If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   You know how unemployment dipped to 7.8%. There's just one problem with that number. Hint: Don't use fuzzy math and People who give up looking for a job and leave unemployment is not the same as people getting jobs   (hotair.com) divider line 594
    More: Followup, CNBC, Chris Cuomo, warehousing, bright spot, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

9115 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 3:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



594 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 09:49:31 AM  
Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...
 
2012-10-05 09:58:54 AM  
I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.
 
2012-10-05 10:15:02 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.


CSB.
 
2012-10-05 10:28:13 AM  
Yeah that is the lie, if you run out of benefits, you no longer are looking.  Kind of an odd jump in logic.  My state has the second highest unemployment in the Nation at 10.7 percent statewide.  Job fairs routinely bring in 4000 or more people to look in a single day.  Many are officially not lo9oking for work.  It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.  The Gov't has given up on them, so they cease to exist, they have not given up on looking for jobs.
 
The state EDC gave a sweetheart deal to a sports star to move his company and it was tied to creating 400 jobs.  After 2 years, he had filled 200 jobs almost all from people he moved into the state from other states.  Then he aquired a company in Maryland with 400 employees.  This April he went bankrupt, laid off the 200 transients and the 400 in another state. But that is considered job creation.
 
We got a lot of stimulus money, we have some very nice roads now.  The money went to the largest businesses in the state.  They hired few workers and those they hired were temp jobs.  But the companies made a healthy profit.  Job creation almost nil.  But as I said, some nice back roads are very nice now.
 
The state now wants to have a fullfledged Casino.  Job creation, as long as the Indians don't own it.  I live very close to the two largest Casinos in the Western Hemisphere.  Where did most of the workforce come from?  Casino states.  Not local people.  Casinos are smart, they want people who know the business, have the skills and know the grind.  They don't want to train 1000's of workers.  They are a business.  Shipping in a whole workforce from out of state is not job creation.
 
My own employer got state grants that included hiring goals.  They could not make the hiring goals.  So they laid off expensive employees so they could hire to meet the goals.  Kind of like the big Red Sox trade this year to open up payroll.  They hired a lot of people with the salaries of those they laid off and they pocketed the rest.  They met the state goals, but the state did not care how many people they laid off to make those goals.  Most of the people they hired, while great people are untrained, poorly paid and transient in nature.  Job creation.  
 
2012-10-05 11:24:22 AM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Yeah that is the lie, if you run out of benefits, you no longer are looking.  Kind of an odd jump in logic.  My state has the second highest unemployment in the Nation at 10.7 percent statewide.  Job fairs routinely bring in 4000 or more people to look in a single day.  Many are officially not lo9oking for work.  It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.  The Gov't has given up on them, so they cease to exist, they have not given up on looking for jobs.
 
The state EDC gave a sweetheart deal to a sports star to move his company and it was tied to creating 400 jobs.  After 2 years, he had filled 200 jobs almost all from people he moved into the state from other states.  Then he aquired a company in Maryland with 400 employees.  This April he went bankrupt, laid off the 200 transients and the 400 in another state. But that is considered job creation.
 
We got a lot of stimulus money, we have some very nice roads now.  The money went to the largest businesses in the state.  They hired few workers and those they hired were temp jobs.  But the companies made a healthy profit.  Job creation almost nil.  But as I said, some nice back roads are very nice now.
 
The state now wants to have a fullfledged Casino.  Job creation, as long as the Indians don't own it.  I live very close to the two largest Casinos in the Western Hemisphere.  Where did most of the workforce come from?  Casino states.  Not local people.  Casinos are smart, they want people who know the business, have the skills and know the grind.  They don't want to train 1000's of workers.  They are a business.  Shipping in a whole workforce from out of state is not job creation.
 
My own employer got state grants that included hiring goals.  They could not make the hiring goals.  So they laid off expensive employees so they could hire to meet the goals.  Kind of like the big Red Sox trade this year to open up payroll.  They hired a lot of people wit ...


So you're saying privatization doesn't work.
 
2012-10-05 11:25:27 AM  
I was listening to someone speaking on CNBC (keep in mind, this is, CNBC, not exactly a venue for fellating the Obama Administration) and they said one of the notable things about this report was that the employment rate actually did go down due to people getting more jobs and keeping.

/also, the number of August and September job gains were revised upwards again
//but keep at that chicken
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-05 11:26:11 AM  
And I'll bet Bush is responsible for the jobs added because Obama was just implementing plans that he set up, right?
 
2012-10-05 11:28:57 AM  
The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.
 
2012-10-05 11:29:17 AM  
Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.
 
2012-10-05 11:31:36 AM  

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.


OH NO WE DON'T

Seriously. The Republicans accept so very little reality now, what's a little less?
 
2012-10-05 11:33:02 AM  
You know, if Republicans had only been willing to extend unemployment benefits further, unemployment would be higher because more people would still be on the rolls.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:05 AM  

propasaurus: So you're saying privatization doesn't work.


I said nothing of the sort, I'm saying neither side cares one way or the other.  The system and language is rigged to compliment the politicians.  People don't matter, just campaigns.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:45 AM  

unlikely: Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.


