[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]Good post, UCGal![/quote]

Second that opinion, UCGal. Thanks for interjecting a note of sanity, along with a healthy dose of fact, into the atmosphere of hysteria.

I am particularly grateful for your attempt to enlighten on the realities of the post-1983 Federal retirement structure. You’d think that after 27 years, word would have gotten around.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]Good post, UCGal![/quote]

Second that opinion, UCGal. Thanks for interjecting a note of sanity, along with a healthy dose of fact, into the atmosphere of hysteria.

I am particularly grateful for your attempt to enlighten on the realities of the post-1983 Federal retirement structure. You’d think that after 27 years, word would have gotten around.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=Bubblesitter]
With the drawdown of military, which has already started I would be very very nervous if I were a contractor in any function not directly involved in critical wartime operations. Gates announced $100M in cuts in last couple days. We saw a doubling of the defense budget in recent years. San Diego will likely be disproportionally hit.

Bubblesitter[/quote]

…Perhaps one *could* personally benefit from this financially..doing some due diligence on defense companies that depend on this big contracts, big war machine business model with no commercial arm and have not successfully diversified into commercial operations (unlike Boeing) and short the hell out of them….Short of WWIII starting, I think it’s a given that defense spending is going to get cut big time and that the defense industry is going to tank….

Northrop Grunman comes to mind, and to a lesser extent Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics….[/quote]

Trust me, flu & Bubblesitter, there are new tide patterns in the Potomac due to the sweat from all of the defense contractors here. The competition has been unbelievably cutthroat in the last several years; can’t imagine what’s going to happen now…..

Bubblesitter, I agree that was a great series the Post did. Reminds me of the Watergate days when actual investigation and reporting was going on there. The growth of this industry during the salad days of the aughts was dizzying to watch. Prior to that, there were thousands of acres of bucolic pastureland in the area around Ft. Meade (home to the NSA). Following 9/11, they disappeared under office towers, concrete and asphalt, in the mad rush by contractors to establish a “presence” and cash in on the loot. Thanks for including the link.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=Bubblesitter]
With the drawdown of military, which has already started I would be very very nervous if I were a contractor in any function not directly involved in critical wartime operations. Gates announced $100M in cuts in last couple days. We saw a doubling of the defense budget in recent years. San Diego will likely be disproportionally hit.

Bubblesitter[/quote]

…Perhaps one *could* personally benefit from this financially..doing some due diligence on defense companies that depend on this big contracts, big war machine business model with no commercial arm and have not successfully diversified into commercial operations (unlike Boeing) and short the hell out of them….Short of WWIII starting, I think it’s a given that defense spending is going to get cut big time and that the defense industry is going to tank….

Northrop Grunman comes to mind, and to a lesser extent Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics….[/quote]

Trust me, flu & Bubblesitter, there are new tide patterns in the Potomac due to the sweat from all of the defense contractors here. The competition has been unbelievably cutthroat in the last several years; can’t imagine what’s going to happen now…..

Bubblesitter, I agree that was a great series the Post did. Reminds me of the Watergate days when actual investigation and reporting was going on there. The growth of this industry during the salad days of the aughts was dizzying to watch. Prior to that, there were thousands of acres of bucolic pastureland in the area around Ft. Meade (home to the NSA). Following 9/11, they disappeared under office towers, concrete and asphalt, in the mad rush by contractors to establish a “presence” and cash in on the loot. Thanks for including the link.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=Bubblesitter]
With the drawdown of military, which has already started I would be very very nervous if I were a contractor in any function not directly involved in critical wartime operations. Gates announced $100M in cuts in last couple days. We saw a doubling of the defense budget in recent years. San Diego will likely be disproportionally hit.

Bubblesitter[/quote]

…Perhaps one *could* personally benefit from this financially..doing some due diligence on defense companies that depend on this big contracts, big war machine business model with no commercial arm and have not successfully diversified into commercial operations (unlike Boeing) and short the hell out of them….Short of WWIII starting, I think it’s a given that defense spending is going to get cut big time and that the defense industry is going to tank….

Northrop Grunman comes to mind, and to a lesser extent Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics….[/quote]

Trust me, flu & Bubblesitter, there are new tide patterns in the Potomac due to the sweat from all of the defense contractors here. The competition has been unbelievably cutthroat in the last several years; can’t imagine what’s going to happen now…..

Bubblesitter, I agree that was a great series the Post did. Reminds me of the Watergate days when actual investigation and reporting was going on there. The growth of this industry during the salad days of the aughts was dizzying to watch. Prior to that, there were thousands of acres of bucolic pastureland in the area around Ft. Meade (home to the NSA). Following 9/11, they disappeared under office towers, concrete and asphalt, in the mad rush by contractors to establish a “presence” and cash in on the loot. Thanks for including the link.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=Bubblesitter]
With the drawdown of military, which has already started I would be very very nervous if I were a contractor in any function not directly involved in critical wartime operations. Gates announced $100M in cuts in last couple days. We saw a doubling of the defense budget in recent years. San Diego will likely be disproportionally hit.

Bubblesitter[/quote]

…Perhaps one *could* personally benefit from this financially..doing some due diligence on defense companies that depend on this big contracts, big war machine business model with no commercial arm and have not successfully diversified into commercial operations (unlike Boeing) and short the hell out of them….Short of WWIII starting, I think it’s a given that defense spending is going to get cut big time and that the defense industry is going to tank….

Northrop Grunman comes to mind, and to a lesser extent Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics….[/quote]

Trust me, flu & Bubblesitter, there are new tide patterns in the Potomac due to the sweat from all of the defense contractors here. The competition has been unbelievably cutthroat in the last several years; can’t imagine what’s going to happen now…..

Bubblesitter, I agree that was a great series the Post did. Reminds me of the Watergate days when actual investigation and reporting was going on there. The growth of this industry during the salad days of the aughts was dizzying to watch. Prior to that, there were thousands of acres of bucolic pastureland in the area around Ft. Meade (home to the NSA). Following 9/11, they disappeared under office towers, concrete and asphalt, in the mad rush by contractors to establish a “presence” and cash in on the loot. Thanks for including the link.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=Bubblesitter]
With the drawdown of military, which has already started I would be very very nervous if I were a contractor in any function not directly involved in critical wartime operations. Gates announced $100M in cuts in last couple days. We saw a doubling of the defense budget in recent years. San Diego will likely be disproportionally hit.

Bubblesitter[/quote]

…Perhaps one *could* personally benefit from this financially..doing some due diligence on defense companies that depend on this big contracts, big war machine business model with no commercial arm and have not successfully diversified into commercial operations (unlike Boeing) and short the hell out of them….Short of WWIII starting, I think it’s a given that defense spending is going to get cut big time and that the defense industry is going to tank….

Northrop Grunman comes to mind, and to a lesser extent Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics….[/quote]

Trust me, flu & Bubblesitter, there are new tide patterns in the Potomac due to the sweat from all of the defense contractors here. The competition has been unbelievably cutthroat in the last several years; can’t imagine what’s going to happen now…..

Bubblesitter, I agree that was a great series the Post did. Reminds me of the Watergate days when actual investigation and reporting was going on there. The growth of this industry during the salad days of the aughts was dizzying to watch. Prior to that, there were thousands of acres of bucolic pastureland in the area around Ft. Meade (home to the NSA). Following 9/11, they disappeared under office towers, concrete and asphalt, in the mad rush by contractors to establish a “presence” and cash in on the loot. Thanks for including the link.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]I now wish to draw Piggs’ attention to the SF-171:

http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/personnel/sf171.pdf

Just fill it out and get on a hiring list! Hopefully, you too can avail yourself of all these bennies, that is, after you have been “put thru the paces,” up to and including `nine separate interviews,'” and, of course, a thorough background check. What will your neighbors say about you??

Oh, and uh, I forgot to mention the six-month to one-year “probationary period.” Only a fraction of the bennies will kick in before this period is over. During this time, your “future career” could be in the hands of a bureaucrat who has 1/10th of your education and experience, but by virtue of longetivity, connections, knowing too much (or all three of these), occupies the position as your “supervisor.” This is where you will find that whatever you thought you knew doesn’t matter. Hang in there, refrain from pointing your antlers towards anything resembling a headlight . . . and . . . chin DOWN!

Everybody’s got to pay their dues at one time or another. You’ll get through it :=)[/quote]

Ah, yes, BG, and your description of this seemingly endless, often demeaning, and frequently fruitless exercise does not include the dreaded KSAs. You can have postgraduate degrees with honors, years of progressively responsible and invaluable work experience, and glowing references from employers who availed themselves of a suicide hotline when you handed your resignation in to them. However, if you don’t deal with the KSAs in precisely worded responses, you’re SOL. Your application will never reach the hiring officer.

