Reuters: More U.S. jobs seen in June, buoying Bush

[nose pin]

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=5555716

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - U.S. employment likely surged again in June, taking gains this year to some 1.4 million jobs and bolstering President George W. Bush's economic record ahead of the November election, analysts said onWednesday.

Economists believe 250,000 jobs were created this month, virtually matching May's jump of 248,000, though the unemployment rate probably will not budge from 5.6 percent because newly hopeful job-seekers are returning to the job market.

"I think the gains will be quite widespread again, and as we saw in April and May, we are likely to create slightly more higher-paying than lower-paying positions," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Banc of America Securities.

Even if the unemployment rate does not decline, analysts expect the Labor Department's closely watched payrolls report, due on Friday, to confirm broad strength in what months ago was still only a tepid economic recovery.

---snip---

[bucknaked]

1. People aren't going to be thankful for getting something they once had.

Especially when starting all over in salary and wages.

[hughee99]

3. Seriously?

Though this isn't great news for us politically, do you believe that those people who have been hired after months of searching aren't going to be a little thankful? And many are not "starting all over" in salary and wages, though they probably aren't where the were 4 years ago (when some were probably making more than market value because of the great economy). There's also many recent graduates, who didn't lose their jobs because of * that are now happy to be able to find one.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. What kind of jobs are "those people" taking "after months...

...of searching"? Aren't most of these jobs temporary, contractual, and/or part-time in nature? And aren't the people claiming that "new jobs" are being created using statistical means to generate data that indicates that jobs COULD be created under certain conditions? My newspaper's classified section is just as thin today as it was when the economy officially went into recession in March 2001.

Do you really believe that "those people" are going to be THAT thankful for having to take a job that won't even allow them to recover their financial losses during the time they weren't working?

And yes, unless you haven't been paying attention to the type of jobs being outsourced, there will be quite a few people that will be basically starting over in a new field.

And just how does one make "more than market value" when there is a huge demand for your skills and there is a shortage of people with your skills? Doesn't that fit the definition of the law of supply and demand?

Conversely, when the economy gets trashed and the demand for one's skills goes away because your job has been outsourced, one tends to make a lot less than one did previously because one had to either change industries and start over, or take a lot less compensation to do the same job as before (unless it was outsourced...Catch 22, right?).

[hughee99]

23. I work at a large technology company in Massachusetts

that is hiring. We're not outsourcing new jobs. They are not temporary, contractual and/or part time in nature. The people may not recover their financial losses while they were out of work, but does that mean they not happy about stopping their losses? Yes, outsourcing is a bad thing and some people will have to work in different areas, I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that when you don't have a job, and then you get one, things are better. You may not be happy about your situation, but it's better than it was before you got your job. As for the market value thing... People who had been working, at least in my field, received many large raises in the late 90's (companies that were doing well wanted to retain them), there was a great demand for their skills at the time. Now the demand is lower because the supply is greater. What was a $100K job in 2000 is now a 70-80K job. Would those people like to get a similar job paying the same money, of course. Is that same amount still market value for that job, no. In any case, all I was saying is this. Someone who lost their job in 2001 may not be as happy with their situation now, compared to 2000, but they're happier than they were in 2002.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. You know nothing about my situation because I didn't tell you anything...

...about my situation, did I? But, I'm going to tell you now.

After earning my second BA degree, I entered the service in 1976 during the first so-called housing depression. I left the service in 1981, and became a technical recruiter for some major businesses you might recognize to include MCI Telecomm, Arthur Young before it became Ernst & Young, Intergraph Corporation, and QMS, the laser printer company now known as QMS-Minolta. During that time, I saw two more recessions, one in 1983-1984, and the second in 1988-1990.

In 1996, I started my own 100% commission-based technical recruiting firm from my home office and did quite well until December 2000 when the bottom began to fall out with the collapsed bubble of the dot-com businesses. Prior to that time, I hardly ever had to make a call to get business...they were calling me.

But the phones dried up completely after 911. Managers that I had known for years wouldn't even return my calls, and recruits that had been completely insufferable prior to September 2001 were begging me to find them something, anything at all. But there was nothing to be found. After hanging on to my businees far longer than I should have, I finally closed the doors in November 2003. The ongoing recession is by far the VERY worst I've seen out of the four I've experienced to date.

