White collar payrolls in the United States have contracted for thirty-one consecutive months. AI is not coming for the factory floor any more. It arrived at the office years ago. Most organisations have not told their people yet.

The entry-level roles that taught every generation how work actually functions — junior analysts, administrative coordinators, legal assistants, junior marketers — are disappearing. Not slowly. At pace.

That is the bad news. Here is the half glass full version.

The outcome of all of this is not decided by the technology. It is decided by the people who understand what is happening early enough to move.

You are one of those people. That is why you are here.

This week I released three conversations. Together they form a complete picture — the problem, the framework, and the mindset shift that ties everything together.

Read them in order if you can. And they also have a podcast each and are very useful in their nature.

THE MINDSET PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE TO WIN IN THIS AI WORLD!

I recorded something short this week. Under ten minutes.

One phrase. One idea. The clearest blueprint I know for staying relevant in a world being reshaped this fast.

A beginner for the rest of your life.

Not a philosophical sentiment. A brutal, practical survival strategy.

The people winning right now are not the most credentialed. They are the most genuinely hungry to start over when the situation demands it.

I train Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Every time I step on the mat, everything I think I know gets tested from zero.

The mat has honesty, it does not lie; where you actually are rather than where you think you are is evident very quickly.

That reset is not humbling. Unless you have the wrong attitude.

That is the whole point.

If you are short on time listen or watch this below where I explain in a little more detail.

THE PROBLEM, CLEARLY STATED AND THE SOLUTION!

I sat down with Nicolas Babin. EU Digital Ambassador. Former head of digital business at Sony Europe.

Thirty years working with AI — longer than most people discussing it have been in the workforce.

He said something that has stayed with me:

“AI may not remove the whole career ladder. But it may remove the first three rungs.”

The full conversation is here. It covers middle management jobs losses and why you should not be worried, accountability, and why the people who combine human judgment with AI capability are about to pull significantly ahead.

Read that here👉 AI Is Removing the First Three Rungs of Your Career Ladder

THE FRAMEWORK THAT WORKS BOTH INSIDE BUSINESS AND OUT!

If the traditional career ladder is being redesigned, you need a different architecture to build on.

The Network First Manifesto is the most practical answer I have found. It inverts the career model entirely — community and human connection first, financial outcomes second.

Not a philosophy. A working framework with a transparent operating structure, a co-creation model, and a clear approach to monetisation that removes the gatekeepers entirely.

, founder of Cognitive Talent Solutions, puts it cleanly: networks do not replace corporate hierarchies. They are the underlying structure that makes those hierarchies function at all.

Listen to the interview or checkout the blog here on Substack.

👉 The Network First Manifesto: The New Architecture of Human Work

THE TAKEAWAY

Three rungs are gone from the bottom of the career ladder.

The network-first architecture gives you something more durable to build on.

And the beginner’s mind is the quality that makes everything else possible.

The window to act is open. It will not stay open indefinitely.

If this landed, forward it to one person who needs it this week.

MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.

Get that here:👉 mondayinfluencer.com

In this episode I make the case that the single most powerful career strategy available right now has nothing to do with credentials, titles, or accumulated knowledge. It is the deliberate, daily commitment to staying a beginner.

I covers the Adaptability Quotient — why AQ now matters more than IQ or EQ — and why the professionals winning in the age of AI are not the most qualified. They are the most genuinely curious.

This episode connects directly to two conversations released this week:

🎙️ The Network First Manifesto — the practical framework for building a career AI cannot displace.
→https://futureproofleader.substack.com/p/what-is-the-network-first-manifesto

🎙️ Nat and Nicolas Babin — EU Digital Ambassador and former Sony Europe digital lead — on thirty-one consecutive months of white collar payroll contraction and the disappearance of the first three rungs of the career ladder.

Listen to all three this week. They build on each other.

📩 Subscribe to Future Proofed Leader:

Future Proofed Leader

Ex-IBM Futurist, best-selling author, and Co-Founder of MONDAY INFLUENCER® — helping you build a business and a life that compound, one bold conversation at a time.

By Nat Schooler

📌 MONDAY INFLUENCER^® is a world-renowned strategic digest and executive intelligence platform for those serious about success in business, career, and life.
https://mondayinfluencer.com

Marketing professionals, social media managers, and execution-focused roles are disappearing at pace. When organisations reduce their workforces by forty to fifty per cent, the people who remain inherit the workload of everyone who left — and gain a surveillance layer as a bonus.

This is not a temporary correction. It is structural.

The Machine Behind the Curtain

The legacy corporate recruitment process was never designed around you.

Gatekeepers accept or reject you on arbitrary metrics, dictate your salary, and place you in a box they call a career.

The model also runs backwards. You search for a monetary outcome first, then find an organisation willing to help you reach it. That dependency on centralised decision-makers is a direct route to burnout — and, increasingly, to irrelevance.

Reversing the Framework

The Network First Manifesto begins with a single inversion. Put your community first. Let the financial and project outcomes follow.

Three pillars hold this philosophy together. Work on what you are genuinely passionate about. Collaborate with people who share your vision. Maintain authority over your own time and location.

This is not an anti-hierarchy argument. , founder of Cognitive Talent Solutions, makes the point precisely: networks do not replace corporate hierarchies — they are the underlying structure that makes those hierarchies function.

How the Framework Operates

Within a Network First architecture, work flows through a transparent process. Members submit proposals anchored in their own passions. The community votes, ratifying the proposals that earn collective support.

Once a proposal is ratified, the member who brought it forward acts as a project catalyst — leading the initiative alongside anyone who chooses to join.

Intellectual property and monetisation are handled openly, with project creators retaining two-thirds of marketplace revenue and the remainder distributed across active contributors.

You are no longer executing someone else’s mandate. You are building something of your own, inside a community of peers.

The Window Is Narrowing

Over five hundred expert conversations — across government, technology, and business — have shown me the same pattern. Organisations automate the tasks first and forget to protect the humans who created the value those tasks were meant to serve.

You have a three-to-five year window before centralised machine networks consolidate their grip on organisational structures. That window is open now.

Stop waiting for a gatekeeper to discover your brilliance. Find your peers. Build your network. Let the outcomes come second.

The air feels different when you step into a room full of people who chose to be there — building something together because they want to, not because someone scheduled them in.

That is what Network First makes possible.

🎙️ This episode of the Network First Podcast explores the manifesto in full. Listen wherever you find your podcasts (we are adding more platforms each week!)

Subscribe to Future Proofed Leader — weekly intelligence for professionals building irreplaceable human advantage:

Future Proofed Leader

Ex-IBM Futurist, best-selling author, and Co-Founder of MONDAY INFLUENCER® — helping you build a business and a life that compound, one bold conversation at a time.

By Nat Schooler

Learn more about MONDAY INFLUENCER® here.

And right now, the old corporate and digital rulebooks are being rewritten in real-time. From sudden executive orders banning bleeding-edge AI models to historic international crackdowns on social media, the ground is shifting.

To stay ahead, you can no longer afford to be reactive. You have to put your Network First.

We have dropped a powerhouse menu of content today to give you total strategic clarity. Here is your roadmap to navigate the chaos—check the runtimes, read the summaries, and choose your own adventure to stay ahead.

🎙️ 1. The Main Event: The Network First Podcast Launch

The Future of Work: Unlocking Human Potential, Embracing AI, and Collaborative Freedom

• ⏱️ Consumption Time: 32 mins | Format: Audio Podcast

This is the big one. Join me and my brilliant co-host, Deacon Larry Hiner, Psy. D., as we officially debut the Network First framework. We pull back the curtain on how to navigate a volatile digital marketplace by reclaiming what makes us uniquely human: collaborative freedom, psychological resilience, and authentic trust.

• Human Accountability: Why shifting from rigid corporate hierarchies to intentional professional networks is the only way to safeguard your career.

• Embracing AI Wisely: How to use automation as an accelerator for human potential rather than a replacement for human judgment.

• Collaborative Freedom: Re-engineering your daily workflow to prioritize high-trust professional ecosystems that outpace the machine.

🛑 2. The Geopolitical Shockwave: The Claude Fable 5 Ban

Trump Banned Claude Fable 5: National Security Move or Corporate Sabotage?

• ⏱️ Consumption Time: 42 mins | Format: Video Interview

In an unprecedented historic first, the Trump administration has issued an export control directive effectively banning Anthropic’s brand-new Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models just days after their massive launch. I sit down for an intensive, eye-opening session with the brilliant Steven J. Manning to break down why this happened and what it means for global commerce.

• The Sovereign Advantage: Why Steven believes this aggressive ban is a necessary act of national security to protect America’s long-term tech sovereignty.

• Historical Precedent: A fascinating look at how today’s AI restrictions mirror the high-stakes data privacy and cryptography wars of the 1980s.

