5.6 Million Jobs Available in US

[_Some Schmo]

These job postings are all fake, and part of a vast and evil librul conspiracy to make you and your posts look foolish, right?

There's an evil liberal conspiracy to make faqs look foolish? Two questions about that:

1) Why didn't anyone call me? I've been helping to point out his foolishness for a while now. I'd like some organizational credit.
2) Is the strategy of this conspiracy to just let him talk? If so, brilliant!

[Guest]

Meh..... That may be someone's technical way of looking at it (maybe a liberal wrote it lol), but the way I look at it is a Company has a job to fill, and people are looking for jobs to pay the bills.
In other words, the company is supplying what the people demand. This is standard economic thought. I don't know "why" they reverse it, but I suppose there's some wackidoodle reason which I'll maybe look into later, but for the purposes of our discussion, I'm looking at it this way.

The above is the most breathtakingly ignorant and uneducated description of an economic topic I have ever seen.

Ffaqs, you called Gad's explanation "someone's technical way of writing it.". Well yes, every economic textbook on the planet, every economic professor, teacher and student in every country in the world, every newspaper, magazine, and blog in existence, every economic research paper, study, and op-ed piece, every economic research proposal, and every Economics Nobel prize winner does it that way.

But you say lol, maybe a liberal wrote it.

The rest of your incredibly uneducated rant is painful to read. Take a high school economics class.

Analytics, I have to disagree with you. Ldsfaqs' words do not make sense linguistically, and economic definitions are not arbitrary crap. No point in even writing an explanation here, any high school or basic college econ textbook will do.

[_Lemmie]

Why 'especially the women,' ffaqs? Why do you think women especially have a bias?

When it comes to obesity in an office type environment where usually the ones hiring are an officer supervisor etc., which are usually women and you're a fat man, there's a bias there from my real world experience. They are often fine if you are a man, as long as you're skinny and professional looking, but not if you're a man and fat. It was simply something I noticed. However, to be clear, I experienced bias from many jobs due to my weight no matter who. However, men were much more excepting of a man being fat if it was a man running the office or another type of job. Women ALSO were more excepting if it was another type of job, not an office job. Thus, if I was actually being a misogynist as you people like to lie about people with everything, I would say the same about those women. But since I didn't, clearly I can't be a misogynist. The issue was primarily with office type jobs.

Some of this might have to do with how women focus far more on looks than man do in relation to dwelling on looking good with makeup, hair, dress, etc.
Men don't really care about looks. Of course, man can care about looks when it concerns comparing women for being a mate, sex, etc., or if they are comparing different women for a job, but that's different and I'm also talking about what happens to a mans or specifically a fat man, not what happens to women.

Anyway, when it comes to office work, women might be more okay with a somewhat of fat woman, but not a fat man.
This has nothing with "misogyny" it's simply what happened. I have no misogyny.... that's your warped liberal brain speaking.
I treat everyone equally, save in the sense of I'm more sensitive and will open the door etc. for women more than I might a man.

It's just what happened and for many years.... that is all.

Complete misogyny, with an explanation of why your bigotry is not bigotry because you don't define it as bigotry. You're better off not explaining because you always dig yourself in deeper. Just stop.

[_Analytics]

Analytics, I have to disagree with you. Ldsfaqs' words do not make sense linguistically, and economic definitions are not arbitrary crap. No point in even writing an explanation here, any high school or basic college econ textbook will do.

I'll hold my ground on this one, lol. Technically, "demand" is a function that tells you how much of a commodity would be purchased for any given price. The definition itself isn't arbitrary, but calling it "demand" is pretty arbitrary--just as arbitrary as calling the derivative of a function f'(x) instead of dy/dx. They are just arbitrary handles to represent the underlying point. Of course if you are trying to clearly express your point you use the well-established definitions of the words you choose. But if somebody actually has a decent understanding of the underlying concept but inadvertently attaches the wrong handle to it, I'm going to cut him some slack.

It looks like the way faqs was thinking was that businesses supply things--e.g. guns, butter, widgets, sprockets, and jobs, while people demand all of those things. Of course that thinking is muddled. But it is a decent point to say that just because there are many jobs doesn't imply there are enough jobs.

[_EAllusion]

Why 'especially the women,' ffaqs? Why do you think women especially have a bias?

When it comes to obesity in an office type environment where usually the ones hiring are an officer supervisor etc., which are usually women and you're a fat man, there's a bias there from my real world experience. They are often fine if you are a man, as long as you're skinny and professional looking, but not if you're a man and fat. It was simply something I noticed. However, to be clear, I experienced bias from many jobs due to my weight no matter who. However, men were much more excepting of a man being fat if it was a man running the office or another type of job. Women ALSO were more excepting if it was another type of job, not an office job. Thus, if I was actually being a misogynist as you people like to lie about people with everything, I would say the same about those women. But since I didn't, clearly I can't be a misogynist. The issue was primarily with office type jobs.

Some of this might have to do with how women focus far more on looks than man do in relation to dwelling on looking good with makeup, hair, dress, etc.
Men don't really care about looks. Of course, man can care about looks when it concerns comparing women for being a mate, sex, etc., or if they are comparing different women for a job, but that's different and I'm also talking about what happens to a mans or specifically a fat man, not what happens to women.

Anyway, when it comes to office work, women might be more okay with a somewhat of fat woman, but not a fat man.
This has nothing with "misogyny" it's simply what happened. I have no misogyny.... that's your warped liberal brain speaking.
I treat everyone equally, save in the sense of I'm more sensitive and will open the door etc. for women more than I might a man.

It's just what happened and for many years.... that is all.

