Sep 16, 2009
Rise in the chronic jobless
Grads in their 30s and 40s and lowly-educated find it hard to get hired
By Goh Chin Lian
In all, Singapore has 13,900 jobs in the first half. -- PHOTO: REUTERS
SINGAPORE'S job market is stabilising after a wave of layoffs, but two groups continue to struggle to find jobs. They are university graduates in their 30s and 40s, and the lowly-educated in their 40s.
Together, they formed the majority - eight in 10 - in a swelling rank of local residents who were chronically unemployed as of June this year. These are people who, after 25 weeks of job-hunting, failed to find a job or preferred to wait for a better option.
These figures, when coupled with a record low rate of re-employment, send a sobering note of caution when interpreting the stable unemployment rate and fewer layoffs given in a Ministry of Manpower (MOM) report released on Tuesday.
The report provides finalised job market figures for the April to June period, including the first half. In all, Singapore lost 13,900 jobs in the first half. This is 26 per cent fewer than MOM's estimate of 18,800 in July.
Looking ahead, Nanyang Technological University economist Choy Keen Meng sees the job market improving as the economy has been showing initial signs of a recovery in the past three to four months. Unemployment has stabilised, he added.
The latest MOM report shows unemployment stayed at 3.3 per cent as in the previous three months. At the same time, the resident unemployment rate fell from 4.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent.
But the reason for the decline, said MOM, is that many stopped seeking jobs to pursue courses, which means they are no longer counted as unemployed.
Other positive signs of an economic pick-up: Layoffs and premature release from contracts fell by more than half in the second quarter compared to the first three months.
Layoffs fell from 10,900 to 5,170, and early contract release, from 1,860 to 810. Job vacancies, on the other hand, soared 17 per cent to 24,500. Also, for the first time in six quarters, the ratio of job vacancies to unemployed people improved, from 31 to 33 openings for every 100 job-seekers.
Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong told reporters during a factory visit on Tuesday that he expects fewer layoffs in the third quarter. But it is not time to celebrate yet, he said. 'The outlook remains uncertain. The labour market is likely to remain weak for the rest of the year,' he said, pointing out that bosses are still cautious about hiring.
Read the full story in Wednesday's edition of The Straits Times.
chinlian@sph.com.sg
- wong chee tat :)
Showing posts with label ugly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ugly. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Men prefer pretty bimbos to ugly, clever girls
Men prefer pretty bimbos to ugly, clever girls
ANI23 March 2009, 08:00am IST
ANI23 March 2009, 08:00am IST
It seems that beauty is more important than brains, for a new survey has revealed that men would prefer dating beautiful bimbos than ugly, clever women.
The study carried out by www.OnePoll.com has shown that more than 50 pct men would rather go for good looking girls because it was important to impress their friends.
Nearly 80 pct of the respondents said that they would be intimidated by a clever girl.
However, the responses from girls were completely opposite.
Almost three quarters of women said that they would go for brains over good looks because handsome men are too vain, and those with brains would be able to provide for them.
Only one in ten said that she would go for a good-looking guy rather than a clever one because the "sex would be better".
"It seems beauty is more important the brains after all," the Telegraph quoted a spokesman.
"It's only natural people go on first impressions but going on a hot date with a supermodel can only get you so far.
"Although it's worrying that we don't seem to appreciate people's intelligence. If someone is exceptionally bright then it should be congratulated - we shouldn't criticise them for not being attractive," he added.
- wong chee tat :)
The study carried out by www.OnePoll.com has shown that more than 50 pct men would rather go for good looking girls because it was important to impress their friends.
Nearly 80 pct of the respondents said that they would be intimidated by a clever girl.
However, the responses from girls were completely opposite.
Almost three quarters of women said that they would go for brains over good looks because handsome men are too vain, and those with brains would be able to provide for them.
Only one in ten said that she would go for a good-looking guy rather than a clever one because the "sex would be better".
"It seems beauty is more important the brains after all," the Telegraph quoted a spokesman.
"It's only natural people go on first impressions but going on a hot date with a supermodel can only get you so far.
"Although it's worrying that we don't seem to appreciate people's intelligence. If someone is exceptionally bright then it should be congratulated - we shouldn't criticise them for not being attractive," he added.
