>>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>>>
>>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>>>
>>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.
>>
>> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or
>> more. A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let
>> alone buy food.
>> .
>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>>
>> No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software
>> engineers" )
>
> You seem to think that an "unemployed software engineer" needs to find
> work as a software engineer.

Comprehension seems to be a lacking skill for a few ppl on this group.

> If I was sacked tomorrow, I'd be stacking shelves at Coles the next day,
> until I found the right job.
>
> Thats the problem with a lot of people nowadays, think they are too good
> to start at the bottom. Wankers.

Yes and no. If you had to start at the bottom again, well it has to be. But
do you think that ppl who have been on the upper part of the ladder for
years want to start at the bottom again. If they could get a job in the
same, or similar field, they have the opportunity to crawl back again. If
they cant get a job in their field and have to start in a totally different
field depending on their age, they may never climb the ladder past rung one.