When you have these hunches, have you ever considered putting them through a literature search to see if they are borne out by the research? What I mean is, when you think something like this, does it occur to you to search Google Scholar or PubMed? For this issue, you'd just have to type in something like, "gender biases in obesity discrimination by employers." Granted, the papers you are drawn to aren't necessarily going to be a representative sample of the research. And finding and reading those papers can be difficult if you don't have the intelligence or educational background to do so. However, it's so vastly superior to how you sort of amble along from one questionably formed intuition to another that I still recommend you give it a go.

In this case, there's some decent research out there to read. It turns out women are much more likely to face discrimination based on weight than men in hiring decisions. Like, nearly twice as likely. You are dead wrong on this front. Both face some discrimination. And, it depressingly turns out, the morbidly obese of both sexes face rather severe discrimination in hiring decisions. This remains true in high skill jobs that require extensive education and low skill jobs just the same. Your sense that you are in a bad situation regardless of how able you are to do a job simply because you are morbidly obese is correct. And given that it is very rare for the morbidly obese to permanently lose enough weight to not be considered morbidly obese, your sense that this is likely to endure is also correct. You are screwed in that, on average, you'll have to work harder and be better than someone equally qualified as you to simply be viewed as about the same. I feel for you. This sucks. Your sense that you've got it worse as a man is the total opposite of reality, though. However bad you think you've got it, just know that a woman in the same situation is, on average, even worse off.

You also have a hunch that women are more likely to discriminate based on appearance than men because they are a bunch of vain bitches. Why don't you search google scholar and find out if that hunch is borne out by the data?

[Guest]

Analytics, I have to disagree with you. Ldsfaqs' words do not make sense linguistically, and economic definitions are not arbitrary s***. No point in even writing an explanation here, any high school or basic college econ textbook will do.

I'll hold my ground on this one, lol. Technically, "demand" is a function that tells you how much of a commodity would be purchased for any given price. The definition itself isn't arbitrary, but calling it "demand" is pretty arbitrary--just as arbitrary as calling the derivative of a function f'(x) instead of dy/dx. They are just arbitrary handles to represent the underlying point. Of course if you are trying to clearly express your point you use the well-established definitions of the words you choose. But if somebody actually has a decent understanding of the underlying concept but inadvertently attaches the wrong handle to it, I'm going to cut him some slack.

It looks like the way faqs was thinking was that businesses supply things--e.g. guns, butter, widgets, sprockets, and jobs, while people demand all of those things. Of course that thinking is muddled. But it is a decent point to say that just because there are many jobs doesn't imply there are enough jobs.

No problem, I'll hold my ground on this one as well, it seems at least you are willing to address the issue. However, if you're calling demand an arbitrary handle and thinking ldsfaqs has a decent understanding of the underlying concept, then I'll have to cut you a little slack as that econ class you took maybe needs a refresher!! Not a favorite topic among non-econ majors, I know. Thankfully, I haven't had to teach unwilling undergraduates for more than a decade and a half now, so the pain is fading, for me at least. Anyway, at least you took the class!

The discussion here was of the ongoing advertisement of unfilled positions and/or contracts, which is an indicator of excess demand; the statement of many jobs not implying enough jobs is meaningless in this context. The relevant comparison is the match up of supply and demand, not just stating job number totals. It would be informative to see on average how long positions are advertised, and the % of job ads filled to get an idea of the dynamic nature of the market, rather than just a static snapshot. Quick and dirty analysis in this case, however, would seem to indicate excess demand for labor in this particular market.

I agree with your assessment that hiring the right person for the right job is a key management duty. Ldsfaqs seems to be describing issues related to lack of qualifications leading to no job, rather than a lack of jobs.

[_ldsfaqs]

Complete misogyny, with an explanation of why your bigotry is not bigotry because you don't define it as bigotry. You're better off not explaining because you always dig yourself in deeper. Just stop.

1. So, in your warped mind I'm a "misogynist" when I say women in Office work can be misogynist against fat men, but MOSTLY AREN'T in most other types of jobs with a couple of other exceptions?

2. In your warped mind I'm also a "misogynist" for simply relaying what has happened to me as a fat man over many years?

You do know that with #1 the second part cancels the first, thus I can't be called misogynist, because an actual misogynist would say the same about women in any job, not just one or a few?
If you still don't get it and think what you think about me, then are you actually saying women aren't different from each other, that they can't be different from each other in particular situations, that they aren't different from men, etc. etc.? Because that is ALL I've just said, simply shown some differences with people in different situations. So, if you're really going there, then there is no point talking to you. You're not reasonable. Of course I know that already, but really, there's a point where you need to attach a brain instead of thinking racism racism and sexism sexism about everything and everyone no your kind.

Frankly, your treatment here shows that you are the actual "misogynist". And calling someone something very offensive that is clearly false is a highly offensive and bigoted thing to do. I judge based on character everything and everyone, not race, not color, not gender. You should try it.

[_EAllusion]

Supposing that women are more likely than men to discriminate based on weight because women, as a group, are overly concerned about their personal appearance is sexist as hell. You're snorting pure, uncut misogyny there ldsfaqs.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

when I say women in Office work can be misogynist against fat men

This fuckin' guy. He's the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you Dr. Shades for this board! God bless you, Sir!

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

I'm a "misogynist" when I say women in Office work can be misogynist against fat men

Women are 'misogynist' against you?

Do you know what the word misogynist means?

Are you aware that it is a noun, not a verb?

Please look up stereotyping. You continue to define groups of people by a single characteristic (gender, political party, religious affiliation), and then you attribute to that group as a whole various behaviors, characters, mindsets, etc. based on your limited and bigoted assumptions and on your biased interpretation of (I'm guessing largely imaginary) anecdotal events.

So yes, don't dig yourself in deeper.