I am now in a completely different industry that is 100% commission-based, having to study to take licensing exams, and struggling to learn new ways of doing business. And did I mention that my family is up to our eyeballs in debt trying deperately to stay out of bankruptcy?

And yes, I stay in touch with some of my old recruits and hiring managers. None of them, or anyone they know from the booming Clinton economy, has recovered. Some have gone bankrupt and had to seel everything they owned. Some have gone into other industries at a lot less pay.

Are the ones that are currently employed happy to get a paycheck? Sure. But what's happened to their expense over the past couple of years? Utilities, gasoline and food costs are much higher, but their income is markedly lower. That's an overall net loss, isn't it?

Are they bitter about what the NeoCons have done to the economy, and by extension, to them and their families? You bet they are...damn bitter. And they all used to be Republicans.

I'm going to also tell you something else...the only high-tech companies that are hiring are doing so because of one or more of the following reasons:

1. They are supporters of the NeoCon Junta and want to make the economy look much better than it really is prior to the elections;

2. They are tied to the defense industry revenue stream and the fiasco in the Middle East;

3. They are indeed outsourcing jobs, and like most companies outsourcing jobs today, they have hidden their actions within the corporate structure so that they won't have to face public criticism;

4. They are laying off older, more experienced, and higher-paid workers through the back door, while hiring younger, less experienced, lower-paid workers through the front door.

Under the conditions described above, do you still believe anyone, other than the top 1% who got their massive tax-cuts, is happier today than they were when Clinton was the last legally-elected president?

[hughee99]

32. Did you even read what I wrote?

First of all, I didn't comment on YOUR situation at all. I explained MY situation, and what I can personally see. I thank you for the background, but I wasn't presuming to speak for you. Which is interesting, because you are telling me what's going on in my company, without even knowing which company I work for. I know the people that were layed-off, and yes, some were older and more experienced. The majority of layoff were not of this type (of the about 50 people I personally knew that were layed off, 7 would fall into this category). Most people were a victim of the project they worked on. If the project was discontinued, most of the workers were layed off.

Second of all I stated that many people in this situation probably AREN'T happer now than in 2000 (I agree with you on this) but they are happier now than they were in 2002. If you want to talk about overall net loss over the last 4 years, that's fine, I agree.

As for the reasons my particular company's situation has improved, my company is selling more products and entering new markets that we didn't compete in before. Are we doing this because of the people who are buying our stuff are supporters of the NeoCon Junta, maybe (I don't know the motivation behind all of our customers purchases). We have sold our products to the government, but they only account for a small percentage of our sales. As I also said in my message above, we may be outsourcing jobs, but there's A LOT more people working in my building now (as full time employees) than there were 2 years ago, or even a year ago. These are not outsourced, they are good paying full-time positions right here.

I'm 29 years old, I wasn't really in the job market until 1998, so I'm not going to dispute any of your claims that this is the worst recession of the ones you have experienced. I was around for the bursting of the tech-bubble. As someone who ran a technical recruting company, that was a great situation to be in at the time. Companies popping up all over the place funded by investment capital, willing to pay great money for workers and driving the demand for technical workers. You may never see something like that again if you live to be 200, it was, I would think, the best time for someone in that position possibly in the history of the world. Surely you didn't expect that to continue forever, especially considering the uncertainty of companies that were posting losses quarter after quarter without any real kind of business plan?

Nowhere in here am I trying to stick up for *, and I can't wait to vote against him in November but from what I can see, the economy does seem to be improving some, though not as much as is being reported.

As for happier today, I'm not in the 1% who got the massive tax cuts but I'm happier today than I was 4 years ago. My happiness doensn't depend on the economy. I don't blame Clinton for my relative unhappiness 4 years ago, nor do I credit * in the least for my happiness now. but at least you've heard about someone who's not in the top 1% who's happier now.

[Rebellious Republican]

2. Massive layoffs expected in December, I am sure shrubs .......

corporate buddies are going to do their part to help their puppet get reselected. Just as soon as the election is over it will be back to business as usual.
:eyes:

[UpInArms]

4. lovely cheery article!