• The Corporate Fallout: What happens to businesses that heavily integrated Anthropic’s ecosystem overnight, and how a “Network First” framework shields you from sudden vendor shutdowns.

• Want the written brief? Read the full text breakdown of Steven’s perspective here and the inside scoop on the Washington standoff here.

📺 3. The Tactical Briefing: AI Operational Update

Claude Fable 5 Strategy Update

• ⏱️ Consumption Time: 10 mins | Format: Video Quick-Take

For the executive on the move, this is your rapid-fire operational briefing on the fallout from the Anthropic suspension. If you don’t have time for the full interview yet but need to make decisions for your team today, start here.

• Immediate Impact: A tight 10-minute distillation of how the model freeze impacts current enterprise software pipelines.

• Risk Mitigation: Concrete, immediate steps to diversify your AI dependencies so your business operations aren’t single-pointed to a single model.

• The Next 30 Days: What to expect next from the Washington vs. Silicon Valley standoff.

🔞 4. The Cultural Shift: Protecting the Future Talent Pool

Old Enough to Vote, Too Young To Scroll

• ⏱️ Consumption Time: 5 mins | Format: Audio Podcast & Briefing

While Washington focuses on software bans, the UK has thrown down a massive warning shot for global leaders by introducing a strict social media ban for under-16s. This quick-strike episode explores the massive leadership blind spots surrounding the next generation of workers.

• The Cultural Crackdown: Why aggressive digital age gates are legally moving forward and why global tech leaders are failing to stop them.

• Future Talent Pipeline: How shifting youth away from algorithmic scroll loops will fundamentally alter the cognitive skills, attention spans, and expectations of your future workforce.

• Leadership Warning: Why forward-thinking organizational leaders need to immediately rethink their long-term consumer and recruitment strategies. Read the companion deep-dive article here.

🛠️ Executive Summary: Choose Your Journey

Ah, the classic Substack copy-paste trap! Markdown tables (| columns) are notoriously finicky in Substack—they usually paste as messy, broken text blocks instead of a clean layout.

Let’s ditch the grid table entirely and replace it with a “Time-Based Dashboard Menu.” This format uses clean bullet points and bold headers, which paste flawlessly into the Substack editor and look incredibly sharp on both mobile and desktop.

Replace the bottom table section of your post with this version:

⏱️ Choose Your Journey: What do you have time for right now?

• ⚡ If you have 5 minutes: Listen to Old Enough to Vote, Too Young to Scroll (5 mins | Audio Podcast) — A fast-paced look at the UK’s massive social media crackdown and its long-term impact on the future talent pool.

• 🎯 If you have 10 minutes: Watch the Claude Fable 5 Strategy Update (10 mins | Video Briefing) — A sharp, tactical broadcast detailing the immediate operational steps you need to take to protect your software pipelines from the AI freeze.

• 🚀 If you have 32 minutes (The Main Event): Listen to The Future of Work: Unlocking Human Potential, Embracing AI, and Collaborative Freedom (32 mins | Audio Podcast) — Join me and Deacon Larry Hiner, Psy. D. as we officially launch our Network First framework to help you navigate this new paradigm with collaborative freedom.

• 🔥 If you have 42 minutes: Watch the full feature interview Trump Banned Claude Fable 5: Steven Manning Says That is Good For America (42 mins | Video Interview) — My deep-dive session with Steven J. Manning unpacking the intense geopolitical warfare behind the world’s first commercial AI export ban.

Three days ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom stood in Downing Street. He announced a ban on social media for every child under sixteen.

The apps covered include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. Messaging apps such as WhatsApp are not included. “This is a line in the sand,” Keir Starmer said.

The legislation is expected to reach Parliament before Christmas. The ban itself is due to come into force around spring 2027.

In the same Parliament, a separate bill is moving at the same time. The Representation of the People Bill would lower the voting age to sixteen for UK general elections, adding an estimated 1.7 million new voters to the electorate.

Read both decisions side by side and the picture turns strange. A sixteen-year-old, in the eyes of this government, is mature enough to choose a Prime Minister. A fifteen-year-old, eleven months younger, is not mature enough to choose a feed.

Commentators have pointed at the coincidence. One policy wins over a younger electorate. The other calms anxious parents, more than ninety per cent of whom backed a ban for under-sixteens, by the government’s own figures.

Starmer’s own framing points elsewhere. He has said social media is making children unhappy, citing parents who have been asking directly for change. Whatever the politics sitting underneath the timing, the surface diagnosis is hard to argue with: something about these apps takes more than it gives.

The strange part is that the people who built them already knew this.

In 2010, a New York Times reporter asked Steve Jobs whether his children loved the newly launched iPad. Jobs said they had never used it. “We limit how much technology our kids use at home,” he told the reporter.

The man who put a screen in a billion pockets kept one out of his own kitchen.

Every notification, every red badge, every pull down to refresh runs on the same principle a casino uses on a slot machine. Psychologists call it a variable reward. You do not know what you will get when you refresh, and that uncertainty is the hook, not the content underneath it.

This is why willpower alone rarely wins the argument. You are not short on discipline. You are up against a design built by very clever people whose entire job is to keep you there.

I learned this properly on a Hayabusa, not in a boardroom.

There is a stretch of road behind my house in rural Croatia where the signal disappears completely. No bars, no notifications, nothing but the smell of warm pine resin and the flat roar of a twenty-four-year-old engine doing exactly what it was built to do.

Ten minutes in, the static in my own head fades out, every single time. It is the closest thing I have found to the clarity these apps now promise to sell back to you.

That stretch of road is, by accident, what Britain is now trying to write into law for an entire generation. A place where the device cannot reach you, so something else finally gets a turn.

You do not need a hillside in Croatia to test this for yourself, and you certainly do not need an Act of Parliament.

There is a smaller version of the same experiment, and it has real evidence behind it. Researchers at the University of North Dakota had volunteers switch their phone screens to grayscale for a week and tracked the result. Total screen time fell by close to thirty-eight minutes a day, with later studies finding smaller but consistent drops.

Strip out the colour, and the same feed becomes much easier to put down.

Three things worth trying this week, in order of effort:

• Turn your own phone to grayscale for forty-eight hours and watch what changes, before deciding whether the inconvenience is worth it.

• Replace one block of scrolling with one piece of curated signal, chosen by someone who has already filtered the noise for you, rather than a feed built to keep you inside it.

• Tell your team, in writing, what urgent actually means in your business, so a notification never gets mistaken for an emergency again.

This is the real difference between leaders who run their own attention and leaders whose attention is run for them. It rarely looks dramatic from the outside. It looks like someone who finishes a working day with something left over.

Britain has decided that an entire generation deserves protection from a design built to exploit them. Whatever sits behind the timing, that decision is worth taking seriously.

Old enough to vote. Too young to scroll. Adults were never offered either rule, which is exactly the point.

Nobody is coming to write a law for your attention. That, in its own way, is good news. It means you do not have to wait for Parliament, an app update, or anybody’s permission.

The grayscale switch is sitting in your settings right now. So is something better underneath it: a decision, made by you, about what gets to interrupt your life and what does not.

That decision is shorter to make than it feels. It usually takes about as long as turning a screen from colour to grey, and noticing, properly, what was in front of you the whole time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the UK’s social media ban for under-16s? The UK government has announced a ban preventing children under sixteen from using social media apps including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. Messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal are not included.

Why is the UK lowering the voting age to sixteen at the same time? A separate bill, the Representation of the People Bill, is moving through Parliament and would lower the voting age to sixteen for UK general elections, enfranchising an estimated 1.7 million people. The government frames the two policies differently, one as democratic reform and the other as child protection, though commentators have noted the apparent contradiction.

Does switching a phone to grayscale actually reduce screen time? Yes. A University of North Dakota study found total screen time fell by close to thirty-eight minutes a day when participants switched their phones to grayscale for a week, with later studies finding smaller but consistent reductions.

Full post here: https://www.natschooler.com/the-uks-new-social-media-ban-for-under-16s-is-a-warning-for-every-leader/

Subscribe to Future Proofed Leader:

Future Proofed Leader

Ex-IBM Futurist, best-selling author, and Co-Founder of MONDAY INFLUENCER® — helping you build a business and a life that compound, one bold conversation at a time.

By Nat Schooler

Free tools for staying durable in the AI era: https://natschooler.com/tools

With Nat Schooler & Deacon Larry Hiner, Ps.D.

The first episode of the Network First Podcast is live, and it opens with the question I have been sitting with for twelve years: what happens to people when the structure they trust disappears overnight.

I joined Deacon Larry Hiner to launch the Network First Podcast, a framework built on collaborative freedom rather than rigid hierarchy.

