With the most important election in the history of ever (okay people say that about every election) a few months away, lots of talk has centered around jobs. Heck, now that they're running, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton willingly admit that the real unemployment number is in the double digits (read "Bernie Sanders Admits that Conservatives are Right About Double-Digit Unemployment" here). Unlike politicians who merely bitch and moan however, Mike Rowe offers viable solutions. Seriously, we write about him at least once a week.

The main point Rowe makes on the regular is that while people claim there's a shortage of jobs, there's actually the opposite of that... if only people wanted to fill the many, many positions available. The problem, as he recently pointed out on Facebook, is the way the media labels these jobs "undesirable."

When people ask me why millions of good jobs remain unfilled while millions of able bodied Americans remain unemployed, I try to alternate my responses between a decline of work ethic, an onslaught of unrealistic expectations, and our irresistible desire to reward bad behavior. But I think the biggest reason so much legitimate opportunity goes unloved, is due to our bizarre obsession with separating “good jobs” from “bad jobs.”

There’s no better way to discourage the next generation from learning a skill that’s actually in demand, than by telling them that certain jobs are "bad," and therefore “beneath” them. Consider the latest wisdom from the luminaries at WalletHub. For whatever reason, these arbiters of job satisfaction have taken it upon themselves to identify the "best and worst" vocations in America. To accomplish this, a cadre of “experts” were consulted, as WalletHub compared and contrasted over a hundred entry-level occupations across three “key dimensions” 1) Immediate Opportunity, 2) Growth Potential and 3) Job Hazards.

I'm also tempted to lambast the journalists over at Channel 10 in San Diego, for reporting on this nonsense as if it’s actual news, instead of The Public Disservice Announcement it so clearly is. Consider their own words, from their own website: “Those who are new to the workforce have a few jobs to avoid, if they can help it…” At a time when society could be celebrating opportunity wherever it occurs, in all it’s varied forms, we instead shine a light on “research” that demonizes work, disparages the skilled trades, discounts the importance of dozens of good careers, and demeans thousands of skilled tradespeople. Madness. If I were just a little older, I’d be standing on the porch in my bathrobe, shaking my finger, and saying, “Shame on you, Channel 10. Shame on you, WalletHub.”

I'd say "Mike Rowe for President," but then we'd eventually have to criticize him over something stupid. So Mr. Rowe, please stay right where you are.

This also goes back to the point that I made at UMass this week. More college students are interested in "gender studies" or "sociology" courses and becoming professional protestors than they are concerned with finding real jobs. When asked about the pay gap for women... I basically responded with exactly what you see here.

"There are plenty of jobs for women available. Sign up for a trade school. They can't hire you quickly enough. But I don't see women lining up around the block for a job roofing in summer."

Myth after myth after myth from the SJW left continue to be debunked, yet the left still shouts them from the hilltops like Julie Andrews. IRONY ALERT: she was paid more than her male co-stars. Sound of Matriarchy.

People are tired of it. That's why, this week, just like Mike Rowe, I'd had enough. Hence this now viral rant.