Talk:Job
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Yep, another Human friggin stub begging attention! Give it all your tory and labour efforts, please! humanbe in 22:01, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- McSqueeze job anyone, now on the dollar menu? -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 01:37, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Missionality[edit]
Don't really see its purpose. Recommend redirecting to Guide to Job. ThunderkatzHo! 17:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. If no one says anything, I'll redirect in a day or so. ТyTalk. 03:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Plenty of economic and political considerations. Consider something said. ħuman
04:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It belongs in funspace.
ListenerXTalkerX 04:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Please state your reasons, after reading beyond the silly lead. ħuman 05:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The hyperbole extends beyond the first paragraph: (1) Tenant-farmers were not exactly self-employed. (2) The labor movement did not make the middle class, only obsoleted use of the term "middle class" as a snarl word. (3) A job is not a status-symbol quite yet. (4) Mercantilism is not currently a dominant school of economic thought. ListenerXTalkerX 06:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- (2) Yes it did. ħuman 06:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- (1) No, but they had a semi-reliable source of food. (3) Maybe not "quite yet", but look around you. (4) The article does not mention mercantilism, it addresses modern Reagan-era attacks on the union movement and job security in general. ħuman 06:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- (2) Yes it did. ħuman
- The hyperbole extends beyond the first paragraph: (1) Tenant-farmers were not exactly self-employed. (2) The labor movement did not make the middle class, only obsoleted use of the term "middle class" as a snarl word. (3) A job is not a status-symbol quite yet. (4) Mercantilism is not currently a dominant school of economic thought.
- No it doesn't. Please state your reasons, after reading beyond the silly lead. ħuman
- It belongs in funspace.
- Seems fine to me. Plenty of economic and political considerations. Consider something said. ħuman
If the links to this page are from articles mentioning jobs in the economic sense, then redirecting to this page to an article about the biblical Book of Job is a dumb idea. This article isn't great as it is, & needs a rewrite, but there is scope for an article around these themes. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 06:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, it could certainly use improvement. Redirecting to the Book of Job is senseless, obviously. So is funalization. It just needs more work, not destruction. ħuman 06:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bump. I don't really see much worth keeping here, as-is. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)