And keep in mind that it can take six to eight hours or more to apply for a low to mid-level administrative position in some agencies (you don’t even want to think of the time it can take for an top-level scientific job), not knowing whether or not there is an internal candidate to whom the job has already been promised. (This is one reason agencies like the FBI and CIA are accused of incompetence at times when their intelligence does not live up the the agency’s reputation: people who enter Federal service in low-level clerical and secretarial positions can apply for and receive preference for analyst positions by virtue of their seniority. It could be that one of the analysts charged with collecting pre-9/11 terrorist info was responsible for operating the copy machine, delivering the mail, or entering data in their position prior to that.)

However, this article *is* comparing apples to oranges, as others have observed. This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. I’ll agree that low-skill, entry level positions probably pay better, but the “higher wages” earned by many Federal employees are quite often the product of years of seniority rather than the positions themselves. You used to see this quite often prior to the cutthroat 80s, when many corporations got wise to what was going on, and found ways to legally rid themselves of senior employees and replace them with inexperienced younger workers. Government employment is the last bastion of job security in the US, and its practitioners are well aware of that fact and seldom leave.

But when you get to the mid- and high-level positions (for which there is no internal candidate) that require significant work experience and advanced education, the pay is equal to, or quite often, significantly less than private sector. In addition, there are often huge salary ranges for these positions that depend not only on education and experience, but on your geographic location (cost-of-living adjustments). As for benefits, it really depends on what you’re used to. Again, private employers, in large part, have been “cheaping out” on benefits for years, offering fewer options that are frequently more costly to the employee. Many offer benefits to their low-level workers that fulfill their promises of “benefits” but that are far less generous to those offered to their management and executive employees. However, there are some blue-chip employers who offer lucrative benefits packages across the board that far outstrip what Federal employees receive.

It’s highly complex, and I don’t believe that the studies cited in the article have been analyzed and interpreted with anything remotely approaching skill by the reporters. That being said, I agree with flu: those who are outraged by the article should go get one of these jobs. Without a doubt, they are probably your best shot at job security these days, especially if you are unskilled and lack education. Just realize that it’s a long and frustrating process, and you’ll have no shortage of competition.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]I now wish to draw Piggs’ attention to the SF-171:

http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/personnel/sf171.pdf

Just fill it out and get on a hiring list! Hopefully, you too can avail yourself of all these bennies, that is, after you have been “put thru the paces,” up to and including `nine separate interviews,'” and, of course, a thorough background check. What will your neighbors say about you??

Oh, and uh, I forgot to mention the six-month to one-year “probationary period.” Only a fraction of the bennies will kick in before this period is over. During this time, your “future career” could be in the hands of a bureaucrat who has 1/10th of your education and experience, but by virtue of longetivity, connections, knowing too much (or all three of these), occupies the position as your “supervisor.” This is where you will find that whatever you thought you knew doesn’t matter. Hang in there, refrain from pointing your antlers towards anything resembling a headlight . . . and . . . chin DOWN!

Everybody’s got to pay their dues at one time or another. You’ll get through it :=)[/quote]

Ah, yes, BG, and your description of this seemingly endless, often demeaning, and frequently fruitless exercise does not include the dreaded KSAs. You can have postgraduate degrees with honors, years of progressively responsible and invaluable work experience, and glowing references from employers who availed themselves of a suicide hotline when you handed your resignation in to them. However, if you don’t deal with the KSAs in precisely worded responses, you’re SOL. Your application will never reach the hiring officer.

And keep in mind that it can take six to eight hours or more to apply for a low to mid-level administrative position in some agencies (you don’t even want to think of the time it can take for an top-level scientific job), not knowing whether or not there is an internal candidate to whom the job has already been promised. (This is one reason agencies like the FBI and CIA are accused of incompetence at times when their intelligence does not live up the the agency’s reputation: people who enter Federal service in low-level clerical and secretarial positions can apply for and receive preference for analyst positions by virtue of their seniority. It could be that one of the analysts charged with collecting pre-9/11 terrorist info was responsible for operating the copy machine, delivering the mail, or entering data in their position prior to that.)

