On Fri, December 8, 2006 2:34 pm, Tracy R Reed wrote: > Lan Barnes wrote: >> The unemployment rate was jiggered by the Bushies by redefining what >> being >> "unemployed" is in, IIRC, 2001. It is seriously underrepresentative. >> Also > > Can you point me to some more accurate employment figures using the > previous definition of unemployed? I would like to see how much > difference the change has made.
Nope. And as free as I am right now, I don't have time to track it down. Maybe if you google "krugman unemployment". > > But either way, why can't I find experienced perl coders? We are > offering good money and this is a great place to work. If the job market > stinks we should have people beating down our door. But I am getting > regular offers for work which I didn't get two years ago and I can't > find anyone to hire. Cooked books or not, real personal experience would > seem to indicate that the market is looking good. Last week I had lunch > with Switchvox who were interested in me. I mainly wanted to meet with > them because they were ex-MP3 employee friends of mine and were doing > cool things with VOIP. The week before I got an email from a friend at > Linspire who wants me to code Haskell for him (although I don't really > know any Haskell yet) the week before that it was a headhunter. > Yesterday I got an IM from someone looking for a Linux consultant. > I am sincerely happy for you. I guess it's sort of like Omaha Beach. You look at the pictures and you see whole swaths of people being cut down while, in little, unexplainable pockets, a couple of guys stand serenely lighting cigarettes. Of course, no guarantee it stayed serene for them after the camera stopped. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
