BloggeRhythms

In recent months, I’ve often mentioned the shortsightedness and almost total ignorance of Democrats regarding anything having to do with the economy. This is especially true in the case of businesses, where there’s little to no knowledge at all, stemming right from the top, whereas the incumbent himself knows nothing about commercial operations whatsoever.

 

In that regard, last week I cited the pitfalls involved in the administrations pushing for a significant increase in the minimum wage. Because, while the pay hike might sound attractive and benevolent, especially among those in the category, business owners aren’t going to sit still while their margins are shrunk in a competitive world. Especially if other options are available to them.

 

At the time, I suspected that a dramatic wage hike might accelerate trends toward automation of routine, repetitive, manual labor occupations. And then today, I came across this article by Mark Prigg of the.dailymail.co.uk via Drudge, titled “Scientists predict a 'jobocalypse' as robots take over manual jobs.”

 

The key line reads: “A huge 70% of occupations could become automated over next 30 years. Drivers, teachers, babysitters and nurses could be replaced by robots Could mean the end of the eight-hour, five-day working week.”

 

Consequently, the answer to increased income isn’t driving wages to the point where employers are forced to seek other methods for business operation. The route to higher income is attaining skills and abilities that aren’t easily replaceable. And for those who choose to ignore the coming occupational revolution, Democrats might raise minimum wage rates even further. But unfortunately, no low end jobs will be in existence. 

 

In the same vein, according to Defense News, a US military magazine, also via Drudge, “Gen Robert Cone, head of the army's training and doctrine command, is considering shrinking the army’s brigade combat teams from about 4,000 soldiers to 3,000 and using more robots.”

 

So, it won’t be long before the trend toward operating efficiency will be seen in every aspect of life and business especially. But Democrats prefer to ignore the obvious, and instead of preparing for the future themselves, they’ll continue to keep their constituents ignorant, relying on bilking the successful as usual.

 

On another subject, illustrating how those who protest against progress think, here’s an item from Robert Wilde of Breitbart.

 

“On Monday, four members of an anti-fracking group wound up in jail for using bicycle locks and glue to fasten themselves to gas pumps at a petrol station in Great Lever, England. The group sacrificed themselves in order to protest the hydraulic fracking activities of Total, a French petroleum company.

 

But, to their embarrassment, the group sacrificed themselves to the wrong petrol station, which was no longer owned by Total. The petrol station was owned by Certas Energy, who neglected to take down the signs after buying the station.”

 

So, I guess that brings up the question of cause and effect. Because, which scenario’s correct? Are these protesters stupid because they oppose progress, or do they oppose progress because they're stupid?

 

According to Mr. Wilde, the petrol station’s manager, Reezwan Patel, put it this way, “Some protesters were peaceful, but that those who shackled themselves to the pumps “were stupid and have cost us a lot of money.” He added that, “We had to close for six hours, so with the loss of customers and the damage to the pumps, it could be a couple of thousand pounds we have lost.”

 

But, in the end, I guess that protesting serves a purpose. Because in a shrinking job market, unskilled people remain unemployed. So, this way, at least the protestors have something to do with their time.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios