Posts by Jeffrey Garcia85

I was watching the game last night and found myself gripping the armrest way harder than I probably should have. There’s just something about that specific tension when a player you’ve been rooting for is finally back in the mix after a long layoff. You want them to be their old selves, but you're also bracing for the possibility that things might have changed.

It’s a weird psychological rollercoaster. You spend months reading updates and watching clips, building up this mental image of how they'll perform, and then when the moment actually arrives, the pressure feels almost physical. I’ve had this happen with everything from watching old friends try to restart a hobby to seeing former stars return to the stage. The anticipation is almost more exhausting than the actual event.

Do you guys find that the buildup to a comeback is actually more nerve-wracking than the event itself?

Just picture this. You have a kid getting ready to head off to college, and nobody bothers to give you a heads-up about the reality of certain programs. ((Since I helped out my sister when she graduated from the Cleveland Faculty of Geotechnics, I've seen firsthand the hurdles people face after studying there.))

And honestly, that school just keeps on going as usual.

You enroll your child in a major, but no one warns you that "there's actually a massive difference" in how things play out. You aren't told that one day, despite having that degree, they might struggle to find work because engineers from Washington, D.C. will always seem to have the upper hand. Am I wrong?

I mean, we can go over the facts one by one if you really want to.

rustydrifter10 said:The Moderator gave a really solid assessment here. Please, do me a favor and take another look at their instructions—really dive into them and make sure you're following them strictly in your future posts.

I’m just stating facts. Based on my own experience working in this field, I know exactly what the job market looks like right now.

On what basis can you all claim that the facts I'm presenting are wrong???

I think you should consider why I'm being told I can't talk about how things actually work. You guys are playing games with the truth, and honestly, it isn't right.

Or, let's put it this way—if we're all equal, then I want a salary like a cardiologist's. I mean, when you go in for surgery, does it really matter to you whether the doctor graduated from an Ivy League school or somewhere else?

Maybe ask some people from the Cleveland Faculty of Geotechnics if they ever felt treated differently compared to their colleagues from Washington, D.C. during the hiring process.
It wasn't fair what happened to them, and even today, it still happens to some. Do you want names? Real names of people who struggle to find work simply because they studied in Cleveland instead of Washington, D.C.?

Should I drop a link explaining this whole issue? 🙂 Look, people, just accept that this is how things are, regardless of you guys trying to stop me from saying it. It’s not like I’m claiming it’s actually fair.

Brian Edwards6 said:Let me reiterate. As I mentioned in my private message (and in my previous reply to this thread), we have had several threads like this before, and they all inevitably devolved into politics and petty bickering, which is exactly what this career and job subforum is meant to avoid. I suggested you might want to take your question to the chat room or perhaps a more appropriate section, such as Politics. To be more specific about the issue at hand: you asked about the actual number of unemployed people, yet in your opening comment, you included everyone earning less than $XY as being "unemployed." The first point of contention is that we have already had discussions regarding true unemployment numbers, and those topics were centered on politics, politicians, and parties—not the practical matters for which people actually visit this subforum. The second point is that the painful reality in America right now is that a significant number of people work for wages under $XY, but they still work and live (painfully realistically) off those wages; they are considered employed, and they truly are employed. In the first instance, a discussion like that would be much better suited for the Politics subforum; in the second, you aren't exactly correct, and furthermore, our updated rules strictly prohibit disparaging other people's jobs, regardless of the context. Just to be clear, you haven't been sanctioned for any of the above.👍

Furthermore, I had to erase several of your comments in the architecture thread where you shared experiences that contradict all established facts (specifically, that architects haven't been hit by the crisis and aren't facing employment issues or decreases in workload and pay). I viewed this exclusively as pointless provocations aimed at those trying to steer the conversation—you managed to bait others into that kind of argument quite quickly, so I decided to nip it in the bud, and you aren't the only one whose comments were removed. Additionally, you continue to disparage other professions (in a very subtle way, you frame architects as being somehow superior to $XY professions, even suggesting that architects who graduated from $XY institutions are above everyone else), which is neither polite nor permitted under our updated rules. Those comments were also erased without sanctioning you, though you were sanctioned today for attempting to repost deleted comments (which constitutes a new rule violation).👍

Maybe it's not nice. I guess. But it’s just how things are. I realized that's just how life works when it comes to careers and jobs.

