Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unemployed? How Long Until You Find That Next Job

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the gotta-get-your-work-on dept.

The Almighty Buck 401

An anonymous reader writes "If you're unemployed like me, you probably want to know how long it will last. Well, someone decided to see if they couldn't stastistically predict how long they would be unemployed by polling others - the results page is up for a variety of industries and it's interesting. Clearly the more data put in, the better the results, so while your at it, submit your own information."

cancel ×

401 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823553)

Ich bin unemployed. Therefore, Ich read Slashdot.

Unemployment! (0, Funny)

ihatewinXP (638000) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823555)

Ill find a job when they stop sending me that check baby!

Re:Unemployment! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823562)

How is this fucking insightful? This jackass is a parasite living off of OUR tax dollars.

You should get a job, continue your career, and get some self respect, "baby". That money is there for people who can't get work, not for lazy shits on extended vacation.

Re:Unemployment! (3, Informative)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823617)

insightfull indeed. to my knowledge, this isn't tax dollars. the unemployment system is a governement system, but it's funded by companies who pay into the system. i'd like to see the budget where the outpays comes from actual tax dollars. if employers didn't have to pay into the unemployment system, chances are (albeit quite low) they would pay their employees a little more who could save for such an event.

Re:Unemployment! (3, Interesting)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823698)

It is an unemployment tax. Just because it's not what you think of as being a common tax (income, sales, etc) doesn't mean it's not a tax. In fact, in my state, it's called exactly that.

Oh, and when is the last time the welfare system came out ahead? If you don't think that some money from the general fund doesn't go there, you're delusional.

Re:Unemployment! (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823736)

possibly these days they're running a deficit. but it's entirely different than the wacked out SSAN system. perhaps there are years where their reciepts are in the black and spill over to other governement systems.

i certainly DO NOT agree with the entire system and would really prefer it to not be around. but since it is, it it quite silly to not file a claim each week you're personally unemployed. i spent 4 months last year between jobs, and could have made it off the severance for a while and would have found a part time waiter job for a while if i needed to. having enemployment ment i could focus on seeking employment in my area, and to educate myself during the down time (and also get a little few extra winks of sleep at night).

Re:Unemployment! (1)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823775)

They've always run a deficit. That's why the federal government always has to give the states money. Also, there is no federal unemployment tax, so all that money does come from the general fund.

Re:Unemployment! (1)

The Dobber (576407) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823856)

Federal tax is called FUTA. Filed at the end of the year, payment is based on contributions to the state fund.

Re:Unemployment! (4, Informative)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823579)

They'll stop sending you that check when you don't look for a job. Or when you miss out on 2 interviews with the unemployment officers. My friend was unemployed, it sounds nice, $400 a week for doing absolutely nothing but there's alot of work involved.

Re:Unemployment! (2, Interesting)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823699)

i'm not sure which state you're from and their procedure, but here in Ohio we were suppose to keep a journal of our employment search activities. a list of the two jobs we persued during the week. i called in my biweekly reportings and there was an automated question asking "did you activly seek employment from at least two jobs during the week you're claiming?" or some such. press one for yes, two for no. nobody EVER asked to see a journal or for actual copies of the employment applications, etc. of course i was seeking a job the entire time, but i had a neighbor who was a daycare worker who lost her job. she NEVER had any intention of finding work and was going to start a home daycare business. she rode the thing to the end, using all possible extensions available thanks to GWB.

Re:Unemployment! (4, Informative)

Genom (3868) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823923)

Aye, same deal in MA. I think we can do the reporting over the phone as well, but I always just sent in the card they'd send me every two weeks. 3 yes/no questions:

Did you look for work?
Were you able and available to work?
Did you work?

That's it. If you did work, there were some salary questions as well. If you didn't, it was just those three questions, a signature, and a stamp.

According to the materials I was sent when I signed up, a "journal" of sorts is required here too. I did this, although I was never asked by anyone for it (it's not like it takes that long to record who you apply to, speak to, etc.. if you're actually looking!). I can see how it would be *very* easy for someone to exploit the system and never look for work at all.

Up a bit north from here, in NH, the process is a bit different. AFAICT, claimants need to actually meet physically with an Unemployment Office employee every week or two, produce proof that they actually *did* actively look for work, and basically justify their claim.

IMHO, the NH system seems the better of the two. I'm sure there are loopholes, etc... but it definitely would cut down on claimants looking for a 26-week vacation after being laid off.