I'm certain that whoever wrote this was just grateful to not be among the thousands that Reuters has laid off in the past couple of years.

http://www.recruitlogics.com/pages/pr3.shtml

Shares in the world's largest financial information company, Reuters Group Plc, fell to a 14-year low on Tuesday after it reported a record loss, announced 3,000 more job cuts and warned of sliding revenues.

Reuters, which provides news, data and trading facilities to banks, brokerages and fund managers worldwide, saw its stock fall 12 percent after it said core revenues would fall faster this year than it had earlier predicted.

<snip>

The new job cuts, over the next three years, represent almost one in five of the core Reuters workforce of 16,000.

Andrew Gordon-Brown, analyst with investment bank J.P. Morgan, welcomed the aggressive cost-cuts and said the business "was not broken" but predicted investors would remain cold on the stock until revenues stabilized: "People will buy when they see the rate of decline is starting to slow and not to fall."

<snip>

He unveiled the 3,000 job cuts as part of a three-year plan called "Fast Forward" to get the business into shape.

<snip>

Reuters has already laid off around 3,200 staff across the group over the past two years. The entire Reuters group employs around 18,000 people worldwide.

(02/18/03)

...more...

[leftchick]

5. touche UIA!

:grr: stinkin hypocrites....

[UpInArms]

9. the more I hear, the more I know

that the media in the USoA is absolutely at a nadir.

[ixion]

6. I'm curious... where are all these jobs?

Look on the job boards... the market sucks. Where are all these jobs that are supposedly being created?

[Corkey Mineola]

17. yea

where do i get one?

[Danmack]

29. 2 and a half more UE checks and I'm done for....

After that, I don't know if I have the will or give a shit to continue trying to recover.

I've worked 10 months out of the last 35.

[Radical Activist]

7. Didn't moderate Democrats say this election would be about the economy?

Oops...looks like we might have to actually run on progressive values.

[rosalux]

10. HUH?

How are economic issues not progressive?

[Radical Activist]

11. They didn't want to run on progressive economic issues

They wanted to be able to point to the bad economy and use that as a reason to vote Democrat, without using a liberal or populist economic message as an alternative.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. Read the rest of the posts in this thread. The economy is STILL the issue.

[Radical Activist]

27. Is it really smart to depend on the economy being bad...

in order to have an issue to run on? That strategy always made me nervous from the beginning. When you stand for something bold and inspiring you don't need a bad economy to win an election.

[flaminbats]

8. Surely the hike in interest rates will provide even fuzzier job growth...

higher interest rates and gas prices are always a plus for the economy during sluggish times! When Republicans are in office..it is patriotic to count one's blessings, but when it happens with the Democrats we must blame them for every problem known to mankind.

[mhr]

12. 65% Of New Jobs Cretaed By BLS Computer - They May Not Exist!

See the following:

http://www.comstockfunds.com/
(look under market commentaries for the article)

The Missing 9.4 million Jobs--Update

Although the 947,000 increase in payroll employment over the last three months may seem like a lot compared to what we were getting, it actually falls far short of what we should be seeing at this stage of a recovery. Here’s what we found in examining the last seven economic recoveries.

In the first 30 months of the last seven cyclical expansions employment rose by an average of 7.4 percent with a range of 9.6 percent to 2.6 percent. This includes one cycle that peaked in 24 months with a gain of 7.4 percent. In the current recovery employment has increased only 0.3 percent in the first 30 months including the May number and reported upward revisions of prior months.

If employment over the entire cycle had increased by 7.4 percent, the average of the past recoveries, May payrolls would have come to about 140.6 million rather than the 131.2 actually reported. This means that there are now 9.4 million fewer jobs than there should be at this point in the cycle, and that we needed an average increase of 323,000 jobs for each of the past 30 months to equal the average job growth of the last seven expansions. Instead, total growth for the entire cycle has come to a mere 353,000, only slightly more than what we should have seen each and every month. So let’s not hear any more about employment being a lagging indicator. It is not, and even if it were, 30 months is surely enough time to catch up.

Snip ......

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. Bingo. Just another set of lies produced by the NeoCons.

[Corkey Mineola]

18. terrific analysis

thanks!