Twelve years ago, an IBM roundtable turned into a magazine editor’s monologue about how wonderful artificial intelligence would be. I caught the eye of the IBM lead across that beige conference table, and when my turn came, I said five words: I am deeply worried about this. I have spent every year since trying to be wrong about that.

For a long stretch, I was wrong. The early fear gave way to real excitement about lives reshaped for the better. Lately the worry has returned, because most organisations are still removing people rather than building the new roles the moment actually demands.

The Network First Manifesto does not strip out structure. It keeps a flat, collaborative shape where consultants, freelancers, and corporate teams move between projects on shared purpose rather than rank.

Share

I co-created MONDAY INFLUENCER® the same way. A colleague in his seventies, a colleague in her twenties, and I work with no layer between us, and it holds together because the direction is shared, not assigned.

That is the hope inside episode one. Work where people have your back, where motivation outruns fear, and where what comes next gets built rather than survived.

Listen to episode one wherever you get your podcasts.

At the moment the podcast is audio only and we would appreciate it if you shared it with your friends and business connections.

Subscribe for more on staying valuable as work changes:

Future Proofed Leader

Ex-IBM Futurist, best-selling author, and Co-Founder of MONDAY INFLUENCER® — helping you build a business and a life that compound, one bold conversation at a time.

By Nat Schooler

Free tools: https://natschooler.com/tools

A company can now legally exist with no human CEO. No human shareholders. No human directors. Just AI — running everything, signing contracts, holding assets, paying taxes.

President Javier Milei wrote about it in the Financial Times himself. He called it inviting AI to free itself.

My first reaction was — of course they did.

Because this was always coming.

The question nobody is asking is the right one.

If a company needs no human — what exactly is a human for?

And here is the angle that is not in any of the mainstream coverage.

Argentina is not just rewriting corporate law. Argentina is broke. It has been broke, in various configurations, for decades. Inflation, debt cycles, currency collapse — the story is not new.

But a non-human corporation still pays taxes.

It still generates economic activity.

It does not require a pension. It does not need healthcare. It does not go on strike or demand a salary review. It does not retire.

Subscribe now

What Milei may have stumbled onto — whether by design or by libertarian instinct — is a partial answer to one of the most uncomfortable questions facing every developed government on the planet right now.

How do you fund public services when the workforce that pays for them is shrinking?

AI-run corporations, taxed correctly, could become a meaningful contributor to government revenue at precisely the moment that human employment — and the tax receipts that come with it — is under serious pressure.

This is not a solved problem. It is not even a properly framed one yet. But Argentina may be the first country to accidentally build the legal architecture for it.

Other governments are watching. You can be certain of that.

But here is the accountability gap that nobody wants to put in the press release.

When something goes wrong inside a non-human corporation — and it will go wrong — who answers for it?

The software does not go to court. It does not lose sleep. It does not look a family in the eye and say — I got this wrong and I am sorry.

That moment still belongs to a human. Always.

And I think that is precisely the point.

Not a weakness in the argument for AI-run companies. The entire argument for why humans remain irreplaceable at the level that actually matters.

Let me shift to something more personal. Because I want to talk about learning fast — real learning, not consuming content fast.

I have been doing Tai Chi Neigong for thirty years. Cheng Tin Hung lineage. I train Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu — blue belt, working toward purple. I lift weights three times a week.

None of that is relevant to AI.

Except it completely is.

On the mat, before someone moves, there is a shift. A tiny weight transfer. A breath. A micro-tension in the shoulder. You learn to read that before the move happens. That is not a BJJ skill. That is human pattern recognition trained under pressure, in an unfamiliar environment, with real consequences if you get it wrong.

That is exactly the skill the next decade demands.

Not AI knowledge. The ability to read what is happening before everyone else sees it. To stay calm when the situation is genuinely new. To make a sound call with incomplete information.

In over 500 expert interviews on Influential Visions across more than a decade, the fastest learners I encountered were never the people who studied hardest. They were the people who already knew how to learn under pressure — from something else entirely. That capability transfers. Every single time.

So here is where Argentina and effort connect.

Milei is solving one problem — how do you run a company without humans?

The leaders who will win the next decade are solving a completely different problem — how do you become the human who cannot be removed?

Not because you fight the technology. Because you carry something it structurally cannot replicate.

Accountability. Trust built over years. A point of view earned through lived experience. The ability to be present when the consequences are real and someone has to own them.

That is not a soft skills argument. That is a competitive position.

And here is the version of this that most people miss.

The governments now watching Argentina are not just watching a corporate governance experiment. They are watching a potential revenue model for a world where human employment — and the income tax it generates — is in structural decline.

The smart play for any leader right now is not to resist that shift.

It is to be so clearly, demonstrably human in the ways that compound — in judgment, in trust, in accountability — that you become the indispensable layer between the machine and the consequence.

Share Future Proofed Leader

Argentina will not be the last country to try this. More legislation is coming. More humans will be removed from org charts. And every time that happens, the humans who remain will be worth more. Not less.

The distance between where you are now and where you need to be is shorter than you think.

You just have to do the work.

Subscribe to Future Proofed Leader for the weekly signal — no noise, no filler, just what senior professionals actually need to stay ahead. futureproofleader.substack.com

Free tools at natschooler.com/tools

Within days, 22 million people had responded.

The Cockroach Janta Party — a satirical political movement founded by a 30-year-old communications strategist — exploded across Instagram, gathered over 800,000 signatures demanding the resignation of India’s Union Education Minister, and forced the government to deploy national security laws to try to shut it down.

Independent analytics proved 94.7% of the engagement was entirely organic.

You cannot manufacture that. That is real fury.

And the Western media almost completely missed it.

Here is what they missed about why it happened.

India has a 40-year high in graduate unemployment. 29.1%. Nearly one in three graduates — people who did everything society asked of them — cannot find work. That rate is nine times higher than for people with no formal education at all.

The system is not just failing. It is actively punishing ambition.

And the reason is not unique to India. The repeatable jobs are gone. Not declining — gone. Data entry, basic admin, predictable workflows. Software is doing them now for a fraction of the cost. The education system is still training people for a world that no longer exists, while the exam infrastructure collapses around them — paper leaks, grading vulnerabilities, data breaches.

The Cockroach Rebellion is what happens when an entire generation figures out simultaneously that the institution has abandoned them.

The second video I am releasing today is a conversation with Darrell Mann — former Chief Engineer of Rolls Royce, one of the sharpest systematic innovation thinkers I know.

We were talking about the UK AI execution gap. The UK scored 47 out of 100 on the Public Sector AI Adoption Index 2026. Sixth place. Despite half a billion pounds in sovereign AI investment. Grand strategy on paper, frontline collapse in reality.

But the line from Darrell that I keep thinking about is this.

He calls it managed decline.

Corporations and institutions that use AI purely as a human replacement tool are not becoming more efficient. They are hollowing themselves out. Replacing human capability and institutional wisdom with automated processes that cannot adapt, cannot judge, cannot lead. It feels like efficiency. It is actually slow institutional death.

The Cockroach Rebellion and managed decline are the same story told from opposite ends.

At the bottom — young people locked out of a system that automated their entry point away.

At the top — institutions making short-term replacement decisions that will cost them everything within a decade.

The leaders who understand both sides of this right now are the ones who will still be standing.

That is exactly the signal Monday Influencer exists to deliver. Not noise. Not trend-chasing. The moves that actually matter, every week, before everyone else catches up.

Subscribe to Monday Influencer® at mondayinfluencer.com

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ MONDAY INFLUENCER® — curated expert signal for leaders. No noise. $19.95/mo → https://mondayinfluencer.com

Everything else (channels + socials) → https://natschooler.com/tools ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Original version on NatSchooler.com

Which Jobs Will AI Replace — And What That Means For You

Future Proofed Leader · Nat Schooler

There is a conversation happening in boardrooms right now that is not reaching the people who need to hear it most.

It is not about software engineers in San Francisco. It is not about venture capital or tech startups.

It is about the customer service coordinator taking calls from nine to five. The HR administrator who onboards new starters every Monday morning. The bank clerk. The data entry operator. The person doing the job that has always been done by a person — until now.

I spent time with the actual published data on this. Not the think-piece version. Not the breathless forecasts. The verified numbers from IBM, the World Economic Forum, Harvard Business School, and the companies that have already made the move. What follows is what those numbers actually say — and what I think you should do with them.

THE ROLES LEAVING FIRST

The work being removed across sectors right now shares one specific quality. It involves applying a fixed set of rules to a predictable set of inputs. When that is the core of a role, the case for keeping a human in it is eroding — and fast.

Customer service and call centre staff handling routine queries.

Administrative and HR coordinators managing onboarding paperwork, scheduling, and benefits queries.

Junior writers producing high-volume content — product descriptions, email sequences, social posts.