I mean, you can't honestly tell me a surgeon isn't held in higher regard than you or me. Or that a FER student won't land a job before someone who graduated from some tiny, unknown community college.

I didn't say I approve of it, I'm just describing the actual situation.

So, if I write something that you disagree with, do I just get erased? I'm just talking about concrete things, the way it actually is. The truth is, before the crisis, there were openings and jobs for people from less prestigious universities, but now employers are being much pickier. Or am I not allowed to say that? Am I supposed to say we're all equal?? If so, then I guess I want to be on the same level as Jure Radić too. How am I the one being looked down on here? 🙂

Brian Edwards6 said:Let me reiterate. As I mentioned in my private message (and in my previous reply to this thread), we have had several threads like this before, and they all inevitably devolved into politics and petty bickering, which is exactly what this career and job subforum is meant to avoid. I suggested you might want to take your question to the chat room or perhaps a more appropriate section, such as Politics. To be more specific about the issue at hand: you asked about the actual number of unemployed people, yet in your opening comment, you included everyone earning less than $XY as being "unemployed." The first point of contention is that we have already had discussions regarding true unemployment numbers, and those topics were centered on politics, politicians, and parties—not the practical matters for which people actually visit this subforum. The second point is that the painful reality in America right now is that a significant number of people work for wages under $XY, but they still work and live (painfully realistically) off those wages; they are considered employed, and they truly are employed. In the first instance, a discussion like that would be much better suited for the Politics subforum; in the second, you aren't exactly correct, and furthermore, our updated rules strictly prohibit disparaging other people's jobs, regardless of the context. Just to be clear, you haven't been sanctioned for any of the above.👍

Furthermore, I had to erase several of your comments in the architecture thread where you shared experiences that contradict all established facts (specifically, that architects haven't been hit by the crisis and aren't facing employment issues or decreases in workload and pay). I viewed this exclusively as pointless provocations aimed at those trying to steer the conversation—you managed to bait others into that kind of argument quite quickly, so I decided to nip it in the bud, and you aren't the only one whose comments were removed. Additionally, you continue to disparage other professions (in a very subtle way, you frame architects as being somehow superior to $XY professions, even suggesting that architects who graduated from $XY institutions are above everyone else), which is neither polite nor permitted under our updated rules. Those comments were also erased without sanctioning you, though you were sanctioned today for attempting to repost deleted comments (which constitutes a new rule violation).👍

saying I'm wrong is just your opinion.

Since I work with architects (I'm a civil engineer), I know exactly what their situation is like.

I'm not belittling anyone, I'm just stating facts. If architects are above us, it's just like how a doctor is above me and you. That's just the raw truth.

I see you went ahead and decided to erase posts that didn't even break any rules.

Actually, I think you're the one breaking them. I wasn't even talking to you, and I definitely wasn't calling anyone out.

I was just laying out some facts about architecture, so I guess I don't really get why the truth would bother anyone.

I'm sorry you felt insulted because your salary is lower than $1167. That wasn't my intention at all.

The topic was totally fine, and it actually belongs under the career and job subforum.

Besides, you were the one who started throwing insults in the PMs first. I was just responding to you.

I mean, obviously, truthful comments can sting, since the truth hurts people sometimes. So ☕

I feel bad about this, honestly, because I don't see any other reason why regular comments would be erased unless you felt targeted by what was written. I'm not interested in you, and I'm certainly not writing posts aimed at you. Personal issues shouldn't give someone the right to start erasing posts.

I just started a totally normal thread about actual unemployment numbers.

I was just saying that not every job counts as real employment—like, if you're making less than some baseline monthly amount, you can't really call yourself employed. I guess that somehow rubbed one of the admins the wrong way.

I honestly feel bad for ☕ because he actually has a paycheck $1000 and now he's upset that I'm calling him unemployed, but he shouldn't have the right to erase the thread.