Re:Unemployment! (4, Informative)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823726)

The requirements and benefits vary (sometimes wildly) from state to state. The variables can be--

1) Number of weeks you can get benefits (some states offer as little as *one* month of benefits, while others offer up to 6 months of benefits (not counting federal extensions which can push that over a year right now)).
2) Maximum amount benefits can be each week (I've seen numbers as low as $380 quoted, and I guess one state gives a maximum of $560 a week-- in Washington state, the maximum is $496/week, and naturally every state has their own set of formulas and work periods they use to calculate what YOUR unemployment will be).
3) Work search requirements (again, can vary greatly from state to state-- in Washington, you have to apply for a minimum of three jobs a week and keep these in a log which you can randomly be required to show and have authenticated; if you go on Extended Benefits (EB, something seperate from TEUC/TEUC-X, but still federally subsidized) you have to apply for four jobs a week (or, as they define it, 'job contacts')).

I mistakenly made the assumption that every state was identical, but they're not. Unemployment is, as I understand it, mostly funded by each state through taxes on businesses or other fund collection methods. As far as the federal extensions go, the Department of Labor gives out the cash but gives states the choice on how to implement it (legislation language not withstanding, of course, but generally the language is such that each state can easily integrate the extensions into their own state-funded plans easily).

Re:Unemployment! (2, Interesting)

MattBurke (58682) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823918)

> I've seen numbers as low as $380 quoted

Wow! Here in the UK you get £43/week apparently...

I say apparently, because I applied for JobSeeker's Allowance a few months ago and got turned down because I didn't pay enough National Insurance [~12% tax on your income] 4 years ago when I was a student!

Since then, I have paid well over £10,000 in NI yet they still won't give me £43/week.

Re:Unemployment! If only it were that hard... (1)

LightwaveNet (229843) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823748)


Man sometimes I WISH I could get laid off again.

In California... filing unemployment insurance means calling up a 1800 number and giving them your information on the phone where they schedule a time for someone to call you who asks a few more stupid questions... then every couple weeks you receive a letter in the mail where you promptly check "Yes I looked for work," and "No I didnt make any wages," and maybe one or two other similar questions... wether you want your income tax taken out of it or not... then you mail it back and go back to laziness.

Re:Unemployment! If only it were that hard... (1)

LightwaveNet (229843) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823766)

A year (or two (I ferget)) California increased the ammount you get from unemployment insurance in your bi-weekly check.

So many friends were estatic... The line was "I did such a good job doing nothing... their giving me a raise."

What's sad is realizing that i'm working a 40+ hour week... doing a good job... and the previous co-worker who got laid off for NOT doing a good job... is now making ~$50/mo less then I am from unemployment insurance.

Re:Unemployment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823778)

That is nice actually - where I live in the UK, I have friends who are unemployed, yet will not sign on. The unemployment benifits available will not cover the rent on the most basic housing available, and you must jump through far more hoops than you describe. When you finally get something it will be around £60/week, and the minimum rent in my area is around £80/week. This is assuming you do not need to eat, heat your house etc.
The only option then is to sign on again, for 'Income Support' which will subsidise your rent + council tax for you.
I know many degree-educated IT professionals who work in shops or factorys for a pittance, unable to use their skills, but contributing to our government/media projected image of low unemployment etc.
I am one of the lucky ones - I have a reasonably well paid coding job but I must commute more than 3 hours a day, in addition to my working day, and I take home £1000/month after tax + travel costs, which equates to less than your friend's $400/week, despite the higher cost of living here.
So don't tell me he doesn't have it easy.
I bet he doesn't spend 11 hours day 'earning' his $1600+ month.

Re:Unemployment! (3, Interesting)

craigeyb (518670) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823924)

If you think unemployment is a lot of work, then what is your opinion of employment!

I was unemployed in TX about a year ago for 4 months, and my impression was that the unemployment offices are so overloaded these days that they're flat out incapable of checking up on most people. The net result for me was that I had to make a single phone call maybe once each week into an automated system verifying that I was still looking for work.

Mind you, I'm not complaining here. The last thing most people need when unemployed is to waste additional time putting up with The Man.

Re:Unemployment! (-1, Insightful)

PhysicsExpert (665793) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823639)

This raises an interesting point. why should the state finance the unemployed? At the end of the day most people are unemployed because they don't want to apply for the jobs that are available.