[mhr]

15. From The Dallas Fed - Employment In Texas Cities - Not Good

Note how all the cities have struggled since the peak in 01/2001.

Most have barely recovered to that level. Other cities like Dallas have not recovered to 01/2000 employment levels. Times are tough in Texas.

See the original here.

www.dallasfed.org/data/hotstats/archive/txempl0406.html

[hadrons]

19. mhr, let me guess who ISN'T to blame in those Texans eyes ....

[Dr Fate]

20. You want fries with that?

???

[devinsgram]

21. Is this more of their creative bookkeeping?

[kerrycrat2k4]

22. The negativity here is amazing

You almost get the feeling that people here are praying for pink slips and body bags just so John Kerry can be elected.

[flaminbats]

24. Is that how you feel?

I feel like holding our government leaders accountable for government waste and deficit spending. I feel like throwing out the Republicans in Congress who say they can´t make us safer at home or find bin Laden, but can spend lives and billions of our tax dollars in the middle-east.

The negativity and pink slips are what we are sick of, what we want is accountability for government spending and solutions to our economy's changing nature. I want a President and Congress who will enable all uninsured workers to buy into the same healthcare plan that those politicians now can!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Making observations about the ACTUAL situation as opposed to what...

...the NeoCons are feeding us doesn't even come close to the comment you just made.

[mhr]

28. Try Four Years Of Unemployment And You Would Understand

Two college degrees: BSEE, MBA

Honorably discharged Naval Officer

Commercial Pilot

2,000 resumes out the door!

The response from the economy - nada!

[TahitiNut]

36. You're not alone.

:grr:

[kerrycrat2k4]

41. In all seriousness

If you cant find a job in four years, maybe it's time to ask if the problem is you and not the economy.

[mhr]

43. In All Seriousness - Are You Serious - You Seem To Have Ignored

all that has been posted here.

Are you saying that my credentials are not real?

Are you saying that I did not work at all the places I say I did?

Are you saying that I did not serve as a Naval Officer for 5 years?

Are you saying that I did not fly as a commercial pilot?

Are you saying that I am lying about how hard it is to find a job?

Are you saying that I have sent no resumes to listed jobs?

Are you saying that I have not networked with everyone that I know?

Are you saying that I did not live in one of the hardest hit US cities?

I am really clueless as to what you are saying.

Maybe you could clarify your thoughts and be more precise?

[kerrycrat2k4]

44. Clarification

Im not doubting a thing you're claiming, Im just mentioning the possibility that maybe you've got your goals set a little high. Maybe no one's willing to pay 200k a year for an electrical engineer. Maybe no one's looking for a CEO right this minute.

Maybe you come across as an asshole in interviews. Four years is a long time to blaming someone else.

[mhr]

51. Maybe I've Never Made 200K In My Life, Maybe I Always Interview Well

Maybe the truth is closer to what many here are telling you it is.

Maybe the economy is not creating quality jobs.

Maybe the competition for each and every job is greater than most believe.

Back to reality: resume posted at over 100 job boards, over 2,000 resumes out the door, less than 20 interviews in four years.

The only conclusion that one can come to is that the jobs are just not there for older, more experienced workers.

[Frodo]

53. Time to start considering other posibilities....

Do you perhaps have an embarrasing name?

You wouldn't get a whole lot of interviews with a name like the Cheyneyesque "F.U." at the top of the letterhead.



Or maybe you've been spilling small amounts of baby powder into the envelopes "for luck" and they're overreacting?

Extremely biodegradable bond paper that falls apart in the envelope?

You only have GWBush portrait stamps for the envelopes and you've been spitting on the wrong side - so they fall off?

The girl you've been seeing on the side turns out to be the postman's wife/daughter?

To save money, you've been sending them out in reply-mail envelopes and don't realize the bar code at the bottom supercedes the handwriten address?

Poor math skills (you've been putting in a comma instead of a period and adding a zero to your salary demands)?

They mistakenly think you're dramatically overqualified when you just abreviated your "Presiding Cleanest Engineering Operation" certification on your resume?

Extreme B.O.?

Resume printed in crayon? Or dissapearing ink?

[mhr]

54. Frodo - Very Funny - None Of The Above Applies

I'll gladly send you a copy of my resume if you would like to see it.