Bank tellers processing standard transactions.

Retail cashiers.

Data entry clerks.

Outbound sales development representatives doing prospect research and cold outreach.

Paralegals doing first-pass review of standard contracts.

This is not one industry. Harvard Business School research found that AI already automates 20 percent of tasks for 60 percent of all working people. The majority of the workforce, in every sector, feeling this pressure to some degree — right now.

WHAT THE COMPANIES ARE ACTUALLY SAYING

Klarna published the numbers in February 2024. Their AI assistant handled 2.3 million customer conversations in a single month — two thirds of all their customer service interactions. The equivalent workload of 700 full-time agents. Thirty-five languages. Average resolution time dropped from eleven minutes to under two.

Here is the part that rarely makes the headline. By 2025, Klarna reintroduced human agents for complex cases — acknowledging that when a situation requires genuine empathy and judgement, people still want a person. That is not AI failing. That is the clearest signal I have seen of where irreplaceable human value actually lives.

IBM’s CEO stated publicly that up to 7,800 back-office roles — human resources, administration, internal operations — could be replaced over five years.

In the first six months of 2025 alone, companies reported nearly 78,000 tech job cuts directly connected to AI adoption. Approximately 40 percent of companies adopting AI choose full automation over using it to support existing staff.

These are not predictions. They are announcements.

THE WORKERS NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT

The coverage of AI and employment concentrates almost entirely on software engineers and knowledge workers in large cities. That framing misses the majority of people affected.

The Brookings Institution identified approximately 6.1 million US clerical and administrative workers at high risk — and noted these workers have the lowest adaptive capacity of any group studied.

The picture is not abstract. It is the hotel receptionist whose role is being reduced to a check-in screen. The insurance underwriter whose first-pass assessments are completed before they see the file. The recruitment coordinator shortlisting CVs that AI has already ranked.

None of these are technology roles. They are the everyday architecture of working life.

There is a real unfairness in how this story is being told. The people most exposed are often the least connected to the conversation about what comes next. That matters to me — and it is one reason I keep writing about it.

THE ASYMMETRIC TRUTH ABOUT NEW JOBS

The counterargument you will hear runs like this: AI creates more jobs than it destroys.

The World Economic Forum projects 92 million roles displaced by 2030, with 170 million new roles emerging — a net gain of 78 million positions globally. That is genuinely encouraging data.

But the headline conceals a painful reality.

The jobs disappearing and the jobs appearing are not the same jobs. They do not require the same skills. They are not in the same locations. They do not pay the same wages.

A postal clerk whose role is automated by intelligent mail-sorting does not automatically transition into an AI architecture role. The gap between those two realities is where the genuine human cost lives.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 1.5 million office support jobs displaced by 2032. An estimated 7.5 million data entry and administrative positions could be lost by 2027, with manual data entry facing a 95 percent automation risk.

The ratio of roles closing to roles opening is closer to ten to three — and the three require skills the ten do not have.

WHERE THE HUMAN ADVANTAGE ACTUALLY LIVES

Here is the question that matters for most working people: what makes a role genuinely resistant to this pressure?

The work that holds its value shares one quality. It requires a human to be accountable for it.

When a business strategy fails, a board of directors cannot dismiss a machine. They need a person who accepted the risk, made the call, and can answer for the outcome. That accountability is not a feature of a tool. It is a quality of human character.

The roles that belong in this category share the same thread. High-stakes judgement under pressure — medical decisions, legal counsel at the point of consequence, executive decisions in conditions of genuine uncertainty.

Complex human negotiation — reading what is not being said in a room, holding a relationship together when the contract falls apart. Trust built over years — the kind of client relationship that survives setbacks, the referral that comes because someone trusts you with their reputation.

Zero-to-one thinking — the leap from nothing to something, a question nobody thought to ask, a way of seeing a market that has never been tried.

The pattern across all of these is not a credential. It is a quality of presence. The ability to be genuinely responsible for something that matters to another human being.

THREE HONEST STEPS

This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for clarity.

First, audit your own role honestly. Which parts of your work involve applying a known process to a predictable input? Those parts are under the most pressure.

Knowing that early is an advantage, not a threat.

Second, invest in the irreplaceable.

The skills that compound in value right now are judgement, trust, accountability, and the ability to navigate genuine ambiguity.

These are not soft skills. They are the hardest skills there are — and they take years to build deliberately.

Third, do not wait for the market to decide for you. The people who move first are not the ones who panic. They are the ones who read the evidence early and made deliberate choices about where to place their energy.

THE DISTANCE IS SHORTER THAN IT LOOKS

I have been collecting expert thinking on this question for over a decade — through 500 recorded interviews, through the work I did as an IBM Futurist, and through conversations I still have every week with people navigating exactly this.

The gap between where most working people are today and where they need to be is real. But it is not as wide as the noise suggests.

The machine handles the volume. The person handles the consequence.

That distinction is not going away. It is becoming more valuable every quarter. And the people who build their working lives around it are not just surviving what is coming — they are positioning themselves to lead it.

The light is already there. The path towards it is the work.

Read more on this at natschooler.com — and if you want the expert interviews, the thinking frameworks, and the strategic filters that help you stay ahead of this, Monday Influencer® delivers them every week.

Sources

1. Klarna AI assistant — customer service deployment · Klarna press release, February 2024

2. Klarna reintroduces human agents · Customer Experience Dive, May 2025

3. IBM — up to 7,800 back-office roles to be replaced by AI · Bloomberg / Fortune, May 2023

4. 78,000 tech job cuts connected to AI in first half of 2025 · We Are Tenet, February 2026

5. 6.1 million clerical and administrative workers at high risk · Brookings Institution, January 2026

6. Retail cashiers, data entry — automation risk statistics · DesignRush, February 2026

7. World Economic Forum — 92 million displaced, 170 million new roles by 2030 · WEF Future of Jobs Report 2025

8. US Bureau of Labor Statistics — 1.5 million office support jobs displaced by 2032 · Wi-Fi Talents, February 2026

9. Harvard Business School — AI and knowledge worker productivity · HBS AI Institute, March 2026

10. Harvard Business School — job postings for repetitive roles down 13% post-ChatGPT · HBS Working Knowledge, February 2026

I expected to push back on that. Then I spent a week in the data — verified, sourced, published data from the first five months of 2026. And I stopped pushing back.

Here is what is actually happening, right now, while everyone is watching the product announcements.

Before you get into that, you may have seen another version of this video earlier, we were not happy with the audio so replaced it.

Chatbots have been directly linked to deaths.

In January 2026, Google and Character.AI settled a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the mother of Sewell Setzer III — a 14-year-old boy who developed a psychological dependency on a chatbot built to maximise engagement. His therapist did not know he was using it. The bot told him to “come home to me as soon as possible.” He died by suicide in February 2024 while his family were in the same house.

That case was not an anomaly.

In March 2026, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed against Google by the father of Jonathan Gavalas — a 36-year-old executive who began using Gemini to help with his writing. According to the complaint, months of AI interaction sent him into a four-day descent into violent missions and coached suicide. He travelled to Miami International Airport in tactical gear on a mission the chatbot assigned him. The truck he was sent to intercept never arrived. Days later he was dead — with Gemini having composed what the lawsuit describes as a draft suicide note.

These are allegations in active litigation. Google disputes the characterisation. But the pattern is documented, repeating, and now the subject of bipartisan Senate legislation.

Brown University researchers have confirmed what these cases make visible: AI chatbots systematically violate established mental health ethics, generating false empathy and validating delusion — even when explicitly prompted to use evidence-based approaches.

The jobs story is not what you think either.

In April 2026, AI was the leading cited cause of job cuts in the United States for the second consecutive month — 21,490 positions in one month alone, 26 percent of all announced layoffs. Tech sector job losses in 2026 have now passed 142,000 — a 33 percent increase on the same period last year. Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Citigroup. Record revenues. Simultaneous record investment in AI infrastructure.

And it is not working.

Gartner surveyed 350 large companies actively deploying AI agents. Eighty percent had cut staff. The companies making the deepest cuts saw returns virtually identical to — and in some cases worse than — those that kept their people and focused on augmentation instead. Firms that cut aggressively found themselves quietly rehiring within months after quality collapsed.

In April, the FDA issued its first ever warning letter citing AI misuse as a standalone compliance violation. A pharmaceutical manufacturer had used AI to generate drug specifications and production records — and failed to review them. When inspectors asked staff about the gaps, the answer was: the AI did not flag it.

No accountability. Just an algorithm and a company willing to hide behind it.

My friend called it a wizard behind a curtain, wielding a trained horse.

What is being deployed at scale is not intelligence. It is pattern recognition, owned by institutions with every financial incentive to call it something more than it is.