Consider this. I knew someone who was a well paid sysadmin. I don't know what his salary was but it must have been over $500000. Anyway he gets made redundant but he only applies for similar jobs. There are plent of jobs in menial work available but does he try his hardest to get them. Does he hell, he knows he can get his unemployment benefit so he bides his time.

Now unemployment pay is a fairly recent inovation which we've managed to get by without through most of history. The fact is that it puts a terrible strain on the economy ( those in work have less disposable income, those receiving benefit have slightly more but a gret deal gets skimmed off by beaurocracy) and simply encourages laziness.

A better solution would be to set up an institution were those who have little money could live. Theyu could then receive basic needs (water. food, shelter) in return for carrying out menial work. When they had cleared their debts and found a source of employment they would be free to leave. This would discourage those too lazy to find work and reduce the burden on hard working citizens who are currently struggling on the money they get.

Re:Unemployment! (2, Insightful)

iggy2k (668435) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823680)

HELLLLLLOOO nazis. i take it yuve never been out of work then, any idea how humiliating it is just to have to pay for food with stamps? and that idea....neighbours, hushed voices 'where are they going?' 'oh, he lost his job, so there being carted off to the institution' get real

Re:Unemployment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823684)

The germans tried that.. they called them 'work camps' and they had names like Dachau...

They even had good slogans like Arbeit Macht Frei at the gates to motivate their workers.

You dumbshit.

Re:Unemployment! (1)

iggy2k (668435) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823696)

and the reason weve been able to get by without it for most of history is slums and poor people.

Re:Unemployment! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823716)

Regarding your last paragraph:

Sounds like a poorhouse to me. Sounds like imprisoning people for their debts. Sounds like something we don't do any longer.

But if you want to bring back the old ways who am I to argue?

Just keep in mind some of us might like brigandry, highway robbery, banditry, just plain thieving and other old timey ways of earning one's keep as well as or better than the new fangled ways the educated folks is always tellin' us 'r better'n the old tried an' true ways.

Put that in yer pipe an' smoke it mister PhysicsExpert.

Re:Unemployment! (2, Funny)

tcr (39109) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823781)

Where did you park your Victorian [ox.ac.uk] time machine?!

Re:Unemployment! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823872)

This is UNEMPLOYMENT we are talking about here, not welfare. We (In the US) pay unemployment insurance ourselves when we are working, then get the money back when we need it. Just like (in theory) Social Security.

Re:Unemployment! (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823886)

I like the idea, but menial work is shameful in the United States. Most people are used to cleaning their own toilet bowl, but most would rather die than to clean the bowl of others. Considering the fact that we treat most menial workers like worthless social beings, I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to become one.

Re:Unemployment! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823905)

He was making over $500,000? What? Some people have families to support and can't afford to take those jobs doing menial labor. Just because your situation would allow you to do so doesn't mean it can support everyone

WWIII (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823559)

When? I'm guessing at the start of WWIII when Bush drafts me for some weapons production related project.

I18n (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823560)

How hard would it have been to make this international ?

He won't find a job in statistics (5, Informative)

KDan (90353) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823563)

Well, he sure won't find a job in a department that's involved in any kind of statistical work, that's for sure. The main thing which comes out of his tables is that there is little no correlation between salary and unemployment length. The only remotely useful table in there is the unemployment by industry, but there the sample is far too small to derive any conclusions...

There's nothing wrong with not finding correlation per se, but the author of the site presents the tables as if they had some meaning, without mentioning the fact that their only meaning is that they have no meaning... He should certainly make a note about it, and that page would certainly gain from having the Pearson correlation coefficient calculated for each table (and having only two data columns in each table).

Daniel

Codex.lu still alive and kicking penguins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823627)

Click here [codex.lu] to have a look at their bottomless stoopidity [codex.lu] . (Yes, I know, I used the word "bottom". Don't be afraid, it's not what you think it is)

Other problems in analysis (4, Insightful)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823813)

I agree the sample size is too small. For most of the industries his sample size is 1, 2 or 3. He can't take meaningful conclusions from such small samples.