[TahitiNut]

57. You might consider eliminating one possibility ...

... by hiring a reference check agency to call those people you've either listed as references or those former supervisors who get listed on most applications.

Trust me. I did this once and found someone I trusted as a reference was slandering me. Suffice it to say, it was a shock.

If a former supervisor is doing anything other than telling a reference checking call to contact human resources, you might have a cause of action. At a minimum, you might be able to list another person.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[auburnblu]

31. They are

The reality is that many of the posters on this forum really don't give a crap who's unemployed, who gets shot in Iraq, you're right they care about the election, that's it. Bush is weak on SO many issues, that Kerry could beat him easily by just laying out a positive vision. His wanting more people to get college degrees is a good example.

Good news, no matter who reports it, is viewed as false by many on here. It plays into the sterotypes that most repubs and many independants have of those on the left these days.

[GaryL]

33. I know what's really sad.

I grew up at a time when media was, at least, skeptical of what it reported instead of acting as the mouth piece of a corrupt administration. The sad fact is most of the high paying jobs have been reduced to service level positions. Companies are cutting staff to a core group of employees while contracting traditional services like HR, IS, Admin, etc. All this results in a downward pressure on salaries. Granted, having a job is better that not but imagine now making half of what you were ten years ago and that gives you some idea of what is really concealed in these numbers.

[mountainvue]

34. No. We already got that.

It's quite the opposite, i can assure you.

[kerrycrat2k4]

42. Quite the opposite?

Quite the opposite will gurantee four more years of Bush. As hugely unpopular as he is, and with his popularity at an all time low, with the poor candidate we've ended up with, we cant get more than a percentage point or two ahead of him in the polls. The media sold the lie that a wrinkled face and a dull personality equated to electability and Iowa and New Hampshire bought it. Now we have to pay for it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

37. It is probably that and more

I have exactly the same horrible feeling about these numbers as I had about the claims of WMD prior to Iraq. You knew it wasn't true, but nobody cared, until it was too late.

[MetaTrope]

35. Does that "248,000" number for May include the late downward revision?

Or hasn't the "correction" for May come out yet?

[TahitiNut]

38. As of August 2003, 3.434 million jobs were LOST during the Bush regime.

During a similar period (Dec96 to Aug99), 8.234 million jobs were gained during the Clinton/Gore administration.

By that measure, 11.7 million fewer people were employed in August 2003 than would be employed had the economy been managed as during the Clinton/Gore administration. That's nearly 10% fewer jobs in the private sector. The Bush/Cheney regime has literally decimated the working class!

They then have the appalling hubris to proclaim 'success' as measured against the carnage they wrought in less than three years. Disgusting.

Yet even that proclamation is an outright lie. Let's look at the numbers ...

---

Over the 50 years prior to the Bush/Cheney regime, employment grew at an average annual rate of 2.1%. (That rate was even somewhat greater in the 30 years prior to the Bush/Cheney regime.)

If the number of jobs increased at an average rate in the 9 months between August 2003 and May 2004, there would be 498,857 more people employed than reported in May 2004.

That's a half million fewer "new jobs" since August 2003 than merely an average increase in employment would yield in the same period.

These lying bastards get "F"s for 32 months and then get a "D" for 9 months and want to graduate? Fuck 'em! (And the horses asses they rode in IN.)

---

WAKE THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE! (I feel like screaming this at the top of my lungs to wake up the fucking IDIOTS that buy the total BULLSHIT we keep getting from this corrupt fucking regime!)
:grr: :grr: :grr:

Thanks. I feel better now.

[TahitiNut]

39. Here's a little graph that might better show the carnage.

Also, take a look at the thread I started at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1887610

[mhr]

40. Thanks TahitiNut For The Excellent Analysis

eom

[Skittles]

45. ridiculous

how many more jobs before we make up for all the jobs lost under this creep?

[mbperrin]

46. employment LIKELY surged?????

This is a hell of a claim, isn't it? Did it or didn't it?

I could tell my creditors that I'm LIKELY to have them all paid off next week, but I'm thinkin' that's not much of a claim.