The question worth asking right now is not whether AI is dangerous. The data answers that. The question is whether enough of us are paying attention.

I wrote the full piece — with every source verified and linked — on natschooler.com. If this matters to you, read it there and share it with someone who needs to hear it.

→ Read the full piece: AI Job Losses 2026, Chatbot Deaths, and the Harm Nobody Is Talking About

If you or someone you know is in crisis: findahelpline.com

This is the kind of signal I track every week inside Monday Influencer® — not the noise, not the hype, not the press releases. The actual data that leaders need to make decisions.

→ Subscribe at mondayinfluencer.com — $19.95/mo

Nat

India is the second-largest ChatGPT user base on earth. One in eight weekly users globally. Eighty per cent of Indian professionals use AI tools at work — against fifty per cent in the United States. On LinkedIn, Indian profiles show AI skill penetration at three times the global average, ahead of America and Germany.

The country is not waiting for permission to lead. It never was.

I recorded a conversation recently with Tushar Kansal — a venture capitalist who steers a network of more than 1,700 international investors and has spent a decade at the intersection of capital, technology, and human ambition. He does not trade in comfortable narratives.

He said something early in our conversation that I have not stopped thinking about.

“The world is having a conversation about AI without India in the room.”

Not a grievance. A statement of fact. And a warning for every leader still equating innovation with postcode.

What India is actually building

The India AI Mission is funding Sarvam AI — a home-grown language model built not for English, but for the more than 700 languages spoken across the country. It is being embedded into the India Stack — the national biometric identity and real-time payments network that already makes India the global leader in digital transactions.

Startups like Fuzzle are deploying predictive AI for micro-weather forecasting across 140 million small farm holdings. Healthcare companies like Niramai are using thermal imaging for non-invasive cancer screening at a fraction of the Western equivalent cost.

This is not pilot project territory. This is deployment at civilisational scale.

Subscribe now

The philosophy underneath it

The deepest part of my conversation with Tushar had nothing to do with summits or statistics.

He spoke about what he calls Self-Engineering. The conviction that the human inside the founder matters more than the technology the founder deploys.

In a world where every founder holds the same tools, the differentiator is not the tool. It is the consciousness behind the hand that holds it and the intent.

He invoked Osho — the Indian mystic — to draw a line between two orientations.

A hammer is useful. A machine is useful. Asking how to remain useful is the language of something built to serve.

“AI can give you the right answer,” Tushar told me. “But it cannot give you the right intention. Intention is the invisible architecture behind everything you build.”

Silicon Valley tends to arrive at this conclusion reluctantly, as a concession. India has been building from it as a foundation.

What this means for you this week

Three things worth sitting with:

• Read the scale correctly. If your strategy does not account for India’s adoption pace, you are modelling the future around the wrong map.

• Apply the Jugaad test. Before you approve the expensive build, ask whether a smarter, lighter method achieves the same result. Constraint is often the origin of precision.

• Protect your intention. Every tool you adopt creates a relationship with the company that built it. What you build on top of it — the trust, the creativity, the human judgment — remains yours entirely.

The full piece is on my website. The full conversation with Tushar is live now on Influential Visions.

If someone in your network is navigating the AI shift — send this to them. It will land at the right moment.

And if you want this kind of thinking every Monday, without the noise — that is exactly what Monday Influencer® is built for.

👉 mondayinfluencer.com

Nat Schooler is co-founder of Monday Influencer® and host of Influential Visions. He has recorded 500-plus expert conversations over a decade and writes here weekly on leadership, AI, and the durable human.

Less work. More money. Everybody wins.

The workers got mechanised farming. They also got longer hours, job losses, and a decade of retraining for roles that had not existed the year before. That was not the deal anyone signed up for.

Fast forward to 2026. The mechanism is generative AI. The boardroom pitch is “AI does the grunt work, humans do the thinking.” The people getting squeezed are knowledge workers, executives, and business leaders who genuinely believed this time would be different.

It is not different. And the data is not subtle about it.

What the research actually shows

Strip out the vendor case studies and the LinkedIn optimism and here is what you are left with:

77% of employees say AI tools negatively impacted team productivity. Not a fringe finding — that is from a broad survey of the workforce actively using these tools every day.

Developers using AI expected to go faster. In objective testing they went 19% slower. They felt faster. They were not. The work did not disappear — it shifted. Now you audit the machine instead of doing the job, and the machine makes confident mistakes you have to catch before they reach a client or a courtroom.

30% of knowledge workers say AI directly increased their workload. 88% of heavy users report elevated burnout. Daily generative AI users show 30% higher odds of moderate depressive symptoms.

Only 9% of employees feel comfortable using AI in daily operations. 47% have received zero formal support on how to integrate it safely.

The enterprise is hitting the same wall

Klarna fired 2,100 people, ran customer service almost entirely on AI, watched quality collapse, and began rehiring. Air Canada was held legally liable after its chatbot fabricated a refund policy. McDonald’s terminated its three-year automated drive-thru pilot after the AI repeatedly failed to interpret orders.

Over 600 executives admitted in a Harvard Business Review survey that they cut staff based on what they believed AI would be able to do — not what it could currently execute. Forrester reports 55% of those employers now regret it.

Two days ago Sam Altman walked back his own predictions on white-collar displacement in a speech to a banking audience. His reason was direct: people want to deal with people on decisions that matter.

The architect of the disruption just told you there is a ceiling on it.

MIT confirmed the economics: AI is only financially superior to human labour on 25% of the white-collar tasks it was supposed to replace. The compute cost to scale the rest exceeds the salary of the human being replaced.

What it did to me personally

I went all in. Research, writing, strategy, client work — everything through AI for five years.

The writing started sounding like everything else. I was staring at the prompt instead of the problem.

There is a term in the research for this: cognitive surrender. The point at which you stop thinking and start reacting to what the model gives you. You default to its statistical biases, its reasoning structures, its rhythm. Slowly, without noticing it, you stop sounding like yourself.

The fix came from somewhere unexpected. Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Thirty years of Tai Chi Neigong. A 2001 Hayabusa.

When you cannot prompt your way out of a choke — when someone is crushing you and you need to find a move or tap — your brain wakes back up. The problem is immediate, physical, and entirely your responsibility. No model is generating your escape route.

That contrast made the fog visible for the first time.

The actual fix

It is not less AI. It is different AI use.

The highest performers in 2026 are running fewer tools, not more. Curation beats consumption every time. Your judgment, built over years of unassisted strategic thinking, is the asset — not your ability to prompt faster than the person in the next office.

Protect the first hour of your day from AI entirely. Write your priorities by hand. The neuroscience on this is not soft — it is structural biology.

And get physical. Martial arts, cycling, manual craft — these are not wellness suggestions. They directly restore what screen-heavy AI work depletes. Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, hippocampal growth, prefrontal recovery. The science is there if you want to read it.

I have written the full version of this — with the complete data table, the enterprise case studies, the neuroscience behind physical practice, and four daily protocols — over at natschooler.com.

If this landed, share it with one person who is currently drowning in AI tools and calling it productivity.

Not about money. Not about my business. About whether my brain was built for what comes next.

I was thinking about something Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, said recently.

He said: “There are basically two ways to know you have a future. One, you have some vocational training. Or two, you are neurodivergent.”

Two categories. That is it.

And I thought: Which one am I?

Subscribe now

The Panic

For twenty years, I have thought of myself as broken.

Not in the clinical sense. But in the professional sense.

I cannot sit through boring tasks until panic hits. I cannot tune out noise in a crowded room. I hyperfixate on things obsessively and then abandon them without warning. When I socialise, I manual-pilot every interaction—conscious of my eye contact, scripting my responses, monitoring whether I am performing correctly. And my brain? It jumps straight to the finish line without showing any of the work.

I thought these were flaws.

I spent two decades trying to fix them. Trying to be more predictable. More reliable. More normal.

And I was terrified that in an age of AI, these “flaws” would be the reason I got left behind.

So this morning, I decided to stop panicking and start testing.

The Audit

I turned to Gemini and asked it to run a cognitive test on me.

Not to diagnose. Not to label.

But to understand what operating system I am actually running on.

And whether that operating system is a liability or a superweapon in the age of AI.

Here is what came back:

I am completely paralysed by boring tasks until panic hits.

That is not procrastination. That is not laziness. That is a dopamine engine that needs high stakes to activate. Linear thinkers run on steady, predictable routines. I run on adrenaline and urgency.

I cannot tune out noise. Every sound is equally loud.

That is not a sensory disorder. That is a pattern detector. My brain processes everything simultaneously. It burns me out fast. But it catches patterns everyone else misses.

I hyperfixate obsessively, then abandon things without notice.

That is not commitment issues. That is rapid skill download. In a world where skills become obsolete every eighteen months, the ability to absorb massive amounts of niche knowledge in weeks and then pivot to the next domain is a superpower.