But I have other problems with the analysis. For example, he lumps all restaurant jobs together. This apparently includes a wide-variety of specialties (e.g., manager, cook, waiter) under a wide-variety of skill-levels (e.g., McDonalds and a Five-Star Restaurant). Similar comments could be made for Engineering. I might expect a difference in say Civil Engineers (the construction industry is doing well) and Electrical Engineers. He also doesn't consider years of experience directly. For those jobs requiring a college degree, he doesn't consider degree level. The list goes on...

this is the problem with the USA (-1, Troll)

2 Dollar Sand Niggah (667666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823564)

stories like this confirm and outline the problems we are faced in the USA. this is why i stand before you today promoting the cause to eliminate $2 sand niggahs. Being jobless ain't fun, espically in your home country, if it wasn't for these sand niggahs who are prepared to work for $2 per hour there would be plenty of jobs for our fellow americans. BUy a gun today, go down to your supermarket and kill some $2 sand niggahs, cleanse this country from there filth!

this is no troll (-1, Troll)

2 Dollar Sand Niggah (667666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823571)

In soviet russia /. modertors die of SARS for U!

Make sense to anyone? (5, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823565)

Now why link to the site? It has practically no data so far, and that is all it's good for... There is no verification of the data, and the data is input by random visitors.

A /. poll asking the same question would be many times more accurate.

Re:Make sense to anyone? (5, Insightful)

I Love Soup (655061) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823616)

And of course IT is going to the lead the rest of the categories, since unemployed IT people are more likely spending their (abundant) free-time surfing on the webnet.

US Only ? (5, Insightful)

JTunny (653851) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823566)

Asks you to enter a state and salary in dollars Any chance of including UK ppl somehow ?

Re:US Only ? (3, Interesting)

PhillC (84728) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823587)

I was going to post something similar. With such a globalised marketplace and options such as "telecommuting" relevant for many, it would be useful to gather information from around the world. Surely a programmer in the US could potentially take on contract work from UK based employers? This is true for other professions as well, such as journalism and graphic design.

I think it would also be helpful to poll people who were recently unemployed, not just those currently out of work. For example, I was without a job between mid-October 2002 and late February 2003. Surely knowing that it recently took someone a little over 4 months to find another job could be useful in predicting current inductry norms?

Re:US Only ? (1)

MattBurke (58682) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823929)

If you're a unix sysadmin, just take it as "a long, long time..." :/

the average will be wrong (4, Interesting)

jakedata (585566) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823568)

I went 12 weeks without a nibble, then had three offers in February. Then nothing.

Screw the unemployment checks, I took the job.

-j

got an interview today (1)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823934)

for a sysadmin job.

Wish me luck!

unemployment (5, Informative)

prmths (325452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823573)

I've been unemployed since January of 2002. Thats about 28 months so far
but anyways.. I've noticed that things look like cr*p lately and it'll be a while before they improve. So i've decided that i'm going back to school to get my master's. I've wanted to do it anyways... Hopefully that'll put me in a higher standing than I am now..

On a side note; I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the times or not, but a friend of mine told me that even if someone has a ton of experience, and then they graduate college with a bachelor's or masters or whatever... Some employers tend to ignore all work experience prior to graduating. does anyone know if this is true? if it is, i think it's the most retarded HR practice i've EVER heard of. Can someone PLEASE enlighten me on the subject.

I've been unemployed since January of 2002 (4, Funny)

goldcd (587052) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823590)

That[']s about 28 months so far - anybody fancy offering this maths/english wiz a job?

Re:I've been unemployed since January of 2002 (1)

prmths (325452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823603)

ack! :P
16
seems like a lot longer when you're unemployed...
heh
could have sworn it's been 2 years
these things happen when you havnt slept in about 2 days ;)

Re:I've been unemployed since January of 2002 (5, Interesting)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823652)

Don't worry, I've been unemployed since 10/2001 and sure I've had a few interviews (even had one scheduled at Microsoft that got pulled out from under me 3 days before I was set to go (because a prior candidate got the job, nothing to do with me)), but now that the unemployments gone I've gotten used to the idea that I'll--

1) Be in debt (unemployment really did help, but unfortunately I still had to hit up the credit cards because it just wasn't making ends meet) for the foreseeable future.
2) Be making slightly above minimum wage doing "light industrial" until the economy stops felching it's own ass.

And yeah, for anyone who thinks "he didn't look hard enough" or some other holier-than-thou bullshit, I assure you, I looked real god damned hard, and I lowered my salary expectations considerably (going from $70,000+/yr to having salary expectations of only $30,000/yr I would hope qualifies).

To anyone who says it's not that bad-- you're clueless, or you're terribly lucky.