- wong chee tat :)
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why pretty women like ugly men...
My friend emailed this 2008 article to me a few days ago.
Why pretty women like ugly men...
Jhoomur Bose / ibnlive.com
TimePublished on Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:46 in Lifestyle section
Has anyone noticed how weddings and common cold are similar? Both are contagious and seem to be affected by weather change. Nothing else explains how suddenly most people one knows are either sniffling or sending out wedding invites. It could also be the biological clock.
The first announcement was sitting in my inbox with the subject line jubilantly declaring, “I am getting married people!” A week back the same friend was single and mingling. Before one could react to that news, another friend called and declared she had a marriage proposal and was “seriously thinking” about it. Again, in a week from having no suitors she was suddenly thinking matrimony.
In the course of describing how their sudden decision to tie the knot had come about, both friends declared, “I am very happy. But the guy is not very good looking,” and then somewhat defensively, “but he’s a sweetheart.” Congratulations later and having seen their to-be spouse’s pictures, one realized that both girls – despite being downright stunning to look at – were marrying men who were rather plain. It reminded one of an old adage, “Langoor ke moonh mein angoor.”
Now a recent study by Columbia University suggested that good-looking people prefer to date equally good-looking people, at times even people who are better looking than themselves. Yet here were two of my very good-looking friends settling for rather plain men.
It’s not just my friends either. Many celeb couples too seem to follow the norm of pretty-woman-average-bloke: Ajay Devgan-Kajol, Azharuddin-Sangeeta Bijlani, Priyanka Gandhi-Robert Vadra, SRK-Gauri Khan (he wasn’t a superstar then!), Juhi Chawla-Jai Mehta… Since these were all love marriages one could perhaps say love perhaps is blind. Both my friends however are going in for arranged marriages and love is nowhere in the picture.
Jog your memories dear readers and tell me, how many times have you heard someone comment, “She is not pretty at all, how did she manage such a hot husband?” Or the other way round, “Look at him, he’s not good looking at all, how did he get himself such a beautiful wife?”
Several conversations and some research later one found that indeed the popularly held belief was: Ugly (or not-so-good-looking) men bag the prettiest girls. But is it really true?
Before you read further, tell us what you think:
1. How important are looks when it comes to finding a suitable partner?
2. Do good-looking people have better chances of finding love or a spouse?
3. ‘Plain’ people have good-looking partners: Myth or reality?
NEXT PAGE >>> What’s HE got that I ain’t got?
It’s no secret that most matrimonial ads, especially for girls, will read thus: ‘Good looking girl, well-educated, homely, working, etc.” Even ads for boys today – after mentioning ‘earns in six figures’ – will say how he is tall, good looking, etc. Given that pictures exchanged in the arranged marriage scenario are mostly professionally shot, it’s a case of showing your son/daughter/yourself in the best possible “light”. And then of course there is Photoshop.
How important are looks when it comes to falling in love or finding a life partner and how does one ensure not being left behind single? When it comes to responding to good looks, many a research has proven that other than some cultural differences, most people react to a similar set of signals or criterion.
From the symmetry of faces (which means symmetrical, cute babies), the size of the hips (a low waist-hip ratio means more fertile women), how another person smells and the facial features (‘feminine’ women and ‘masculine’ men have more chances of ‘mating’), there are some standard things that most people find attractive. And most of them have to do with eventual reproductive ability and how good a dad/mom you will make.
However, when you are looking at dating someone or catching an interesting prospect’s eye at the office party, you are hopefully not thinking babies instantly. If we keep marriage aside for the time being: What makes some ‘plain’ men and women more of a hit with the opposite sex?
In a quick survey amongst friends and colleagues, 57 per cent of those polled said that plain people score more with the opposite sex because they don’t rely only on their looks and usually have other qualities going for them. Like using their brains or their sense of humour.
“He makes me laugh” is something many women list as one of the most desirable traits in a man. “He likes me for who I am,” is another one, which basically means you don’t go comparing your woman to a swimsuit calendar model or some such thing. Some women said that a plain looking man treats women better than a good-looking one. Why? “Because a plain looker doesn’t think he is God’s gift to womankind,” replied one girl.
Then there could be other not-so-pleasant reasons too… No woman, pretty or otherwise wants to think that her man will stray. In such a scenario a man’s lack of looks can at times become insurance against his cheating on a woman. It is also thought that since good looking people will probably too full of themselves – both men and women – they will not have time for another person in their life.
Of course when it comes to marriage and making babies, we’re talking a different ball game.
NEXT PAGE >>> It’s neither love nor is it looks…
To start with, most researches and surveys say that men lay more importance on their partner’s looks even if the said man is not as good looking himself. Women on the other hand look for stability and the qualities in a man that can give her that stability.
A 2007 research by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle of Newcastle University that was published in the journal Biology Letters says that in the marriage market it’s a man’s riches and not his looks that are the most important criterion. To put it simply: He who provides, gets the pretty bride. Does that mean that a really ugly but rich man can get a beautiful wife? Yes, if you look at cases like the VERY rich Donald Trump and Melania Knauss. But that doesn’t mean the plain guys have no chance…
“Have a big car, make her laugh, spend money on her and anyone can win over any woman,” jokes a hit-with-chicks male friend has to say who doesn’t even have a big car. “Look pretty all the time, talk smart only when he wants you to and laugh at all his jokes,” smirks a lady friend who makes men go weak in the knees has to say. Neither of them is good looking. Yet both of them seem to have some characteristics in common: Both can talk well, dress up smartly, have a sense of humour and are very confident.
It’s the same with marriage: It’s not about not about the looks as anyone with a little common sense will tell you looks don’t last, gravity always gets its way. Of course some will argue that in today’s age of medical and technological advancement, looks can be ‘upgraded’ or changed. However, not everyone can afford to do a Demi Moore at 43 years of age: She allegedly paid a whopping $ 420000 and even got her knees fixed.
To make a marriage last it takes more than looks: It takes patience, understanding, mutual respect for each other and a willingness to look past (some) faults and irritating habits. It also takes a fair bit of compromise and even a willingness to share your money. And these basics are the same whether you are good looking or not. Once the looks fade, you’ve got to make the other things work.
- wong chee tat :)
Why pretty women like ugly men...
Jhoomur Bose / ibnlive.com
TimePublished on Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:46 in Lifestyle section
Has anyone noticed how weddings and common cold are similar? Both are contagious and seem to be affected by weather change. Nothing else explains how suddenly most people one knows are either sniffling or sending out wedding invites. It could also be the biological clock.
The first announcement was sitting in my inbox with the subject line jubilantly declaring, “I am getting married people!” A week back the same friend was single and mingling. Before one could react to that news, another friend called and declared she had a marriage proposal and was “seriously thinking” about it. Again, in a week from having no suitors she was suddenly thinking matrimony.
In the course of describing how their sudden decision to tie the knot had come about, both friends declared, “I am very happy. But the guy is not very good looking,” and then somewhat defensively, “but he’s a sweetheart.” Congratulations later and having seen their to-be spouse’s pictures, one realized that both girls – despite being downright stunning to look at – were marrying men who were rather plain. It reminded one of an old adage, “Langoor ke moonh mein angoor.”
Now a recent study by Columbia University suggested that good-looking people prefer to date equally good-looking people, at times even people who are better looking than themselves. Yet here were two of my very good-looking friends settling for rather plain men.
It’s not just my friends either. Many celeb couples too seem to follow the norm of pretty-woman-average-bloke: Ajay Devgan-Kajol, Azharuddin-Sangeeta Bijlani, Priyanka Gandhi-Robert Vadra, SRK-Gauri Khan (he wasn’t a superstar then!), Juhi Chawla-Jai Mehta… Since these were all love marriages one could perhaps say love perhaps is blind. Both my friends however are going in for arranged marriages and love is nowhere in the picture.
Jog your memories dear readers and tell me, how many times have you heard someone comment, “She is not pretty at all, how did she manage such a hot husband?” Or the other way round, “Look at him, he’s not good looking at all, how did he get himself such a beautiful wife?”
Several conversations and some research later one found that indeed the popularly held belief was: Ugly (or not-so-good-looking) men bag the prettiest girls. But is it really true?
Before you read further, tell us what you think:
1. How important are looks when it comes to finding a suitable partner?
2. Do good-looking people have better chances of finding love or a spouse?
3. ‘Plain’ people have good-looking partners: Myth or reality?
