Technology Rescues People From Poverty – but It’s Also Coming for Our Jobs

[headline]

Glenn just read Dan Brown’s book “Origin,” a novel that uses facts to anchor a science fiction thriller. So obviously, he had some thoughts about our changing world. On today’s show, Glenn shared some predictions for the future, including what robots will mean for our jobs and how rapidly technology will change the world we know now.

Here’s some of what Glenn covered in this segment:

  • How we should expect more technological change in the next 20 years than in the last 100
  • Why technology is rescuing countless people from poverty
  • What the rise of robots will mean for millions of jobs
  • Why he calls himself an “optimistic catastrophist”

Listen to the above clip to hear Glenn's answers to these questions and more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

So I'm going to talk to you, believe it or not, on what matters most. But I want to start with a book that I just finished by Dan Brown. It's called Origin.

I was in the bookstores a couple weeks ago, and I just bought a stack of books. And Origin was one of them.

And I don't even know why -- I've read two fiction books in the last, I don't know, three years. And the -- and those -- both of them have been in the last 45 days. This one, I -- I read. And I wasn't -- I wasn't even really sure why, other than the premise intrigued me, which is a guy like Elon Musk has figured out, you know, where we came from. And says that he can disprove God.

And I thought, "Okay. Let's see where Dan Brown is going with this one." I know it's going to make the Catholic Church look bad. I got that. What else is he going to do?

I urge you to read this book. It's a -- it's a great -- you know, it's a great Dan Brown book. It's in the same spirit as the Da Vinci Code, et cetera, et cetera. You will spend a lot of time on Google looking things up, going, that's not true. Is that true?

And believe me, I spent a lot of time on Google. And a lot of the stuff in it is true. I mean, it's a real faction book, rather than fiction. It's got a lot of truth to it, and you'll learn a lot about history and everything else that you didn't know.

The -- I don't want to wreck this. But the -- the discovery is not so great. However, the point that they make on humanity and how life is going to change. Very early on, you're introduced to an AI that is this Elon Musk's right-hand man.

And nobody even knows he's AI at the beginning. Because he only is calling and talking to people on the phone or on headsets, et cetera, et cetera. And everybody thinks he's a real guy. And early on, you find out that he's not a real guy. He's AI.

And the premise of the book is, there is real trouble coming our way. And I want you to read this book, because it puts it into fiction. But in a way that, if you can get past some of the religion bashing, which I think is not completely over the top -- it's a little annoying at times. But if you can get past that, you will learn a lot on what you should be concerned about.

A friend of mine sent me something from what's called Mauldin Economics. And he -- this writer, this economist is worried about the fragmentation of society, along with a few other things.

He said, lately my life has been completely packed with speeches and meetings and in-depth, often lengthy conversations, and ongoing research. But I'm always asked, what's on the top of your mind? What are you thinking about? What keeps you up at night?

It's become an emotional question for me, because the answer doesn't come easily. It's complex. And more than a little unsettling. It's evolving out of the research and writing that I am doing about the age of transformation.

Now, this guy is -- this guy is -- he's cut from my same cloth. So you would know.

He is not a catastrophist like I am. I always look for the catastrophe in things. I'm the guy who you don't want on the first half of the ride of the Titanic. But you definitely want me, you know, as we're getting the lifeboats.

I'm the guy on the way to the iceberg, going, "This thing is going down. And there's not enough lifeboats." Once we hit the iceberg, I'm like, "We're going to make it. We're going to be fine. Don't worry. Just, everybody get into a lifeboat."

I'm an optimistic catastrophist. And he strikes me as the same kind of guy. And he said, "We're going to see massive technological changes in the next 20 years. We will see more change and improvement in the next 20 years than we've seen in the last 100."

Now, think of that. Remember, it's been almost 18 years, 17 years now since September 11th. It's been 20 years. Think how fast that has gone.

We're going to see more technological change in the next 20 years, I contend in the next ten, than we've seen in the last 100.

He said, let's start with the good news. In 1820, some 94 percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. Ninety-four percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. By 1990, that figure was 35 percent.

In 2015, the extreme poverty number was only 9.6 percent. Think of that.

Now, what brought us there. Capitalism. When you can go in 1820, to 94 percent of the world, living in extreme poverty, and it had always been that way -- and one thing changes. Freedom comes to the world for the first time. Freedom and security for the first time, under our Constitution.

And now, it's at 9.6? Forty percent of those who remain impoverished live just in two countries, Nigeria and India, both of which are growing rapidly and will see their extreme poverty significantly decrease in the next 20 years.

There is research to show that, on a global basis, the poor are getting richer faster than any other group.

Let me say that again: There is research that shows, on a a global basis, the poor are getting richer faster than any other group.

If you look beyond the US and Europe -- if you don't look beyond the US and Europe, that's not the conclusion you come to. But Africa and Asia, absolutely. The Industrial Age and free market capitalism, for all of its bumps and warts, have lifted more people out of poverty and extended more lives than has any other single development. The collapse of communism has been a great boon to humanity, even if it is still talked about in -- in favorable ways in western universities.

Now, he talks about the collide that is coming because of jobs. Every new robot replaced 5.6 workers in 2007. And every additional robot per 1,000 workers reduced the percentage of total population employed by .34.

Also reduced wages. Every robot by .5 percent. There is a loss coming of 3.4 million jobs by 2025.

Remember, we're talking about industrial robots only. Not all robots. And any software. Especially not AI.

The future of work conclusion that 90 percent of all driving in the US will be transportation as a service, by 2030.

Let me say that again. Ninety percent of all driving in the US will be what's called TAAS. Transportation as a service. Ninety percent of all driving.

That's an Uber service. The good news is that the average family will save $5600 a year in transportation costs, keeping an extra trillion dollars in Americans' pockets. Think of the time that will be freed for activities other than driving, not to mention the traffic jams that will be reduced. The officers believe that freeing time now spent commuting to work, plus faster transport times, will lead to an increase of GDP between 500 million and as much as $2.5 trillion.

Of course, governments will lose as much as 50 billion in gasoline taxes, as we shift to electric engine and alternative forms of power systems. The bad news is a lot of people will lose their incomes. 228,000 auto repair shops in the country, employing 647,000 workers. That's a minimum data from BLS. When a new car will last for a million miles and have fewer than 30 moving parts, what are we going to -- what are we going to do in auto repair jobs?

The auto industry employs 1.25 million people directly, another 7.25 million indirectly. Not all driving jobs will be lost, but the authors estimate that about 5 million jobs, with a reduction in national income of 200 million. And if we need fewer cars, the estimated new vehicle annual unit sales will drop by 70 percent by 2030, to around 5.6 million vehicles, versus the 18 million that will be sold ten years prior in 2020.

So what happens to all of those jobs? He's talking about a massive, massive loss of -- of income and a massive loss of jobs and businesses that are starting to close down.

But then he gets to something that is really disturbing. And that is the fragmentation of our society. We'll get to that in a second.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.