On a personal note, I want to thank the US Congress/Senate for finally passing that Unemployment Extension in January when they got back from their Christmas break-- too bad it didn't extend ANYTHING, it just extended the TEUC and TEUC-X programs to those who would have been cut off, for everyone else who had already exhausted both their TEUC and TEUC-X benefits, they basically gave us the finger. Way to go guys. (Read: The TEUC extension provided for 13 weeks of federally funded extensions, and the TEUC-X extension provided for an additional 13 weeks for states with high unemployment (mine, Washington, qualified easily) for a total of 26 weeks. The "extension" passed in January didn't add any additional weeks, it only extended the program for those who were just starting to use TEUC and/or TEUC-X, and added language that made it possible for someone starting on it late in the game to be able to claim their total balance, rather than being cut off on some arbitrary date).

Glad your going back to school! (1)

Treeluvinhippy (545814) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823594)

This time around, hit the math books a little harder.

And I'm glad... (1, Funny)

NicotineAtNight (668197) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823614)

that you're going back to grammar school.

Why don't you start up on your own? (2, Insightful)

LinuxXPHybrid (648686) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823642)

This is not the first recession in our history; nor is the last one for sure. Unemployment does not sound too great and does affect your confidence and all, but it happens to everyone (which is to say, much of it depends on luck not so much your skill or personality). As a matter of fact, some of, what we call, successful business men experienced the same. Have you heard of this guy, Michael Bloomberg? Well, Solomon Smith Barney fired him almost 20 years ago. He ended up starting up on his own and he's a billionaire now.

I can't say that you can be next Mike, but the point is, maybe it's a sign. Maybe success is calling you. Maybe you are not supposed to be employed (by anyone except for yourself).

Re:Why don't you start up on your own? (1)

prmths (325452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823773)

I've actually had several businesses since I was 18. I never could get much business. While I may be great at the technical side of things and be able get a job done about 2-10 times faster than all my peers; I can't sell myself worth sh*t. I think that's a common problem among technical minded people. (at least from my experience) The people I see succeeding in their own businesses are the 'tards' that think they know it all and come running to me for every little question they have.
Want to be my salesman? because I SUCK at selling ;)

Re:unemployment (1)

johnkoer (163434) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823705)

but a friend of mine told me that even if someone has a ton of experience, and then they graduate college with a bachelor's or masters or whatever

That is true. I worked full time as a programmer while getting my BS in Computer Science. Every time I go on an interview now they take the current year and subtract the year I graduated from college and say, "So you have had X years of experience." I always have to go back and explain well I worked full time while I was in college, "So I have X+4 years of experience." Most people I have interviewed with still do not acknowledge those 4 years of experience.

Re:unemployment (1)

RicRoc (41406) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823739)

My experience is also that employers initially ignore all work experience before graduating. But once you've landed the job, the extra experience is appreciated by co-workers and management alike. This generates recognition and respect that may (or may not) translate into better pay rises along the road.
YMMV :-)

Re:unemployment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823792)

So i've decided that i'm going back to school to get my master's. I've wanted to do it anyways... Hopefully that'll put me in a higher standing than I am now..

Good idea. I'm going to law school this fall; I'll be in debt at the end, but at least with a law degree I'll be able to work independently if no firms are hiring.

I've seriously contemplating going into personal injury law; seems like an easy way to make money. What? You don't like that, do you? Well tough. After watching corporate "leaders" and the government kick around everyone trying to earn a decent living, I've lost any loyalty to the free market system and I don't see what the point in hard work is anymore. I'd rather be a rich parasite than a poor, but honest worker, and considering that the vast majority of large companies make a lot of their money unethically, I have no compunction about taking some of it off them.

And no, I'm not kidding and I'm not trolling. Well, maybe I am trolling, but everything I said above still stands.

Mod me down but... (0, Insightful)

Renegade Lisp (315687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823585)

... posting an article on the front page of an international forum that has at least 25% of non-US readers,

... with the article still being intended for people from the US only

... and not even mentioning this in the article

strikes me as a little odd.

Re:Mod me down but... (4, Informative)

NETHED (258016) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823601)

Excuse me, but have you read the FAQs of Slashdot? Click here if you have not [slashdot.org]

Re:Mod me down but... (1, Insightful)

Renegade Lisp (315687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823613)

I think these are two separate issues, (a) being US-centric in where the news normally come from, and whom they are most relevant for, and (b) ignoring the fact that there are non-US readers in the way a story is written.

The former is absolutely fine with me, while the latter ... as I said, strikes me as a little odd.

Re:Mod me down but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823675)

Stop bitching, you whiney little cunt.

