<p>I recently talked a pharm sales guy at a party and he told me that if it was not for his old contacts, he would not have made a living at all. It is really hard to do pharm sales right now - at least in our state (Minnesota). When he has something to sell, he cannot bring it in the doctor’s office anymore. He meets with the doctor somewhere off premisses and they talk about new drugs and maybe the doctor buys. Did you notice in your doctor’s office the sign that they don’t want to talk to pharm sales representatives? I see it in every doctor’s office.</p>
<p>Right. Too many young girls, in particular, don’t select appropriate clothes. Even if they aren’t overweight, they often wear ill-fitting clothing which causes their flesh to needlessly hang out all over the place. Also, they choose apparel better suited to dorm rooms, night clubs or parties than to an office. You don’t have to spend a lot to look nice, but if you want to or need to go cheaper, it might take you a lot longer to find things that fit well and look good on you. So, young ladies, Forever 21 is probably not an ideal place to find work clothes, but even there if you spend a while clawing through the racks you can find some gems.</p>
<p>Post #259, thank goodness not everybody thinks the same way as your friend. D’s friend was offered jobs in consulting in SF. I would think these firms are prestigious. So these jobs are not engineering jobs where nerdiness is highly value.</p>
Funny you say that because I think the largest average BMI I see in the workplace is probably in my various doctor’s offices. And I’m not talking about the patients. Shows the difference between docs and lawyers I guess.</p>
<p>Of course the average goes up when I enter anyway. :)</p>
<p>
I’d agree with that. IME, the folks that typically use those little rolling briefcases are lawyers and pharmacy reps and you can usually discern which category by their appearance. </p>
<p>Just kidding by the way, in case anyone was wondering.</p>
<p>Well… I know two. One is a slightly overweight not very attractive guy with not the best skin, who is making a living as a pharma sales rep in a difficult environment. </p>
<p>Another is my very attractive friend, who lost her job couple of years ago. Thankfully, her husband is a doctor, who, by the time she lost her job, completed his residency, so she decided to become a stay home mom to their two adorable children.</p>
<p>And the fact about attractive pharma sales rep is not true anymore anyway. If you don’t believe me, then you missed episode from “How I met your mother” couple of years ago - they definitely showed that not to be true anymore. (I am not being serious here).</p>
<p>Was on a plane recently that had to be half full of drug rep new hires headed to training - they were all very good looking and dressed perfectly. </p>
<p>Is it possible the unattractive ones have been working there a while and have proven themselves so they just aren’t ‘let go’. Not sure they would have been hired in current state of appearance based on what I saw…</p>
<p>I have noticed stewardesses don’t seem to have that age discrimination anymore - kind of nice!</p>
<p>All the female drug reps I’ve met were very attractive. There seems to be a lot more variance among the men, between quiet/reserved, whacked out, and boisterous.</p>
<p>As it happens, I am employed by the Census Bureau, and one of the surveys I work on is CPS, which collects the data for the BLS. You are mistaken. </p>
<p>CPS identifies ALL types of employment and unemployment, including partial employment, “under” employment, discouraged workers, people who are on layoff but expect to be called back, and so forth. If a person is not employed full time, the survey finds out whether the individual wants full time work, if not why, if yes what they have been doing to find it (if anything), what they perceive as the barriers to finding work, and so forth. Students are counted also. It really gives a very accurate picture of the employment scene. In addition, it is longitudinal, which adds further dimension to the results. I think it is a very valuable source of accurate information. It has been done on a monthly basis since, IIRC, 1940. (Although I’m sure it is more detailed now.)</p>
<p>Expansive? Hmmm…not sure you mean expansive…</p>
<p>If you mean expEnsive…I’m not sure I fully agree with that. You need to look nice. Not sloppy. That doesn’t mean you have to show up in an Armani suit for an interview. BUT your clothes should fit you well, be pressed, and look business like.</p>
<p>I had to smile while reading these posts. My daughter is working with her career resources and applied learning center at her college filling out job applications. They review each cover letter and told her when she has an interview scheduled, they will have her do a “mock interview” and told her to wear a dark colored suit. (She is applying for marine biology field and research jobs where she will be in mucky mangrove swamps or scuba diving off a boat, I guess she will get to wear her suit for the interview only). Ha, Ha.</p>
<p>“I have had more than one person tell me that their employers are receiving unsolicited resumes from both recent and not so recent grads who are seeking unpaid internships,”</p>
<p>By law, for an unpaid internship to be legal, the employer has to put out more in projected costs than they gain from the intern.</p>
<p>“Back to the definition of unemployment rates, there is only one official rate”</p>
<p>-If the rate depends on definition, than it does not reflects reality. Rate is what it is, if person does not have a job, but wishes to have it, he should be included, no matter if he receives unemployment benefits or not. While it is close to being the same in short recessions as not many fall out of receiving benefits, it does not reflects true picture currently at all, not even close by very wide margin. The reason is the length of the current period of poor economic condition.
So, it does not matter that the same definiton might be used for decades, it simply does not refect the true rate as of today, while it could be very close to true rate in previous much shorter recessions.</p>
<p>Consolation and others with expertise,
How does the labor department/bureau of labor statistics get an accurate picture of the number of college graduates who are looking for jobs, but have not found one? Does that mean that each semester colleges hold graduations that data is submitted to DOL and then someone projects the number of graduates who have jobs? When we filled out our census data, our twins were still in school and neither had begun looking for a job. Not trying to make this into a great debate, but am trying to understand how an agency can truly get an accurate picture of the post-grad labor employment.</p>
<p>The unemployment numbers–the official rates and the alternative measures–are all based on the Current Population Survey which is ongoing–that is, collected monthly and released the first Friday of the following month.</p>
<p>From what I can gather on how it is measured, only 60,000 households are surveyed. How can that in any way be a true picture of what the employment/unemployment rate is. Although based on TOS, so I can not link them, outside sources show what really is going on in the labor market and it is alot worse than what is being reported. PErhaps propaganda, however, if one digs deep enough, the numbers based on true population data,payroll numbers, the numbers are not adding up by any stretch to only 8% unemployment. </p>
<p>Remove the entire 18-26 group out of circulation by stressing continuing education beyond a 4 year degree. In essence it is removing the pressure. Older Baby boomers on the other end are not exiting the workforce.</p>
<p>They have very specific criteria on their survey and the BLS puts out different numbers based upon category. What you are talking about sounds like the U6 number which is broader unemployment.</p>