It's Tough For Some Single Guys in the Man-Cession: Chicks Don't Dig Unemployed Men
NEW YORK — Sean Hamilton considered stopping his search for that special someone when he lost his job in January. With 90 percent less income and no unemployment coming in, the 34-year-old IT professional couldn't really pay for a dinner date. And how would he explain his financial situation without coming across as a slacker?
"To speak plainly, chicks don't dig a broke guy," said the Dallas resident, now a part-time consultant. So he came up with a strategy: "I don't bring it up."
8 Comments:
I'm inclined to agree, but Scott Peterson gets love letters in prison and Drew Peterson found a girlfriend after divorcing two wives and killing two.
Maybe these unemployed guys ought to change their names to Peterson.
"Was my Peter-son brave?"
"Yes, he was very brave Hamchunk."
- The Green Berets
Or possibly only guys that chicks don't dig are getting laid off. Attractive people are probably less likely to be fired.
'With 90 percent less income and no unemployment coming in, the 34-year-old IT professional couldn't really pay for a dinner date'...
Whoa!
Now wait a sec, this poor kid shouldn't be penniless at least according to the MSM...
From a little more than two years ago: As US tax rates drop, government's reach grows
Study: 1 in 2 Americans now receives income from government programs.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the April 16, 2007 edition
From the USAToday, today: Benefit spending soars to new high
'In all, government spending on benefits will top $2 trillion in 2009 — an average of $17,000 provided to each U.S. household'...
Looks like the Man-cession tide will soon be turning, if today's AP green-shoot headline is any indication...
"US stock futures soar on fewer job losses"
Maybe he can get a job over seas:
June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”
Bloomberg
We've discovered a lot more men chicks don't dig this morning.
My oh my, 345000 new people lost jobs and the unemployment rate rose to 9.4%. That rate, by the way, exceeds the "more adverse" scenario of the Fed's stress tests for banks. The unemployment rate for adult men rose to 9.8%.
Buh, buh, but things are getting tougher for these guys at a slower rate. If you recall from Principles of Microeconomics, even a firm which is losing money will continue to produce if it can still cover its fixed costs. So there is a natural floor on employment for operational firms. It doesn't take much time, though, for them to go from the last rung of the ladder to zero if the economy stays weak. "Watch that last step, it's a doozy!"
Exactly how many more construction jobs can be cut now that so many are gone? In poker, we call it "The Risk of Ruin". When you're down to the felt and you've passed your ATM limit, there's nothing left to play with.
Not to fear, we can employ all these guys to pull up weeds.
Dr. Perry,
Looking back to your May 8 post about the 120K+ employment gain from the previous BLS employment release, I noticed the current one had a decline of 437K jobs in contrast. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
You considered it a good sign in May. Am I right in thinking the decline is a disaster? We have 787K newly unemployed plus a reduction in 437K in the employed number although the civilian labor force went up. What do you make of this? Just curious.
headline should read: "It's Tough For Some Single Guys in the Man-Cession: Chicks Don't Dig Men with low self esteems"
Post a Comment
<< Home