Re:Mod me down but... (2, Insightful)

Skiboo (306467) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823709)

I think the point is, that non-US data will muck up the survey. Different countries have different amounts of unemployment, better/worse economies, so if you're trying to figure out how long it takes to get a job, you're better off with localised data.

Re:Mod me down but... (2, Insightful)

anshil (302405) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823832)

Mod me as flamebait if you want.

The US and the US citizens generally don't care too much about the rest of the world. After all they are the greatest country in the world, or at last they believe this by heart.

If it's true or not, at least it is the opinoun most of the europeans have formed the last years. And FAQ's like seem only to second that.

Mod me down but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823682)

... posting an article on the front page of an interracial forum that has at least 25% of non-White readers, ... with the article still being intended for White people only ... and not even mentioning this in the article

strikes me as a little odd.

Unemployed for a reason (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823589)

I am a Software Engineer and the majority of engineers that I see that are unemployed for a period longer than 1 month are either fresh out of college or were previously employed only because the industry was desperate.

My advice: Unemployeed engineers that have been unemployed longer than 1 month need to find a specialty and find a job in that specialty.

Have some compassion, friend. (1)

bryane (614590) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823633)

To say the current economy is the way it is because the industry is no longer desperate is to ignore the larger picture. The current unemployment situation is not being caused by companies trimming their people; it is being caused by companies imploding.

Do unemployed people read Slashdot??? (3, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823592)

A poll on this topic should be interesting... my train of thought goes like this:

Most Slashdotters have BIG ideals.
Most Corporate types hate BIG ideals, (except as in BIG money!)
Few idealists are moneyed, fewer can employ others.

I guess it follows that most Slashdotters are not employed :-). There are many ways my assumptions could be wrong.. I'd like to hear some.

Re:Do unemployed people read Slashdot??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823660)

You know, that sounds oddly similar to what English majors have to go through...

Slashdot- bridging the gap between humanities and science by letting us all vent about how we got shafted. ;)

Re:Do unemployed people read Slashdot??? (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823898)

I'm an idealist who's employed. Luckily my bosses are not from the marketing dept. ;)

One good option (3, Interesting)

ciryon (218518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823596)

I was playing around in the "IT-bubble" for some years until eventually the company was almost dead. No sales = no profit. :)

Then I decided to do the only good thing; go back to school. At the same time I run my own (very small scale system development/management) company to get some extra cash. So in some years I'll hopefully have graduated computer science when there are more jobs.

Ciryon

Fuck Computer Science (-1, Troll)

NicotineAtNight (668197) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823621)

And fuck Philosophy. Change of plans #3 - I'm getting a Business Admin degree.

There are always exceptions... (5, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823610)

I don't know if this makes any sense or not... but I would stress that it is kind of pointless to use a tool like this, since you might be an exception yourself.

Statistics often make sense on a demographical scale, but never on an individual scale.

Re:There are always exceptions... (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823662)

i wouldn't say it's pointless per se. if i'm building a new house and have to sell me current one in 6 months to meet the contract, i'll look quite closely at the average sales of used homes in my area. if the average is 9 months, chances are i'm not going to gamble on signing the contract without a lot of reassurance from a sales agent that the house should go quickly.

salary ranges are a similar tool, and so are project estimates. they're one number to use to get an overall picture.

Bad Spellers == Sloppy Coders? (-1, Offtopic)

Euphonious Coward (189818) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823618)

You also won't get a (programming) job if you can't be bothered to pay attention to details.

In the posting, it says "your" when it should have said "you're". (Oddly, it was right in one instance, and wrong two lines later.) The Slashdot Disease is the habit of saying "it's" when the poster (and, too often, the editor!) must have meant to say "its". The differences between these pairs of words is very easy to learn. Learning it helps to distinguish you from the gum-chewers. (Not chewing gum helps too. :-)

Details matter. Are we not hackers?

Re:Bad Spellers == Sloppy Coders? (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823648)

oh please. step down from that soap box and back down to planet earth where coders code and pedantic people have a foot shoved in the wrong place.

yeah, we don't check our spelling or grammer when posting to a silly web board or when posting an article to said board. we do, however, submit our resume to serveral recruiters. the good ones will take 10 minutes to look over spelling mistakes and to help polish it up. those are the recruiters what will most likely get the sale too.

we spend our day using software that will tell us when we haven't declared a variable or included a particular package/header. do we pay attention to details? sure, when the specs say that system needs to send a email report daily to a given group of people... the system will send a daily report to go given group of people.

those who can, code. those who can't worry about weather your posting proper english to a web board. i've seen this issue over and over on /. and it's quite silly in my opinion.

