Since it was Kiplinger, I automatically equated "bad" with "no future income
prospects."
There's still a whole universe of "bad = hard, demanding, uncomfortable
low-paying" jobs out there. Those jobs will still be around in the future.
On 3/25/2018 13:15, P. J. Alling wrote:
They equate jobs with limited future with bad jobs. A bad job is one you don't
want, the jobs they describe are jobs you might want but are not available.
There's a big difference. I gave up after reading three. A job I would
consider much worse than any of those is recyclable sorter. A job that seems to
be truly awful in every way.
On 3/23/2018 9:14 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Check out number 2:
https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/business/T012-S001-worst-jobs-for-the-future-2017/index.html?cid=32_0010207ecdf4c62cfba32bfaf33a3ec5a4
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