Hush, the only real facts come from the GOP.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:45 AM  
It looks like the difference between the original article and this follow-up is whether they count part time work as employment.

I really don't understand the disconnect. A job is a job. I loved my last part time job. I was definitely employed. I made money, I paid taxes. Why wouldn't that count as employment? And why would "counting the part timers" be seen as fudging the numbers?
 
2012-10-05 11:33:47 AM  
If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
2012-10-05 11:35:01 AM  

unlikely: Odd, the Department of Labor said that's specifically not the case. Which is it? I'm confused.


Give you a hint, the one that rhymes with Not Fair is consistently wrong.
 
2012-10-05 11:36:57 AM  

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...


From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-05 11:37:46 AM  

InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


Well, if you believe that it isn't I have some swampland to sell you.

If I make a joke about selling you something I don't own or is worthless then I must be right. Right?
 
2012-10-05 11:39:19 AM  

InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.
 
2012-10-05 11:39:40 AM  

Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?


I think to both of those groups there's only one thing to say:

DamnYankees: The only way to ever make sense of these numbers is to use consistent parameters. As long as this is the system we use to judge these numbers, its the system we use. We need to accept that.

 
2012-10-05 11:39:44 AM  

Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?


Oh of course, both sides are completely the same
 
2012-10-05 11:40:13 AM  

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...


he's black?
a secret muslim?
a democrat??

it is interesting how the world flip-flops depending on who is in the white house.

WHY do deficits matter again?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2012-10-05 11:40:28 AM  
From what I recall of course
 
2012-10-05 11:43:05 AM  

vpb: InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Well, if you believe that it isn't I have some swampland to sell you.

If I make a joke about selling you something I don't own or is worthless then I must be right. Right?


Right.
 
2012-10-05 11:44:29 AM  

Jackson Herring: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same


Aw, bless your heart.
 
2012-10-05 11:48:12 AM  

Jackson Herring: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same


So vote Republican.
 
2012-10-05 11:49:10 AM  

GAT_00: InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.


Yes, and those that have given up looking for work, etc. But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons" : Link
 
2012-10-05 11:50:48 AM  

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...


It's always different when a Democrat is in office. Don't you know these things? The standard metrics that work under a Republican president completely fail under when we're in a Democratic administration.

The same goes for polls when they don't show a Republican ahead.
 
2012-10-05 11:50:51 AM  

InspectorZero: GAT_00: InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.

Yes, and those that have given up looking for work, etc. But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons" : Link


You may as well link to shadow stats for as much relation to reality that site has.
 
2012-10-05 11:53:57 AM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Oh of course, both sides are completely the same

So vote Republican.


You know, as much as I enjoy the Mutt and Jeff routine with the same boring, predictable, canned responses, there are other options besides the two dominant parties. Libertarian, Green, whatever. It may not affect the outcome, but at least you can assert your position in the booth.
 
2012-10-05 11:54:41 AM  

InspectorZero: But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons"


So in other words...there's a decrease in unemployment because people have jobs.

Hm. That's kinda weird.
 
2012-10-05 11:55:36 AM  

Lando Lincoln: InspectorZero: But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons"

So in other words...there's a decrease in unemployment because people have jobs.

Hm. That's kinda weird.


Unexpected, ain't it?
 
2012-10-05 11:56:31 AM  

InspectorZero: cooked numbers


Uh huh. Got enough tinfoil over there?
 
2012-10-05 11:58:20 AM  
Don't use fuzzy math and People who give up looking for a job and leave unemployment is not the same as people getting jobs

-It's only okay when Republicans mislead the public.
 
2012-10-05 12:02:18 PM  
Nabb1

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?


Was I too subtle? because that is what I implied.
 
2012-10-05 12:03:51 PM  

Lurking Fear: Nabb1

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

From what I recall of the politics threads from 2004, those methods and numbers did not work fine at all for the left leaning folks, many of whom rebuked the calculations with these same arguments in this article, but were perfectly okay for Bush supporters. Funny how things change, isn't it?

Was I too subtle? because that is what I implied.


Probably not. I'm sleep deprived.
 
2012-10-05 12:06:53 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.



Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.
 
2012-10-05 12:08:51 PM  

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.


Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.


Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.
 
2012-10-05 12:09:53 PM  

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...



I'll say its a damn neat coincidence since earlier this week economists were predicting 8.2% with the same job growth.  But, I'm glad it went down.  If someone manipulated the numbers I'll never know.  Not my area of knowledge, but it came at the perfect time politically for Obama...and hopefully is accurate and works for the country as well. 
 
The headline mixes different types of numbers.  Its good for context, but its apples and bannanas.
 
2012-10-05 12:11:00 PM  

downstairs: Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.


I'm fairly certain you are counted as "employed" seeing as how you have " job and collect a paycheck.

How much you make is irrelevant to you having a job. You looking for another job is irrelevant. You "considering" your paycheck to be "unemployment benefits" is just stupid.
 
2012-10-05 12:13:46 PM  

GAT_00: You know, if Republicans had only been willing to extend unemployment benefits further, unemployment would be higher because more people would still be on the rolls.