Re:Bad Spellers == Sloppy Coders? (1)

MiTEG (234467) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823714)

To nitpick you: the spelling the grandparent post was fine, it's the grammar that needs work.

Re:Bad Spellers == Sloppy Coders? (1)

Kingpin (40003) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823718)


Right.. You just go on and tell that to Taco :)

A little Economics 101 (5, Informative)

phusers (661084) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823626)

For the unemployed out there, I can only offer some economic view on what needs to happen. According to Okun's law, there needs to be a 2.5% growth in the GDP in order for unemployment to go down. The GDP figure was released last week and well, unemployment won't be going down for a while. Sorry guys, until the economy picks up somehow either through increase consumption spending, govt expenditures in the form of jobs, or increased business investment the economy will not grow to the required 2.5% and will not lower unemployment.

Re:A little Economics 101 (1)

prmths (325452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823653)

what's so special about 2.5%?

hm. i know.. cut taxes and have people spend more money!

Re:A little Economics 101 (1, Interesting)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823829)

Gov't spending never helps. The only money the gov't has to spend must be sucked out of the economy from somewhere else (taxes). So to "boost" over here, you must "depress" at least as much (because of the overhead of bureaucracy) elsewhere. This is the same reason school vouchers are a dumb idea - you pay government $100 just to get $80 of your own money back, because you had to pay someone to figure out and perform the redistribution. Just cut taxes and let people keep their own money and we're all better off. Wealth redistribution doesn't work - it's just a way for politicians to buy the votes of the poor so they can stay in power.

Re:A little Economics 101 (0, Flamebait)

CausticWindow (632215) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823855)

Fear not, your government is hard at work pumping money into the economy. Too bad for the rest of the world that your corporate welfare projects are disguised as wars.

See if they couldn't..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823636)

Eh? Sounds more like they are seeing if they _could_. Why would they try and see if they could not?

What ever happened to this guys tax problems? (2, Informative)

Jason Mark (623951) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823645)

Odd Tood (the site this is hosted on has some of the funniest Flash animations I've ever seen. Esp. his first one "Laid Off"... but didn't he get busted because he made some damn good money in his "tip jar" and never reported it to the IRS? Anyone have the skinny on this? PS: watch the videos. You'll laugh. www.oddtodd.com [oddtodd.com] .

Well it depends on what you do while unemployed. (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823650)

The Tech boom is gone. And will probably not happen again. The days of $100k a year for using front page is over. So no longer expect management to treat you like gods. You are like everyone else in a tough echonomy. That being said you will have to find ways to be more adaptive in your skills and you may have to do some things you may not want to do. Including working with Microsoft Stuff, accecpting payrole of around 40k a year (depending on your locataion).
Also you can nolonger expect people to be looking for you. You will need to be proactive. Look for companies from all different types of areas. And post your resume even if they dont have any job openings, write a coversheet for the company. Then if you dont get a responce withing a week give the company a telephone call and ask them if they got the resume.
So it really depends how long it takes for you to get a job offer. If you just sit their with your resume posted on the web and mabey e-mail a resume to a couple of places asking for a 100k job it may take a years until inflation rises. But if you are really active then you can get a job within a couple of weeks.

Re:Well it depends on what you do while unemployed (2, Interesting)

captainclever (568610) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823677)

"The Tech boom is gone, And will probably not happen again."

Not so! It may be gone for now, but mark my words the next tech boom is the semantic web. Companies will want their services exposed via webservices so that intelligent agents can search for goods and services automatically. This will mark a new era in terms of data accessibility, much like the internet boom in the 90's.

That's my reckoning anyway :P

Re:Well it depends on what you do while unemployed (5, Insightful)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823770)

there's a big difference between what you're describing and what the internet boom of 96-00 experienced.

in a web services world it will be companies that have a solid business plan, and compines that think things trough. in the Iboom, it was anybody and everybody putting up a web site that provided nothing. there was also the fact that there was this Y2K issue that many many of companies spent millions of dollars for legal reasons to change 5 lines of code in their software systems and spend enourmous hours testing said changes across the board and saving every test log file and going through various levels of audits of the testing. basically y2k projects coupled with the internet boom kept a lot of people employed and brought in a lot of others.

exposing webservices will let a few good people work for a while.

Unemplyoment (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823676)

I fight unemployment by being unemployed and not taking other people's jobs. If you want the position, take it: one unhappy unemployed less.