NEXT PAGE >>> What’s HE got that I ain’t got?
It’s no secret that most matrimonial ads, especially for girls, will read thus: ‘Good looking girl, well-educated, homely, working, etc.” Even ads for boys today – after mentioning ‘earns in six figures’ – will say how he is tall, good looking, etc. Given that pictures exchanged in the arranged marriage scenario are mostly professionally shot, it’s a case of showing your son/daughter/yourself in the best possible “light”. And then of course there is Photoshop.
How important are looks when it comes to falling in love or finding a life partner and how does one ensure not being left behind single? When it comes to responding to good looks, many a research has proven that other than some cultural differences, most people react to a similar set of signals or criterion.
From the symmetry of faces (which means symmetrical, cute babies), the size of the hips (a low waist-hip ratio means more fertile women), how another person smells and the facial features (‘feminine’ women and ‘masculine’ men have more chances of ‘mating’), there are some standard things that most people find attractive. And most of them have to do with eventual reproductive ability and how good a dad/mom you will make.
However, when you are looking at dating someone or catching an interesting prospect’s eye at the office party, you are hopefully not thinking babies instantly. If we keep marriage aside for the time being: What makes some ‘plain’ men and women more of a hit with the opposite sex?
In a quick survey amongst friends and colleagues, 57 per cent of those polled said that plain people score more with the opposite sex because they don’t rely only on their looks and usually have other qualities going for them. Like using their brains or their sense of humour.
“He makes me laugh” is something many women list as one of the most desirable traits in a man. “He likes me for who I am,” is another one, which basically means you don’t go comparing your woman to a swimsuit calendar model or some such thing. Some women said that a plain looking man treats women better than a good-looking one. Why? “Because a plain looker doesn’t think he is God’s gift to womankind,” replied one girl.
Then there could be other not-so-pleasant reasons too… No woman, pretty or otherwise wants to think that her man will stray. In such a scenario a man’s lack of looks can at times become insurance against his cheating on a woman. It is also thought that since good looking people will probably too full of themselves – both men and women – they will not have time for another person in their life.
Of course when it comes to marriage and making babies, we’re talking a different ball game.
NEXT PAGE >>> It’s neither love nor is it looks…
To start with, most researches and surveys say that men lay more importance on their partner’s looks even if the said man is not as good looking himself. Women on the other hand look for stability and the qualities in a man that can give her that stability.
A 2007 research by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle of Newcastle University that was published in the journal Biology Letters says that in the marriage market it’s a man’s riches and not his looks that are the most important criterion. To put it simply: He who provides, gets the pretty bride. Does that mean that a really ugly but rich man can get a beautiful wife? Yes, if you look at cases like the VERY rich Donald Trump and Melania Knauss. But that doesn’t mean the plain guys have no chance…
“Have a big car, make her laugh, spend money on her and anyone can win over any woman,” jokes a hit-with-chicks male friend has to say who doesn’t even have a big car. “Look pretty all the time, talk smart only when he wants you to and laugh at all his jokes,” smirks a lady friend who makes men go weak in the knees has to say. Neither of them is good looking. Yet both of them seem to have some characteristics in common: Both can talk well, dress up smartly, have a sense of humour and are very confident.
It’s the same with marriage: It’s not about not about the looks as anyone with a little common sense will tell you looks don’t last, gravity always gets its way. Of course some will argue that in today’s age of medical and technological advancement, looks can be ‘upgraded’ or changed. However, not everyone can afford to do a Demi Moore at 43 years of age: She allegedly paid a whopping $ 420000 and even got her knees fixed.
To make a marriage last it takes more than looks: It takes patience, understanding, mutual respect for each other and a willingness to look past (some) faults and irritating habits. It also takes a fair bit of compromise and even a willingness to share your money. And these basics are the same whether you are good looking or not. Once the looks fade, you’ve got to make the other things work.
- wong chee tat :)
Monday, July 20, 2009
New H1N1 strain found
June 17, 2009
H1N1 FLU PANDEMIC
New H1N1 strain found
SAO PAULO - BRAZILIAN scientists have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus after examining samples from a patient in Sao Paulo, their institute said on Tuesday.
The variant has been called A/Sao Paulo/1454/H1N1 by the Adolfo Lutz Bacteriological Institute, which compared it with samples of the A(H1N1) swine flu from California.