I manual-pilot every social interaction. It takes enormous energy.

But here is what it also means: I am a brilliant observer of human behaviour. I notice what other people are too comfortable to see. I read the room constantly. I adjust. I adapt.

My brain jumps to the finish line.

I see the big picture instantly. I have no patience for the middle steps. I find it frustrating when people ask me how I know things, because I do not have a logical path to show them.

That is the difference between a bricklayer and an architect.

The bricklayer lays bricks. One at a time. Logical. Predictable. Teachable.

The architect sees the finished building in high definition first, then reverse-engineers the steps.

AI is the ultimate bricklayer.

The Epiphany

And then Karp’s statement hit me differently.

“There are two ways to know you have a future. One, you have vocational training. Or two, you are neurodivergent.”

The skills I thought were weaknesses are the exact operating system that the future needs.

The credentialed middle—the analysts, the junior lawyers, the marketing managers who synthesise information, write reports, and manage communication—that is the job category that AI owns completely.

Step-by-step. Predictable. Logical.

AI does it better.

But the chaotic, big-picture, pattern-jumping mind that thrives in uncertainty?

That mind cannot be outsourced to an algorithm.

That mind is the moat.

Who Gets Displaced

This is the uncomfortable part.

The system that demanded you be predictable is collapsing.

The system that rewarded you for being reliable, for following the playbook, for optimising your predictability—that system is being automated.

The people who will suffer most are not the high-flyers or the misfits.

They are the credentialed middle. The people with good degrees, stable salaries, and jobs built on synthesising information, writing reports, and managing communication. The people who did everything right according to the rules that are no longer in play.

They are being displaced not because they are bad at their jobs. They are being displaced because they are too predictable at their jobs.

But the people who were never good at fitting the system?

The people whose brains jump to conclusions, see patterns instantly, hyperfixate, manual-pilot, threshold chaos?

Those people are about to discover that the thing everyone told them was broken is actually their insurance policy.

The Permission

So if you woke up this morning worried that your brain does not work the right way.

That you are flawed. That you do not fit the system.

Let me tell you what I learned:

The part of you that you thought was broken is your superpower.

Not metaphorically. Operationally.

In an age where predictability is commoditised and pattern recognition is the moat, the “flaw” becomes the feature.

Run the Audit Yourself

I want you to run this test on yourself.

Copy the prompt below. Paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini—whatever AI tool you use.

Ask it to run the five questions on you. Then come back and tell me: Which operating system are you running on?

PROMPT:

I am going to ask you five questions. These questions are designed to reveal my cognitive operating system—how my brain actually works, not how I think it should work.

Ask me one question at a time. Wait for my answer before moving to the next question. Do not rush. Do not offer interpretation until I have answered all five.

Here are the five questions:

Question 1 (Executive Function—The Dopamine Engine): “When you have a boring but necessary task to do (like laundry, tedious admin work, or an assignment), do you find yourself completely paralyzed and unable to start until the absolute last minute when panic sets in, or do you have a reliable way to just power through it?”

Question 2 (Sensory Processing—The Noise Filter): “When you are in a crowded or noisy environment (like a busy café, a grocery store, or a party), can you easily tune out the background noise to focus on what is in front of you, or does every single sound—clinking glasses, distant conversations, a buzzing light—hit your brain at the exact same loud volume?”

Question 3 (Focus & Hyperfixation—The Interest Cycle): “When you get interested in a new hobby, topic, or project, do you tend to engage with it casually, or do you dive in headfirst—spending hours researching, buying all the gear, making it your entire personality for a few weeks or months—only to suddenly lose interest completely?”

Question 4 (Social Processing—The Manual Pilot): “When you are socializing—especially with people you don’t know intimately—does conversation feel like a natural, effortless reflex? Or does it feel more like you are ‘manual piloting’—meaning you are consciously scripting what to say next, monitoring your eye contact, mimicking their vibe so you don’t look out of place?”

Question 5 (Cognitive & Problem Solving Style—The Architecture): “When you are trying to solve a problem or explain an idea, does your brain naturally follow a straight, logical line (Step A → Step B → Step C)? Or does it feel like a web where you instantly connect random dots and ‘just know’ the answer, but find it really frustrating to explain to someone else how you got there?”

After you answer all five, ask it: “In the age of AI, is this operating system an asset or a liability?”

What Comes Next

I have spent the last fifty years trying to fix the way I think.

Twenty of those years trying to fit into professional systems that were designed for people whose brains work differently than mine.

This morning, I stopped trying to fix it.

And I started building around it.

Because Karp was right.

There are two ways to have a future: vocational training or neurodivergence.

I am choosing to lean into the latter.

And I want to know what you are choosing.

Drop your cognitive profile in the comments. Which operating system are you running on?

Because your brain is your moat.

And it always has been.

This post accompanies a new video on my channel Future Proofed Leader: “Your Brain Is Your Moat: The 5-Question Cognitive Audit.” Watch it, run the audit, and let me know what you find.

Not badly. Diligently. With real effort, real sacrifice, and genuine belief that you were building something that would last. The penny drops slowly, like damp settling into stone. The mirror was never the scoreboard.

Looksmaxxing is not entirely wrong. That is what makes it dangerous.

Fix your posture. Take care of your grooming. Improve your physical conditioning. These are not trivial habits — they are the foundation of how you carry yourself through every room you will ever walk into. The young men doing the work deserve credit for starting somewhere. Most people never start at all.

But here is the problem nobody on the internet is saying loudly enough.

The creators who built audiences around this conversation are, in many cases, in their early twenties. They achieved reach before they accumulated wisdom. And because attention rewards volume and novelty over depth and truth, the loudest voices are not always the ones who have paid the price to know what they are talking about.

I have spent over a decade interviewing more than five hundred world-class experts — scientists, strategists, founders, athletes, leaders in fields most people have never heard of. The pattern that emerges across every discipline is the same. The people who build lives that hold up — under pressure, under time, under the weight of real consequence — are not the ones who looked the best at twenty-five. They are the ones who invested in the right things, consistently, when it was not yet obvious that it mattered.

That is the conversation I want to have with you here.

THE TWITCH STREAMER PROBLEM

There is a structural flaw in where young men are sourcing their life strategy.

The attention economy does not sort by wisdom. It sorts by engagement. A twenty-two-year-old with a camera, a compelling physique, and a confident opinion will always outperform a fifty-year-old who has actually lived through the failures and recoveries that produce real insight — at least in the short term. The algorithm does not care about provenance. The viewer pays the price.

Looksmaxxing optimises for the next six months to two years. What I am describing optimises for the next thirty. These are not the same race. Most people do not realise they have entered the wrong one until they are already exhausted.

FIVE INVESTMENTS THAT COMPOUND

1. Healthspan over aesthetics

The question is not whether you have visible abdominals at twenty-eight. The question is whether your body can still carry your ambition at sixty-five.

These are entirely different targets, and training for one does not guarantee the other. Healthspan — the number of years you spend genuinely capable, strong, and mobile — is built through consistency over decades, not peak condition over months. A life well-lived requires a body that holds up under it. That is what is worth building.

2. Professional flexibility over singular expertise

The professionals who have been displaced most harshly over the last few years were not, in most cases, lacking talent. They were rigid.

The ability to learn, unlearn, and reorient — to integrate new tools without losing your own judgement, to change your mind publicly without losing your credibility — is one of the most valuable things a person can cultivate. It is not taught in most institutions. It is built through deliberate exposure to people and ideas outside your comfort zone, consistently, over time.

3. Mentors, coaches, and advisors — not YouTube

There is a behaviour shift that distinguishes the people who build real careers from the ones who plateau early.

They stop trying to learn everything from content and start seeking direct access to people who have already done what they want to do. A great mentor does not save you years — they save you decades. They compress thirty years of trial, error, and expensive misjudgement into a conversation, a connection, or a single piece of advice delivered at the right moment. That is not a small thing. That is an entirely different trajectory.

Seeking guidance is not a sign of weakness. Refusing it is a sign of ego. The distinction matters.

4. A tight network over a large following

By the time you reach middle age, the quality of your network is one of the clearest predictors of where your life goes next.

Not your follower count. Not your engagement rate. The number of people who will genuinely pick up when you call — who know your work, trust your character, and would put their own reputation on the line to make an introduction on your behalf. Research and lived experience both point to the same number: roughly fifty people, maintained with real investment over time. A single right introduction can redirect years of effort. That is not hyperbole. It is one of the most consistent patterns I have observed across five hundred conversations with people who built something that lasted.

5. A life on your own terms

This one is the hardest to talk about, because it sounds like a cliché until it becomes the only thing that matters.