However, this article *is* comparing apples to oranges, as others have observed. This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. I’ll agree that low-skill, entry level positions probably pay better, but the “higher wages” earned by many Federal employees are quite often the product of years of seniority rather than the positions themselves. You used to see this quite often prior to the cutthroat 80s, when many corporations got wise to what was going on, and found ways to legally rid themselves of senior employees and replace them with inexperienced younger workers. Government employment is the last bastion of job security in the US, and its practitioners are well aware of that fact and seldom leave.

But when you get to the mid- and high-level positions (for which there is no internal candidate) that require significant work experience and advanced education, the pay is equal to, or quite often, significantly less than private sector. In addition, there are often huge salary ranges for these positions that depend not only on education and experience, but on your geographic location (cost-of-living adjustments). As for benefits, it really depends on what you’re used to. Again, private employers, in large part, have been “cheaping out” on benefits for years, offering fewer options that are frequently more costly to the employee. Many offer benefits to their low-level workers that fulfill their promises of “benefits” but that are far less generous to those offered to their management and executive employees. However, there are some blue-chip employers who offer lucrative benefits packages across the board that far outstrip what Federal employees receive.

It’s highly complex, and I don’t believe that the studies cited in the article have been analyzed and interpreted with anything remotely approaching skill by the reporters. That being said, I agree with flu: those who are outraged by the article should go get one of these jobs. Without a doubt, they are probably your best shot at job security these days, especially if you are unskilled and lack education. Just realize that it’s a long and frustrating process, and you’ll have no shortage of competition.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]I now wish to draw Piggs’ attention to the SF-171:

http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/personnel/sf171.pdf

Just fill it out and get on a hiring list! Hopefully, you too can avail yourself of all these bennies, that is, after you have been “put thru the paces,” up to and including `nine separate interviews,'” and, of course, a thorough background check. What will your neighbors say about you??

Oh, and uh, I forgot to mention the six-month to one-year “probationary period.” Only a fraction of the bennies will kick in before this period is over. During this time, your “future career” could be in the hands of a bureaucrat who has 1/10th of your education and experience, but by virtue of longetivity, connections, knowing too much (or all three of these), occupies the position as your “supervisor.” This is where you will find that whatever you thought you knew doesn’t matter. Hang in there, refrain from pointing your antlers towards anything resembling a headlight . . . and . . . chin DOWN!

Everybody’s got to pay their dues at one time or another. You’ll get through it :=)[/quote]

Ah, yes, BG, and your description of this seemingly endless, often demeaning, and frequently fruitless exercise does not include the dreaded KSAs. You can have postgraduate degrees with honors, years of progressively responsible and invaluable work experience, and glowing references from employers who availed themselves of a suicide hotline when you handed your resignation in to them. However, if you don’t deal with the KSAs in precisely worded responses, you’re SOL. Your application will never reach the hiring officer.

And keep in mind that it can take six to eight hours or more to apply for a low to mid-level administrative position in some agencies (you don’t even want to think of the time it can take for an top-level scientific job), not knowing whether or not there is an internal candidate to whom the job has already been promised. (This is one reason agencies like the FBI and CIA are accused of incompetence at times when their intelligence does not live up the the agency’s reputation: people who enter Federal service in low-level clerical and secretarial positions can apply for and receive preference for analyst positions by virtue of their seniority. It could be that one of the analysts charged with collecting pre-9/11 terrorist info was responsible for operating the copy machine, delivering the mail, or entering data in their position prior to that.)

However, this article *is* comparing apples to oranges, as others have observed. This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. I’ll agree that low-skill, entry level positions probably pay better, but the “higher wages” earned by many Federal employees are quite often the product of years of seniority rather than the positions themselves. You used to see this quite often prior to the cutthroat 80s, when many corporations got wise to what was going on, and found ways to legally rid themselves of senior employees and replace them with inexperienced younger workers. Government employment is the last bastion of job security in the US, and its practitioners are well aware of that fact and seldom leave.

But when you get to the mid- and high-level positions (for which there is no internal candidate) that require significant work experience and advanced education, the pay is equal to, or quite often, significantly less than private sector. In addition, there are often huge salary ranges for these positions that depend not only on education and experience, but on your geographic location (cost-of-living adjustments). As for benefits, it really depends on what you’re used to. Again, private employers, in large part, have been “cheaping out” on benefits for years, offering fewer options that are frequently more costly to the employee. Many offer benefits to their low-level workers that fulfill their promises of “benefits” but that are far less generous to those offered to their management and executive employees. However, there are some blue-chip employers who offer lucrative benefits packages across the board that far outstrip what Federal employees receive.

