when combined with other individuals, a roof over your head. It is the ability to ensure better outcomes for yourself and those around you.

If you ever studied Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, you'll know what I am talking about.

Beyond the bare necessities, it also provides agency to better your own life and to fail gracefully. Knowing that you have basic income, would you continue doing a job that you don't like? UBI gives some economic leverage and negotiating power such that you can better argue for better work hours or salary. It is assurance that you can cut hours if necessary to go home and spend time with your children knowing that your income won't disappear the next month. UBI provides consent in employer-employee relationships, where there is an out to toxic/abusive/manipulative work environments.

Regarding financial "failure," check out this article on how the current US welfare system is built in a way that punishes the needy. However, poverty isn't the lack of character... It's just the lack of money.

Regarding

reducing incentives to work: This is untrue; if I were paid more, am I inclined to work less? People have an innate need for work and meaning, and UBI will not change that. All you have to do to inflect is ask yourself, family, and friends: what would you do if you won one of those $1,000 lottery scratch cards? Work is rarely on top of mind: they're going to spend it on other things like bills, debt, goods. These factors means it is pro-work because, where there is money being spent, there are jobs to be filled. Human-Centered Capitalism is important in this, because it puts economic value on more of the work society values and just not things that are great for GDP.
cutting other social services: Social welfare programs will still be funded and staffed, people just have the ability to opt-in for the Freedom Dividend if it serves them better, see the Medium article I posted
subsidizing employers: as mentioned before, UBI creates a scenario where a paid job isn't the only thing that provides the bare necessities to survive. Instead, it creates mobility and leverage for the employee; the employee can negotiate for better pay or hours thanks to UBI. If not, the employee can seek work elsewhere since the current employer no longer satisfies their needs and they aren't dependent on that sole source of income.

Going back to FJG and UBI, I'd argue that UBI should come first. As mentioned before, it provides negotiating leverage where there wasn't any before not only in this specific situation, but in EVERY employee-employer relationship. Please check out this panel of interviewers for a discussion between candidates -- there are many questions relating to UBI and FJG.

I apologize for such a lengthy and scattered response. There were many interconnected concerns that you had that seemed to be founded on misinformed foundations. I am not trying to change your mind, but I hope I framed the discussion and provided some resources that allows you do continue your own research from here. Please check out the many YouTube interviews with Andrew Yang and Scott Santens, who is a UBI advocate and expert.

Finally, regarding some of Andrew Yang's weaker policies. Proposals can and will change once in office. One strength of Yang is that he provides substance to his flagship policies, which allows substantial discussions on mechanics and feasibility. For weaker policies such as blockchain voting, you have to look at it like other candidates: is the spirit of the policy moving the needle in the right direction? Experts in the field are unsure about the feasibility of blockchain voting, but that does not mean that we should not approach it with a problem set in attempt to understand how it can help in future voting tech. Same with geo-engineering in his climate policy: there has been research done to suggest that geo-engineering cannot be done at a scale that substantially changes temperature with current funds and the timeframe, but that should not stop the government from looking into the techniques and possibilities, researching it themselves to see if there is a viable path forward. That is the spirit of the blockchain policy: there is a lot of talk about why there is promise and why there isn't, but no one has tried anything.

I suppose you can just buy from Amazon and Andrew will get 10%-15% royalties. https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414212/r

The War on Normal People: The... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316414212?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share here’s a link to it on amazon bro

"Humans Need Not Apply" is basically required viewing for anyone who wants to be my friend. The lines about "beyond the scope of human knowability" and "horses aren't unemployed now because they got lazy as a species, they're unemployable" are both worth considering, because it doesn't/won't matter how talented or smart you are. You will not be exempt.

And honestly, we shouldn't want to be exempt. "Economics always wins" is a good thing. I want to live in a world where I don't have to work. Folks who are fighting automation are fighting for a world where I'm stuck in a job that is, frankly, a miserable waste of my time.

Or, to put it in cyberpunk terms, who wants to be a wage-slave? A corps-drone? Freedom from work should be the goal.

Whether you support Andrew Yang or not, his book is a good summation of why automation is coming. We should be preparing now for methods that support humans who can never compete -- because sooner or later, that's most of us.

This technology will result in a net loss of jobs. Look to the labor force participation rate and it shows that we're already at a 20 year low.

Here's the official data: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

For example, the auto industry is shifting to EVs, which require basically no maintenance. We won't need as many auto mechanics. As the work dries up, every auto mechanic suffers. A crowded field makes for layoffs, reduced pay, reduced benefits, frequent turnover, no retirement, cutting hours to part time to avoid paying health insurance. Sounds familiar to everybody doesn't it?

Look at Amazon. Their goal is to get you your order as cheaply as possible. Human labor is expensive compared to robots. The robots are engineered to be as long lasting as possible. Robots don't need pay, health insurance, or breaks, or unions, food, etc. The only costs are for the initial purchase and electricity which is cheap. All of that is why Amazon is automating their workforce as fast as possible. They have an entire automation industry pushing their automation efforts.

Ok. Good for them. Why does it matter?

It's because everyone else has to compete against them. Amazon is growing faster than any company before. How do you compete against that which is completely dominating? You don't. That's why 30% of our local malls and stores are closing. They're closing faster and faster each year.

Amazon pays literally zero in Federal income taxes. The next biggest 90 US companies also paid no federal taxes. It is insane that our government allows this.

The answer to this automation race is to give every American a tiny slice of each transaction with a Value Added Tax (VAT).

It's irresponsible to ignore something so transformative. We know this is already happening across nearly every industry. It's accelerating. And the answer is a Freedom Dividend of $1000/month for every American starting at age 18. The Freedom Dividend is to compensate for the automation of work.

For more info, please listen to the free audiobook, The War on Normal People: https://youtu.be/MC25cPvp4zg

Or you can order the book on Amazon. Lol Check this out at Amazon.com - The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316414212/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_r0FdEbB8W16KR

https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414212/ref=asc_df_0316414212/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=334173482617&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9336469190725082344&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt...

he wrote a book about the universal basic income because he figured most people wouldn't instantly buy into it. For a shorter and free read you can go onto his website

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/