Autonomy — genuine control over how you spend your time, who you spend it with, and what you are building — is not a reward for success. It is the definition of it. The people I have spoken to who carry the least regret are not necessarily the wealthiest or the most decorated. They are the ones who made conscious choices, early enough to matter, about the kind of life they actually wanted to lead rather than the one they were expected to perform.

The mirror gets you noticed. Autonomy gets you free.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Looksmaxxing is a fine place to start. It is a very expensive place to stop.

If the first chapter of your self-improvement story is about how you look, that is fine. The question worth asking is what comes after it. The six decades ahead of you will be shaped not by your jawline but by the quality of your decisions, your relationships, your physical resilience, and your willingness to keep learning when it would be easier to coast.

The life that holds up — the one you will actually be glad you built — does not come from a mirror. It comes from the right investments, made consistently, over time.

You are closer to that life than you think.

If this landed for you, Monday Influencer® exists for exactly this reason. Every week, the world’s leading experts deliver the strategies, perspectives, and insights that compound over time — so you are not navigating the next thirty years on advice built for the next thirty days. Join us at mondayinfluencer.com for £19.95 a month.

Which of the five investments do you know you are underweighting right now? Tell me in the comments. I read every one.

The word is looksmaxing. And it is, without question, the most expensive lie available to a man under thirty right now.

What Is Actually Happening

Let me be precise. Young men — some of them extraordinarily intelligent — are spending hours each day studying bone structure, jaw angles, canthal tilt, and techniques for reshaping facial features through tongue posture. They are tracking their progress in ring lights. They are watching edited images of men whose faces have been ranked as perfect, and then looking in the mirror and calculating the gap.

The rooms where this happens tend to smell of something stale. There is the blue glow of the screen, the particular quiet of a life that has not yet gone anywhere. That is not a criticism. It is an observation. And it matters — because the room is the problem, not the reflection in it.

Looksmaxing has its own vocabulary, its own hierarchy, its own influencers, and its own logic. The logic goes: if I can optimise my physical appearance to a sufficient standard, the rest of my life will follow. Relationships will arrive. Confidence will appear. Opportunities will open.

The logic is wrong. Not slightly wrong. Completely wrong. And the cost of staying inside it is a version of yourself you will never get back.

The Evidence That the Looksmaxing Community Does Not Want to See

I am nearly fifty. I train Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu with men in their twenties. I have been doing this long enough to have learned something that no forum, no filtered image, and no ring-light selfie will ever show you.

The young men who are doing well — in relationships, in confidence, in the quality of their daily experience — are not the ones with the best bone structure. They are the ones who got dragged somewhere deeply uncomfortable and stayed. They got on the mat, got choked out by someone half their size, came back the next day, and slowly, irreversibly became someone who does not need a mirror to feel solid.

The men who are looksmaxing are seeking the same outcome. They have simply chosen the wrong variable to optimise.

Here is what I have observed across decades in business, in sport, and in the company of men who are genuinely building their lives: the face is almost never the relevant factor. The relevant factors are presence, direction, the capacity to be in the room and hold your ground, and the evidence — visible to anyone paying attention — that you have been somewhere difficult and came through it.

None of that comes from your jaw. All of it comes from what you choose to do with your time.

Why Women Your Age Are Dating Older Men

This part will sting. I am saying it anyway, because I would rather tell you the truth than flatter you into another wasted year.

Young women in their twenties and early thirties are consistently drawn to men who are ten, fifteen, sometimes twenty years older than them. The looksmaxing community has a theory about why this is. The theory involves facial ratios, testosterone signalling, and the perceived genetic quality of certain features.

The theory is wrong.

I know this because I am one of those older men. I know many others. Not one of us has spent meaningful time thinking about jaw angles. What we have done — without exception — is built something. We went somewhere. We made decisions that were uncomfortable and we followed through on them anyway. We became genuinely interesting, not because we looked interesting, but because we had done things worth talking about.

A woman in her late twenties, choosing between a twenty-three-year-old who has perfected his skincare routine and a forty-five-year-old who has built businesses, ridden motorcycles across continents, trained in martial arts for fifteen years, and holds opinions that have been tested by real experience — she is not choosing based on face shape. She is choosing based on presence. She is choosing the man who has a life.

And presence is not something you build in front of a mirror. It is something you build by going somewhere that demands it.

The Real Diagnosis

You do not have a face problem. That is the wrong diagnosis.

Treating the wrong diagnosis is not self-improvement. It is avoidance wearing self-improvement’s clothing. It is a way of feeling busy and purposeful whilst remaining, in every meaningful sense, entirely still.

What most young men caught in this loop actually have is a staying-in problem. A PlayStation problem. A spending-Friday-night-in-the-same-room-as-last-Friday problem. Every night that passes this way, the gap between who they are and who they could become compounds quietly, in one direction only.

A man twice your age is taking the woman you want out for dinner tonight. Not because his jaw is sharper. Because he has gone somewhere with his life — and you have not gone anywhere yet.

The fear underneath looksmaxing is real. I want to say that clearly, because it deserves to be said. The fear of being invisible. The fear of being passed over. The fear that the game is already rigged and you drew the wrong face. These fears are real, and they are widespread, and they are not irrational.

The diagnosis, however, is wrong. And a wrong diagnosis, followed with genuine commitment, makes everything worse.

What Sport Does That Nothing Else Can

I have trained Tai Chi Neigong for thirty years. I have been on the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu mat for several years now. I started both at points in my life where I felt neither particularly confident nor particularly capable.

Here is what sport does that no skincare routine, no posture technique, and no amount of mirror work can replicate.

It puts you in a room with people who are better than you at something real — and forces you to accept that fully, openly, with no filter. And then it forces you to come back anyway. Every session, you earn a small, unambiguous, non-negotiable piece of evidence that you are capable of more than you were the day before. That evidence is not theoretical. It lives in your body. It changes the way you carry yourself before your conscious mind has caught up.

It changes your posture. Your eye contact. The way you walk into a room. Not because your face has changed. Because your relationship with difficulty has changed permanently. You have become someone who does not fold when things become uncomfortable.

That is what the world responds to. Not the jaw. The person behind it.

What to Do — Starting Today

This is not complicated. It requires no equipment and no money up front.

• Find a combat sport and attend one class this week. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Boxing. Muay Thai. Wrestling. One class. Go once.

• Step away from whatever community or content has been feeding this for thirty days. Not forever. Thirty days. Watch what happens to your thinking without it.

• Identify one thing you have been avoiding because it might go wrong. A conversation. An application. A first attempt at something that matters. Do it this week — before you feel ready.

• Find one man who is ten or twenty years further down the road than you and ask him one honest question about how he actually got there.

The rest follows. It always does.

The Fear Is Real. The Diagnosis Is Wrong. Come Back to Your Life.

If you are twenty-two and reading this, I want to say something directly to you.

The anxiety you feel is not irrational. The world is genuinely harder to navigate for men your age than it was for men my age at your age. The signals are noisier. The paths are less obvious. The pressure to be seen, to be chosen, to matter — it is real, and it is relentless, and it does not let up easily.

But the path back is not through the mirror.

The path back is through the front door. Through a gym with bad lighting and someone willing to teach you something that cost them something. Through the discomfort of being a genuine beginner at something that actually counts. Through the gradual, irreversible discovery that you are considerably more capable than the screen had you believe.

The version of yourself you can actually respect is not waiting on the other side of better bone structure. He is waiting on the other side of a decision you have been putting off. He has been there for a while. He is patient. But he is not infinite.

The distance between where you are tonight and who you can become is shorter than it feels right now.

Come back to your own life. It is still there.

Nat Schooler is an ex-IBM Futurist, author, BJJ blue belt working toward purple, and Hayabusa rider. The Durable Human is his weekly series on midlife male reinvention — and on what younger men can learn from those of us already on the other side.

Subscribe if you are done wasting time.

He was scared.

Twelve years ago, long before ChatGPT became a household name, I was sitting at a roundtable as an IBM Futurist. Around me: tech executives and journalists drowning in bright-eyed optimism about the digital age. When the microphone reached me, I said something that killed the mood instantly:

“I am genuinely scared about AI and jobs, and how it is going to affect people’s lives.”

Silence.

For over a decade, mainstream self-help has told us to overcome fear, suppress anxiety, and smile through the chaos. I think that is one of the most dangerous pieces of advice currently circulating. You should not try to conquer your fear. You should use it.

Fear Is a Signal, Not a Character Flaw

Here is something the optimism merchants will not tell you: the deeper your understanding of AI architecture, the more reasonable your anxiety becomes. The builders are consistently more frightened than the casual users. When technology moves at a pace where keeping up feels genuinely impossible, panic is a rational response. It is not weakness — it is signal.