May John Higgins win the World Cup.

WE NEED MORE H-1Bs!!!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823685)

People are starving in India!!!!! Why should corporate executives spend money on some expensive geek when they could hire an H-1B for cheap and use the money saved to buy a new yacht? More H-1Bs NOW!!!!

Re:WE NEED MORE H-1Bs!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823787)

Sand niggers are born for one purpose only: to starve.

Forever unemployed? (1)

CrazyJim0 (324487) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823689)

I just graduated carnegie mellon for computer science. I haven't even seen an interview.

Re:Forever unemployed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823707)

Just stay put. It'll come.

Sleep a lot, watch the snooker world cup, drink coffee and sit in the sun. Sooner or later, it will come.

Re:Forever unemployed? (0)

esanbock (513790) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823782)

Do a search for H-1B. Then write to your legislators.

Re:Forever unemployed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823791)

Same deal here man, different school though (Vanderbilt). I decided to aim a little lower just to get out of unemployment. I ended up finding a job (support desk) where I can still look for a CS job.

Re:Forever unemployed? (1)

sld126 (667783) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823866)

Heh, I've been in my support job for two years now. Still looking for a better job...with a Master's in IT Mgmt.

There are lies (2, Insightful)

MacroRex (548024) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823722)

and there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Anything this generic should be taken only as a mildly interesting curiosity and nothing more.

"I'm a IT guy and have been unemployed 7 months now, so I should find work in only 3 months.". How stupid is that? Everyone is a special case, and in the Real World(tm) employment situations depend on numerous big factors which have absolutely no effect on the statistics on that page. Local employment situation, work experience and references, charisma, personal networks, and how much effort you put to finding a job are all much more important than the metrics used in this survey. Not that this isn't interesting at all, but the title of the post is misleading in the extreme.

Jobs are one thing... (4, Funny)

not-quite-rite (232445) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823729)

I personally would like to know when i will next get sex.

I was hoping to use to statistics coupled with the data gleaned from slashdot....

oh.

silly me

Re:Jobs are one thing... (2, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823911)

I tried to calculate the answer to your question, but all I got are these division by zero errors. Go figure.

JobStats.co.uk (4, Informative)

benjiboo (640195) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823757)

Hope this is relevant. JobStats.co.uk [jobstats.co.uk] is an interesting compilation of stats about the UK job market, e.g. average earnings by skill, region etc.

Grandpa Joe speaks on unemployment. (1, Funny)

Loosewire (628916) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823785)

<Rusty Voice> I remember in my day when a boy could get a job at 12 and retire with the same job at 65. None of this new fangled Screens tell people how long they will be unemployed...</Rusty Voice>

Get real! Academia doesn't need ex-corporate geeks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823800)

What makes you think you can cut it in grad school? You ended up in the corporate world because you barely made through undergrad, and couldn't wait to get out of school to make the big bucks.

You could look into a Continuing Studies program, and for the right price you could have a new career, something like "Flipping burgers for techies". Stay away from those "Network/Microsoft Engineers in 6 months" course. I heard the meaning of Engineer is actually starting to mean something again.

I too have been working on a survey... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823815)

...to see how long it takes a site to get slashdotted, as a function of what the topic is.

.cfm (0)

r00tarded (553054) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823825)

I would add some time there fella being that you are still using Cold Fusion for web applications.

They cannot predict... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823836)

when I will get a job. I am agoraphobic and never leave the house.

Fundamentally flawed? (0)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823877)

How about those people that figure that their sector is so fsck'ed that they change careers altogether? Or just retire? The data is a best-case estimation, really. It could be a lot worse..

Too much time on their hands (2, Insightful)

ATAMAH (578546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5823892)

Whilst i am waiting for the page to open (and by the looks of things it has been slashdotted into oblivion) it struck me that an unemployed person is a lot likelier to make up a page like this than someone with a job :)

Do it yourself (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5823913)

Never mind waiting for someone to "give" you a job.
If you want something to do, start doing it.

Instead of selling a lot of your time away to big corporations (unless you really want to, of course) and such, start your own little company. It's not that hard.

The most important thing is that you do something that you want to do and that gives you satisfaction. Don't wait for someone else to "employ" you. Take control of you own life. In the end, that's what counts for most of us.
And it's usually more fun.

(Oh, btw. don't buy into pyramid-schemes, Get Rich Quick-stuff or MLM. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?