Over a third of jobs gone in 20 years

McDonald's Ordering KioskBecause of technology.

The initial focus of job elimination will be on unskilled workers primarily because of the recent insistence on a minimum “living wage” of $15 for jobs that were never meant to be anything more than entry-level introductory jobs.

One of the first targeted forms of job elimination will be at what are termed “fast food” type restaurants, where a kiosk can somewhat readily streamline the ordering process.  Whereas a human employee once touched the CHEESEBURGER icon, you will be able to do that yourself.  These various kiosks are already in operation in Europe and here in the US.  McDonalds readily admits they are a response to $15 minimum wage demands.

Of course, there will be “unforeseen consequences” to this wage increase demand — that I readily and easily foresee.  More on that in a moment.

From the UKIndependent.com:

Robots are going to steal the jobs of chefs, salespeople and models, researchers say as they unveil full list of likely robot professions

by Andrew Griffin

Scientists have created a huge, in-depth analysis of what jobs are under threat from robots — with salesmen, chefs and even models all in the firing line.

Researchers have assembled a full list of all the things that robots are good and bad at, and so what jobs they are likely to take. In all, about 35 per cent of jobs are likely to have been taken on by robots in the next 20 years, the researchers said.

Some professions — such as therapists, personal trainers and teachers — are safe from the coming robot apocalypse. But those that require repetitive skills, the manipulation of data or manual entering of information could see their jobs taken away.

The first question you must ask: is this me?  If you have one of those delineated jobs, that means you likely inhabit an unskilled or semi-skilled job that isn’t long for this earth.

That also means you need to refocus your attention on upgrading your job skills or perhaps moving into a different job altogether.

Cops and firefighters, you’re somewhat safe for now.  But many more Intersection lights and speed cams are coming.  Some people want to eliminate the police traffic stop altogether, as well as pursuits.

Some traits don’t immediately lend themselves to a robotic takeover.

Those traits include creative endeavours, such as writing, entrepreneurship or scientific discovery.

Will or can a robot take your job?  Find out here.

For the time being, jobs that demand a high degree of human interaction are safe.

But that brings us back to unskilled and/or repetitive jobs.

Like those that illegal aliens used to fill — and jobs the likes of which are being eliminated due to, in Fornicalia, the drought — and in other places by the more rapid introduction of various forms of technology because of increased business costs.

In other words, the argument supporters of illegal Mexican (and other) invaders make on behalf of those invaders — that they do jobs others won’t or can’t — isn’t holding water any more.  A greater number of jobs in the agricultural or various service fields are being mechanized.  This isn’t speculation; it’s occurring right now.

Therefore, the “need” for more illegal immigrants in order to fill the increasing number of unskilled jobs is a specious one at best, more and more unnecessary with each and every passing week and month.

For real Americans, the writing is on the wall: adapt and educate yourself or become superfluous.

For illegals, we don’t need your unskilled labor.  We don’t have enough room to accommodate the unskilled true American citizens in the labor force already.

Which translates to: illegal invaders these days mean only to acquire their portions of American Free Cheese, their own piece of the Entitlement Pie.

Their future is to take and not to produce.

Adding unskilled Syrians who bring only more Islam to the equation?

That is stupidity beyond stupidity.



Utopia coming to the US?

The truth about the Leftist Utopia of Denmark.

Please click on the graphic to embiggen.

Leftist Utopia of DenmarkHere is your Utopia, Leftists.  Quick, catch the next rubber raft to Denmark (you wouldn’t dare think of getting on an airplane or a ship, considering the pollution you’d condone by doing so).  Its golden arms await you.



This is with whom Obama negotiates

Khamenei Tweet About ObamaYes, the persons who continue to advocate “death to America” and, now, send Twitter messages about Obama committing suicide.

Is this not absolute insanity unbridled?  Why do we negotiate with the mentally unbalanced, those persons who have not and will not hold to treaties and agreements?