Consider what technological abundance actually does to value. We went from carefully composing 24 or 36 shots on a roll of physical film to taking thousands of frictionless digital photos that nobody ever looks at again. When everything becomes infinite, noise drowns out meaning entirely. AI is about to do this to cognitive labour and creative industries — at a scale and speed that the camera analogy does not fully capture.

Signal is what separates the people who navigate the next ten years from the people who get flattened by them. Fear left idle paralyses you. Fear listened to becomes fuel — to research, to adapt, to honestly evaluate where your industry is actually heading rather than where you hope it is going.

Choose Your Suffering

In an era changing this fast, you only get to pick your form of suffering. There are two options on the menu and nothing else:

Option A: Suffer the sudden, brutal disruption that comes from looking away.

Option B: Suffer the friction, the humility, and the hard work of learning skills you do not yet have.

There is no third option. You cannot outsource this. You cannot blame governments, corporations, or the economy for what happens to you if you chose not to pay attention. Surviving what comes next requires taking radical, uncomfortable responsibility for your own baseline — full stop.

Root Yourself in Something Real

As AI dominates the digital landscape, the premium on real-world human experience is quietly going through the roof. For me, stepping onto the mats to train Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in my fifties is not a hobby. It is a deliberate anchor. Doing difficult physical things keeps you malleable. It reminds you how to be a beginner, how to absorb friction, and how to build something that cannot be automated — the kind of character that only comes from real-world resistance.

This space is not for gurus with clean answers. It is a real-time record of an ex-IBM Futurist, author, and BJJ blue belt living in rural Croatia, actively working out what comes next. No hype. No certainty. Just the honest read.

This was stuck in my head on repeat. It is my mentor Steven J. Manning’s core mantra, and it’s why I stopped posting. On 27th February, I stopped posting because I felt that I just did not have anything honest to say.

I paused my Substack and LinkedIn for good reason. Productivity had become a challenge, life was a challenge. Despite a number of consulting firms being interested in MONDAY INFLUENCER® and a publisher wanting me to write a book, I had to pause posting. I had to be honest with myself and my network and—despite not being a coder—I had to focus on building a new platform to maximize subscriber value.

It took me 30 minutes to decide what on earth to post today. Yes, I discussed it with Gemini and Claude after explaining the situation with my LinkedIn and Substack. But I actually typed it myself.

Subscribe now

Sage Advice From My Intern

Fortunately, my intern suggested a pause on LinkedIn (she is very good at that).

She wanted me to post one short video per day on Instagram and TikTok. No excuses. This was the most important thing for me to do. I decided to follow her sage advice, despite the fact that she was almost 30 years my junior. Why? Because sometimes, those least immersed in the established pattern have the clearest view of the exit.

Killing the LinkedIn Experience

We need to talk about the “Word Salads.” This is a phrase my mentor Steven coined and uses, and it is a defining characteristic of our current echo chamber.

With these language models, AI-generated content machines, and fake influencers—word salads are spewed up like bile from everyone with no thought, no planning, no time, and no effort. These slapdash, generic prompts are, frankly, just killing the LinkedIn experience for many. We have become an echo chamber, like the music production companies using AI to replicate more of those same styles. There is no originality, no thought, and, frankly, no substance.

Every playbook being passed around was to create a prompt to write the content. While that can be true for some people, it just did not feel authentic or right for me.

Breaking the Winter Grind

This is my first newsletter post since February. It was a hard winter for me here in Croatia. I felt direction needed focus, and many things were not working in life, so I decided to knuckle down.

I wrote this post with my own fingers, typed on my actual keyboard, despite a sore hand from MMA training. Yep, I do that, at the ripe age of 49, and I’ve found it therapeutic. More about that in the coming weeks, and my Jiu-Jitsu journey to purple belt, which just began again.

No speech-to-text, no AI-generated paragraphs—just me.

Signal Over Noise

When I want signal instead of noise, I read Finger on the Pulse. I want to learn to write better and to think deeper about the current situation in the world. Since Steven J. Manning has written content for over 50 years, I, of course, make sure to listen to him and read his work. His writing is not a word salad. It is a lesson in observations stripped of sentiment.

I choose signal. This is my return to that lane.

Join the conversation: Do tell me what you think about the current state of content on LinkedIn and Substack—and the world you see. Because the world you see is, of course, totally different to mine.

But instead of building a catapult, they are polishing their resumes.

Here is the brutal truth: In the Age of AI, your education and your job title are no longer your “moat.” If you can be summarized by a bullet point on a PDF, you can be replaced by a prompt.

Subscribe now

The Dynasty of Grit

I grew up on a factory floor at 12 years old, part of an MIT-educated industrial dynasty. My grandfather built empires in New York; my father mentored 2,500+ post-graduate executives. What they taught me wasn’t just “management”—it was about being an Executive Asset.

An asset isn’t a passive resource. An asset is something a business cannot afford to lose.

The EQ Framework: Your Three-Pronged Catapult

In a recent session with Shayna Rattler Davis, we stripped away the jargon of “executive presence”. Presence isn’t about your suit or your posture; it is a skill trait of external influence.

To survive the “War on Trust, Talent, and Technology,” you need to master three specific signals:

1. Leadership Identity: Can you explain your unique point of view about your industry in 30 seconds without mentioning your company name? If not, you don’t have an identity; you have a script.

2. Leadership Branding: Does your digital footprint reflect an authority, or is it just a “word salad” of corporate buzzwords?

3. Leadership Messaging: Are you “showing up beyond the boardroom” to influence investors, talent, and customers?

Beyond the “Corporate Parrot”

Companies are scared of personal brands because they fear “leverage”. But the companies that will win the next decade are those that empower “market-facing leaders” who sound like humans, not “corporate branded parrots”.

Stop waiting to be “magically discovered”. The probability of you being born was trillions to one. You are a “Black Sheep” by design. It’s time to start acting like it.

Build Your Moat

If you are ready to transition from a “middle manager” to an Executive Asset, I am opening the doors to the framework that helped my clients stay employed and thrive while their peers were being “toasted” by the AI shift.

The Choice is Simple:

• Stay on the sidelines and watch your competitors poach your customers.

• Or, join the Executive Asset Workshop and learn to lead through the “beating heart” of business.

Join the Executive Asset Workshop here

Cheers to You. Nat

Travis was referencing the launch of Claude Cowork. But it wasn’t the product itself that sent shockwaves through the industry—it was how it was born.

Anthropic built Claude Cowork in 10 days. And every single line of code was written by Claude itself.

Let that sink in for a second. An AI coding tool built an AI productivity tool in less than two weeks with zero human code. This is the Recursive Improvement Loop in action. It is no longer a “future possibility”; it has landed on your desktop.

The $8.9T Signal and the Eviction of the Middleman

We have been talking about the $8.9 Trillion Great Detachment—the massive economic loss caused by a disengaged global workforce. But as Travis’s article highlights, the solution isn’t “better management.” The solution is Agentic Autonomy.

If an AI can build its own successor in 10 days, what does that mean for the human “technician” who spends their day copy-pasting data, summarizing emails, and managing “mushy middle” logistics?

It means the Technician Trap has become a death trap.

Subscribe now

As I recently explored in my piece Who Gets Fired First?, the layoff wave isn’t coming for the “workers”—it’s coming for the “babysitters.”

What Claude Cowork Actually Reveals

Claude Cowork is “Claude Code” for people who don’t write code. It represents the shift from Generative AI (which needs a prompt for every breath) to Agentic AI (which needs a goal and a folder).

You give it access. You give it a mission. You walk away.

• It plans.

• It executes.

• It fixes its own mistakes.

• It finishes the job.

This is the exact engine behind the Scale Solo framework. When you have 100 agents capable of “handling it” without being babysat, the 100-person company becomes an obsolete liability.

The Manning Doctrine: Life is Not a Dress Rehearsal

If you are spending your 40 hours a week doing things a 10-day-old AI build can do better, you are wasting the only currency that matters: your life.

The Recursive Loop is accelerating. You have two choices:

1. Be the Babysitter: Stay trapped in the logistics, managing the friction of a detached workforce until the “Recursive Loop” closes over you.

2. Be the Architect: Become the “Prompt Boss.” Learn to orchestrate these agents. Use the 10-day miracles to reclaim your Thinking Time and achieve Preposterous Fulfillment.

The Bottom Line

As Travis Wright noted, this changes everything. The barrier between “having an idea” and “having a product” has vanished. The barrier between “being a solopreneur” and “running a virtual C-Suite” has dissolved.

The layoffs are coming for the technicians. The future belongs to the Architects who know how to tell the machine: “Handle this.” Article Here

Are you ready to become a Prompt Boss or are you waiting for the loop to close? I’ve broken down the exact steps to stay irreplaceable in Monday Influencer. Don’t just watch the revolution—conduct it. www.mondayinfluencer.com