It’s highly complex, and I don’t believe that the studies cited in the article have been analyzed and interpreted with anything remotely approaching skill by the reporters. That being said, I agree with flu: those who are outraged by the article should go get one of these jobs. Without a doubt, they are probably your best shot at job security these days, especially if you are unskilled and lack education. Just realize that it’s a long and frustrating process, and you’ll have no shortage of competition.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]I now wish to draw Piggs’ attention to the SF-171:

http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/personnel/sf171.pdf

Just fill it out and get on a hiring list! Hopefully, you too can avail yourself of all these bennies, that is, after you have been “put thru the paces,” up to and including `nine separate interviews,'” and, of course, a thorough background check. What will your neighbors say about you??

Oh, and uh, I forgot to mention the six-month to one-year “probationary period.” Only a fraction of the bennies will kick in before this period is over. During this time, your “future career” could be in the hands of a bureaucrat who has 1/10th of your education and experience, but by virtue of longetivity, connections, knowing too much (or all three of these), occupies the position as your “supervisor.” This is where you will find that whatever you thought you knew doesn’t matter. Hang in there, refrain from pointing your antlers towards anything resembling a headlight . . . and . . . chin DOWN!

Everybody’s got to pay their dues at one time or another. You’ll get through it :=)[/quote]

Ah, yes, BG, and your description of this seemingly endless, often demeaning, and frequently fruitless exercise does not include the dreaded KSAs. You can have postgraduate degrees with honors, years of progressively responsible and invaluable work experience, and glowing references from employers who availed themselves of a suicide hotline when you handed your resignation in to them. However, if you don’t deal with the KSAs in precisely worded responses, you’re SOL. Your application will never reach the hiring officer.

And keep in mind that it can take six to eight hours or more to apply for a low to mid-level administrative position in some agencies (you don’t even want to think of the time it can take for an top-level scientific job), not knowing whether or not there is an internal candidate to whom the job has already been promised. (This is one reason agencies like the FBI and CIA are accused of incompetence at times when their intelligence does not live up the the agency’s reputation: people who enter Federal service in low-level clerical and secretarial positions can apply for and receive preference for analyst positions by virtue of their seniority. It could be that one of the analysts charged with collecting pre-9/11 terrorist info was responsible for operating the copy machine, delivering the mail, or entering data in their position prior to that.)

However, this article *is* comparing apples to oranges, as others have observed. This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. I’ll agree that low-skill, entry level positions probably pay better, but the “higher wages” earned by many Federal employees are quite often the product of years of seniority rather than the positions themselves. You used to see this quite often prior to the cutthroat 80s, when many corporations got wise to what was going on, and found ways to legally rid themselves of senior employees and replace them with inexperienced younger workers. Government employment is the last bastion of job security in the US, and its practitioners are well aware of that fact and seldom leave.

But when you get to the mid- and high-level positions (for which there is no internal candidate) that require significant work experience and advanced education, the pay is equal to, or quite often, significantly less than private sector. In addition, there are often huge salary ranges for these positions that depend not only on education and experience, but on your geographic location (cost-of-living adjustments). As for benefits, it really depends on what you’re used to. Again, private employers, in large part, have been “cheaping out” on benefits for years, offering fewer options that are frequently more costly to the employee. Many offer benefits to their low-level workers that fulfill their promises of “benefits” but that are far less generous to those offered to their management and executive employees. However, there are some blue-chip employers who offer lucrative benefits packages across the board that far outstrip what Federal employees receive.

It’s highly complex, and I don’t believe that the studies cited in the article have been analyzed and interpreted with anything remotely approaching skill by the reporters. That being said, I agree with flu: those who are outraged by the article should go get one of these jobs. Without a doubt, they are probably your best shot at job security these days, especially if you are unskilled and lack education. Just realize that it’s a long and frustrating process, and you’ll have no shortage of competition.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]I now wish to draw Piggs’ attention to the SF-171:

http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/personnel/sf171.pdf

Just fill it out and get on a hiring list! Hopefully, you too can avail yourself of all these bennies, that is, after you have been “put thru the paces,” up to and including `nine separate interviews,'” and, of course, a thorough background check. What will your neighbors say about you??