They really screwed up their cunning plan here. Imagine their spin if all of those people were still on unemployment?

1) obama's fault
2) oh my god!!! the numbers are so high!!!!
 
2012-10-05 12:13:50 PM  

Via Infinito: It looks like the difference between the original article and this follow-up is whether they count part time work as employment.

I really don't understand the disconnect. A job is a job. I loved my last part time job. I was definitely employed. I made money, I paid taxes. Why wouldn't that count as employment? And why would "counting the part timers" be seen as fudging the numbers?



"underemployed" is a major issue in economics.  It hurts the economy in many ways:
 
Someone who's true value is, say, $100,000/year making $25k...
 
- Is paying less taxes now, so that's less money for the government
 
- Was living within their means for 10 years, and now suddenly is a burden on the system (bankrupcy may pass their debts on to others, foreclosure is good for no one, etc. etc. etc.)
 
A healthy economy doesn't just have X% "employed".  A healthy economy has a good % of people employed at a level ($$) that equates with their skillset.
 
2012-10-05 12:14:20 PM  

I_C_Weener: Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...


I'll say its a damn neat coincidence since earlier this week economists were predicting 8.2% with the same job growth.  But, I'm glad it went down.  If someone manipulated the numbers I'll never know.  Not my area of knowledge, but it came at the perfect time politically for Obama...and hopefully is accurate and works for the country as well. 
 
The headline mixes different types of numbers.  Its good for context, but its apples and bannanas.


According to Silver, the "economist/analyst predictions" are almost always off by an average of 70,000 jobs (and the range that makes that "average" is very wide).
 
2012-10-05 12:16:10 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.



Read my second post.  I'm not bitter here, this has nothing to do with what I "want".  I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.  That's not good for the economy.  Hell, take me out of the equation if you have a problem with me making this personal.  Lots of people are in my situation.
 
2012-10-05 12:16:14 PM  

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.


Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.


WELL, at least we know why you are doing so poorly.
You are a farking retarded chimp.
Seriously. You want to be counted, but only if we count things YOUR way???
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

troll score: 2/10
 
2012-10-05 12:18:50 PM  

downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.


Self-assessment is not a scientific method.
 
2012-10-05 12:20:13 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.


If you work an hour a week, you are considered employed, heck if you work 15 minutes a week you are considered employed.  Even if you are still on unemployment, but get a parttime job, your benefits are docked, which is reasonable, but you are no longer unemployed.  Even if you are still getting partial benefits.  Most employers these days do not offer fulltime employment, they hold you under the hour cap for benefits, vacation, sick time and a reasonable wage.  They can do this because so many people are looking for work and desperate.  There is a big difference between having a job and feeling like you are owed more and trying to find a reasonable job and fend for yourself.
 
Even getting a response to an application, resume and cover letter doesn't even happen 98% of the time.  HR depts don't care and are tired of the onslot of applications for every opening.  In general they look at the first 5 or 10 applications and toss the rest.
 
2012-10-05 12:20:57 PM  

namatad: downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: It isn't that they have stopped, the Federal Gov't has just conviently swept them under the carpet.


Yep.  That's why I ignore these numbers completely.
 
Take my situation.  I run a small two person business (well one-and-a-half... my partner pretty much left and got a job, but sticks around and helps a bit and does get some consulting cash for that.)
 
I'm making maybe 1/3 of what I made for 10 years.  I'm not on any government program, but for all intents and purposes I'm unemployed.  Or I should be counted in some stat, as I'm not technically making ends meet.
 
I'm looking for a job in a different industry, but there's no way the government or any third-party polling agency would know this.  I pay taxes, so I'm counted as employed.  But only because I can make some money from whats left of our business.  But I consider that akin to "unemployment benefits" as it amounts to pretty much the same situation... enough money to barely scrape by for the time being.
 
Until you count people like me, I'm not listening to any "employment" numbers.

WELL, at least we know why you are doing so poorly.
You are a farking retarded chimp.
Seriously. You want to be counted, but only if we count things YOUR way???
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

troll score: 2/10



No, just saying the underemployed should be counted.  I think that's an important metric.  Me being "counted" does nothing FOR me... just saying it helps the discussion.  For all of us.
 
Again, take me out of the discussion here.  I'm not bitter, nor do I feel slighted by the government.  Just giving a person anecdote on why the numbers are BS.
 
My personal situation... I'll manage that just fine over time. 
 
2012-10-05 12:24:18 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.



Which is why I used the variable "X".
 
You can't deny that someone with mad skills in a high-end industry, which has been decimated (temporarily, we hope) by the economy... who is now working at a job well below their skill level... is bad for the economy in general.
 
"underemployment" isn't really that bizarre of a concept, is it?
 
2012-10-05 12:24:54 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Even getting a response to an application, resume and cover letter doesn't even happen 98% of the time. HR depts don't care and are tired of the onslot of applications for every opening. In general they look at the first 5 or 10 applications and toss the rest.


It never has.

I suspect that a lot of the folks who complain the loudest about these sorts of things never tried to get a job before the dot-com boom.

/networking has always, *always* been the best way to get the best jobs
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report