The New York Times is cutting 100 more newsroom jobs. They will be doing this through "buyouts," which they do not consider "lay offs," which is incorrect.
The New York Times is cutting 100 more newsroom jobs. They will be doing this through "buyouts," which they do not consider "lay offs," which is incorrect.
It would be kind of fun to sell my job if I didn't want it anymore and were independently wealthy.
Maybe you could get a bunch of jobs, bundle/securitize them, and then resell them? I am sure there will be a stampede and, as long at unemployment hovers around 20% for the next generation or so you will be all good, man.
Doesn't this put them in negative territory? I suppose now there are more people working at Gawker, on Sundays, after 8pm?
All I know is, I'm still Parsnips Editor. So the really core positions haven't been touched.
Less Staffers = Less C
Fewer copyeditors = what you said.
Ha!
touche!
Brills, brills, brills.
=more unemployed=more debt=more foreclosures=more homelessness=?????????????
= trendpiece! And no one to write it.
Yeah, hiring is down for telegraph operators and Pony Express riders, too. Who'da thunk?
Just like when I bet a hooker $500 she won't sleep with me. It's not prostitution.. it's just a bet between pals.
Wait -- you give her the money if she does sleep with you?
Fucking Christ. I knew I had that shit backwards.
I'm sure they can all get jobs over at FoxNews.