With this issue and that of Planned Parenthood, I become more convinced that I am inhabiting some sort of alternate reality from my worst nightmares.

Then I wake up and read the news for another day.



Blogging intermittent due to issues with forest fires in my area; see my prior posts for Saturday and Sunday.

Obama: mixed up and muddled

And that quote is from his supporters regarding Iranian negotiations.

Imagine what his detractors are saying.  Like myself and others.

This president is having his house fall all about his shoulders, but few are noticing AMM-American-Media-Maggots-2because his water-carriers, the American Media Maggots, are shielding him continuously like the good lap doggies they promised to be at the outset.  GOWPs and the AMM, have shielded and protected Obama to the point where their credulity is now mostly lost.

Marie Harf Glittering JewelEven Marie Harf, the Department of State Flack, has to “explain” what Obaka really meant.  From CNSNews.com:

State Dep’t Clarifies Obama’s ‘Muddled’ Words on Iran Nuclear Breakout Time

by Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama appeared to concede this week that under a final nuclear deal, Iran — after 13 or so years — would be able to build a nuclear bomb quickly if it chooses to do so. But State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted later that the words had been misread.

Of course.  The words have been “misread.”

Harf told a daily briefing that Obama’s words “were a little mixed up” and “a little muddled,” saying they had referred to a hypothetical state of affairs in which an agreement had not been reached, rather than the situation as it will be in 13 years’ time under a negotiated agreement.

This is Marie Harf, the most ignorant glassesed bint on a current elevated government pedestal, quoting Barack Hussein Obama as “a little mixed up” and “a little muddled”?  And this is support?

Marie Harf did her level best to “walk back” Obama’s statements.  Please click the link.

Further, from Algemeiner.com:

“Open confusion” reigned today at the State Department after spokeswoman Marie Harf tried to withdraw a quote from President Barack Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear breakout time, advocacy group The Israel Project said.

In the interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, the President acknowledged that, after year 13, the current deal being worked out with Iran would not provide the international community with the promised 1-year warning should Iran decide to violate the deal and go for a nuclear weapon.

Details details details.  And on whom do these details fall?  Who wins, who loses?

Check out this article written by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz at WSJ.com.

NewsMax.com provides the article as an alternate, because the WSJ mandates a subscription and I won’t pay for internet sources.  I may provide dead links to you, but never at my own choosing.  And if I find dead links, I do my best to provide alternatives.  As I do now:

Kissinger, Shultz: Iran Deal Likely to Deepen US Involvement

The recently announced framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is more likely to increase American involvement in the Middle East rather than decrease it, former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz write in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

In the 2,000-word piece posted on the Journal’s website on Tuesday night, Kissinger and Shultz wrote that “Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there — on complex new terms.”

Meaning: in over six years, there is still no one sitting at the Adult’s Table in the Obama Administration.

Since the number of Iran’s centrifuges have jumped from 100 at the start of talks 12 years ago to almost 20,000 today, “The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran,” the former secretaries wrote. “While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal.”

Now, Iran’s program is within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.

“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect,” they said. “Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”

Damn them for daring to speak and write the truth.  As Caucasoids, Kissinger and Schultz must be racists, not senior analysts.

Now, Iran’s program is within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.

“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect,” they said. “Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”

And Iran has been completely forthcoming with current and past IAEA demands?  Allowed inspectors in?

Uh.  No.  Not even remotely.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance or the lack thereof.

A wonderful “out”:

Another wrench thrown into the gears is the means of enforcement, “which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct,” Kissinger and Shultz said.


Kissinger and Shultz also attack the idea of a nuclear umbrella provided to Iran’s Arab neighbors by the United States.

“Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons — or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?” they say. “What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail?”

The central argument and paragraph:

“If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region,” they argue. “Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.”

Let’s be frank: Barack Hussein Obama couldn’t negotiate himself or his loved ones out of a paper bag.

What makes anyone think BHO could make any cogent negotiation?