Oh, and uh, I forgot to mention the six-month to one-year “probationary period.” Only a fraction of the bennies will kick in before this period is over. During this time, your “future career” could be in the hands of a bureaucrat who has 1/10th of your education and experience, but by virtue of longetivity, connections, knowing too much (or all three of these), occupies the position as your “supervisor.” This is where you will find that whatever you thought you knew doesn’t matter. Hang in there, refrain from pointing your antlers towards anything resembling a headlight . . . and . . . chin DOWN!

Everybody’s got to pay their dues at one time or another. You’ll get through it :=)[/quote]

Ah, yes, BG, and your description of this seemingly endless, often demeaning, and frequently fruitless exercise does not include the dreaded KSAs. You can have postgraduate degrees with honors, years of progressively responsible and invaluable work experience, and glowing references from employers who availed themselves of a suicide hotline when you handed your resignation in to them. However, if you don’t deal with the KSAs in precisely worded responses, you’re SOL. Your application will never reach the hiring officer.

And keep in mind that it can take six to eight hours or more to apply for a low to mid-level administrative position in some agencies (you don’t even want to think of the time it can take for an top-level scientific job), not knowing whether or not there is an internal candidate to whom the job has already been promised. (This is one reason agencies like the FBI and CIA are accused of incompetence at times when their intelligence does not live up the the agency’s reputation: people who enter Federal service in low-level clerical and secretarial positions can apply for and receive preference for analyst positions by virtue of their seniority. It could be that one of the analysts charged with collecting pre-9/11 terrorist info was responsible for operating the copy machine, delivering the mail, or entering data in their position prior to that.)

However, this article *is* comparing apples to oranges, as others have observed. This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. I’ll agree that low-skill, entry level positions probably pay better, but the “higher wages” earned by many Federal employees are quite often the product of years of seniority rather than the positions themselves. You used to see this quite often prior to the cutthroat 80s, when many corporations got wise to what was going on, and found ways to legally rid themselves of senior employees and replace them with inexperienced younger workers. Government employment is the last bastion of job security in the US, and its practitioners are well aware of that fact and seldom leave.

But when you get to the mid- and high-level positions (for which there is no internal candidate) that require significant work experience and advanced education, the pay is equal to, or quite often, significantly less than private sector. In addition, there are often huge salary ranges for these positions that depend not only on education and experience, but on your geographic location (cost-of-living adjustments). As for benefits, it really depends on what you’re used to. Again, private employers, in large part, have been “cheaping out” on benefits for years, offering fewer options that are frequently more costly to the employee. Many offer benefits to their low-level workers that fulfill their promises of “benefits” but that are far less generous to those offered to their management and executive employees. However, there are some blue-chip employers who offer lucrative benefits packages across the board that far outstrip what Federal employees receive.

It’s highly complex, and I don’t believe that the studies cited in the article have been analyzed and interpreted with anything remotely approaching skill by the reporters. That being said, I agree with flu: those who are outraged by the article should go get one of these jobs. Without a doubt, they are probably your best shot at job security these days, especially if you are unskilled and lack education. Just realize that it’s a long and frustrating process, and you’ll have no shortage of competition.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=davelj]These appreciation forecasts are utterly bizarre. I would divide them by 4 and be glad they hit those marks (and, yes, I realize they’re cumulative).

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/housing-markets-that-will-be-strongest-by-2014%5B/quote%5D

Not just bizarre, but utterly useless. How are people going to afford to pay the mortgage on a house in an area that has no jobs?

Do media outlets like Yahoo actually pay people for this stuff?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=davelj]These appreciation forecasts are utterly bizarre. I would divide them by 4 and be glad they hit those marks (and, yes, I realize they’re cumulative).

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/housing-markets-that-will-be-strongest-by-2014%5B/quote%5D

Not just bizarre, but utterly useless. How are people going to afford to pay the mortgage on a house in an area that has no jobs?

Do media outlets like Yahoo actually pay people for this stuff?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=davelj]These appreciation forecasts are utterly bizarre. I would divide them by 4 and be glad they hit those marks (and, yes, I realize they’re cumulative).

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/housing-markets-that-will-be-strongest-by-2014%5B/quote%5D

Not just bizarre, but utterly useless. How are people going to afford to pay the mortgage on a house in an area that has no jobs?

Do media outlets like Yahoo actually pay people for this stuff?

[Author]

Posts