Let me put it this way for one of the pet industries - the oil industry in Texas. In 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, 1,000,000 and change Texans worked directly in the oil industry. Today, that figure is 150,000 (!) That's just an 85% dropoff in pretty good paying jobs.

No worries, though. NEARLY 1,000,000 jobs have been created in that time for unskilled labor averaging about $6.50 per hour!

And if that's how they treat their friends, how do you LIKELY think they treated other industries???

[Frodo]

48. They have no idea.

A few days before each number is released, a group of economists is polled (by bloomberg and others) to set the "analysts expectations" number. So the market knows how to react to the "real" number when it comes out("jobless claims increase, but it's less than expected so it's a good thing" etc.)


This is the first time I've seen the expectations getting press coverage before the actual number comes out.

[fob]

50. That's only ONE of the many qualifiers on this bullshit

Economists believe 250,000 jobs were created this month, virtually matching May's jump of 248,000, though the unemployment rate probably will not budge from 5.6 percent because newly hopeful job-seekers are returning to the job market.(Well at least they admit that even they're bs numbers aren't big enough to make a difference)

"I think the gains will be quite widespread again, and as we saw in April and May, we are likely to create slightly more higher-paying than lower-paying positions," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Banc of America Securities.

Even if the unemployment rate does not decline, analysts expect the Labor Department's closely watched payrolls report, due on Friday, to confirm broad strength in what months ago was still only a tepid economic recovery.

And that's only in the snippets!

[Frodo]

52. Again...

this "story" is entirely based on a prediction of what number will be reported tomorrow.

So the whole story is a "qualifier" since there is no actual number reported.

[liveoaktx]

47. One qualifier to this number in this US Outsourcing Jobs article

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB6RIF64WD.html

<snip>
>>>>>>>In early June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics downwardly revised projections for white-collar job growth for 2002-2003, based on accelerated job migration. The agency reported that seven of the 10 occupations expected to gain the most ground are low-wage occupations that do not require a college degree. <<<<<<<

Technology consulting firm Gartner Inc. estimates that 10 percent of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of this year.

The job outlook in the San Francisco Bay area - home to legions of unemployed programmers since the dot-com bust of 2000 - is particularly bleak. Nearly one-third of local workers, or 31 percent, are worried about losing their jobs, compared to 18 percent for the nation, according to a survey released Wednesday by staffing firm Hudson Highland Group, Inc.

Although call center jobs have been migrating to the Philippines and Malaysia since the 1990s, in the past two years cash-strapped companies have exported high-paying jobs in research and development, software engineering, chip design and biotechnology startups. Most of those jobs have gone to India and China, whose universities graduate hundreds of thousands of engineers each year

[InkAddict]

49. Hey freeper lurkers

Buy my vote! - I need a job that lasts at least 1 yr and you don't need any more houses. You can only live in one at a time. If you decide to be a landlord, you can start planning your eviction strategies as your tenants lose their job and don't make rent. Better sign on to building more prisons! Crime pays better than you do!

Are we happier or just plain desperate???

[struggle4progress]

55. Economics News Release - The quality of U.S. jobs fell ...

... dramatically during the past three years

21 June 2004, 09:51am ET

"NOT ALL JOBS ARE CREATED EQUAL" ACCORDING TO CIBC WORLD MARKETS U.S.

EMPLOYMENT QUALITY INDEX

TORONTO, June 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - The past three years have seen a notable drop in the quality of U.S. jobs, according to the CIBC World Markets' US Employment Quality Index (EQI).

The CIBCWM EQI has fallen eight points since 2001, reflecting the recent trend towards lower-paying, less stable, self-employed and part-time jobs at the expense of higher-quality jobs in sectors such as the transportation, utilities, natural resources and manufacturing industries.

"The message is clear," says CIBC World Markets' senior economist Benjamin Tal, author of the report. "The vast majority of jobs that evaporated during the 'job-loss' recovery were high-quality jobs."
<snip>

http://www.finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NYSE:BCM&story=200406211351_PRN__TO194

[mhr]

56. Too Old, Too Qualified, Too Experienced - That Sums It Up For Most Of Us!

eom

[TahitiNut]

58. Ditto.

If I had a dollar for the number of times I've been called "overqualified," I'd never have to be employed again.