The genetic sequence of the new sub-type of the H1N1 virus was isolated by a virology team lead by one of its researchers, Terezinha Maria de Paiva, the institute said in a statement.
The mutation comprised of alterations in the Hemagglutinin protein which allows the virus to infect new hosts, it said.
It was not yet known whether the new strain was more aggressive than the current A(H1N1) virus which has been declared pandemic by the World Health Organization.
The genetic make-up of the H1N1 virus and its subvariants are important for scientists.
Pharmaceutical companies are working to mass produce a vaccine against the current A(H1N1) flu.
There are fears though that it could mutate into a deadly strain, much in the same way as the 1918 Spanish flu - also an A(H1N1) virus type - did when it killed tens of millions around the planet.
According to the WHO, 36,000 people in 76 countries have been infected with the H1N1 virus, causing 163 deaths.
-- AFP
- wong chee tat :)
H1N1 FLU PANDEMIC
New H1N1 strain found
SAO PAULO - BRAZILIAN scientists have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus after examining samples from a patient in Sao Paulo, their institute said on Tuesday.
The variant has been called A/Sao Paulo/1454/H1N1 by the Adolfo Lutz Bacteriological Institute, which compared it with samples of the A(H1N1) swine flu from California.
The genetic sequence of the new sub-type of the H1N1 virus was isolated by a virology team lead by one of its researchers, Terezinha Maria de Paiva, the institute said in a statement.
The mutation comprised of alterations in the Hemagglutinin protein which allows the virus to infect new hosts, it said.
It was not yet known whether the new strain was more aggressive than the current A(H1N1) virus which has been declared pandemic by the World Health Organization.
The genetic make-up of the H1N1 virus and its subvariants are important for scientists.
Pharmaceutical companies are working to mass produce a vaccine against the current A(H1N1) flu.
There are fears though that it could mutate into a deadly strain, much in the same way as the 1918 Spanish flu - also an A(H1N1) virus type - did when it killed tens of millions around the planet.
According to the WHO, 36,000 people in 76 countries have been infected with the H1N1 virus, causing 163 deaths.
-- AFP
- wong chee tat :)
Friday, July 10, 2009
Women longing for a baby advised to opt for ugly men
Women longing for a baby advised to opt for ugly men
Handsome men who are lucky in love may not be the best bet as a mate for women hoping to get pregnant, researchers have said.
Published: 7:00AM BST 10 Jul 2009
Uglier men with fewer notches on their belts are likely to be more productive between the sheets, it is claimed.
Research suggests that in many species, the most desirable males restrict their "sperm load" with each mating to ensure enough to go around.
The same could be true of humans and other primates, say scientists.
If they are right, women looking for the best chance of getting pregnant might be advised to avoid handsome lotharios.
The theory proposes that males have evolved to look for the optimum "sperm load" per mating.
This varies depending on how many available females there are to mate with, and what the chances of mating with them are.
Males with the opportunity to mate with a lot of females would be likely to produce less sperm on each occasion than those making fewer sexual conquests.
A smaller "sperm load" reduces the chances of any individual female getting pregnant. However, this is outweighed by the fact that many different females can be impregnated.
Such a trade-off is seen in the wild and has been observed in chickens and fish.
Researchers modelled the concept of "spreading sperm" mathematically in a paper to be published in the journal American Naturalist.
One member of the team, PhD student Sam Tazzyman, from the Centre for Mathematics and Physics in the Life sciences and Experimental biology (CoMPLEX) at University College London, said: "In some species, females mate with many different males. Each male's sperm competes with that of other males in a process known as 'sperm competition'. Since males have finite resources to allocate to breeding, they allocate them carefully to each mating to maximise their number of offspring.
"If a male puts a lot of resources into each mating he will get more offspring per mating, but at the expense of fewer matings. If, on the other hand, a male puts few resources into each mating he will secure less paternity per mating, but will be able to carry out more matings overall. Thus, there is a trade-off between number of matings and success per mating.
"How a male negotiates this trade-off depends on how easy he finds it to attract females. The more attractive a male is, the more females will be willing to mate with him, reducing the value of each mating to him. This means it is optimal for him to contribute fewer sperm per mating. Although this reduces fertility per mating, it maximises the number of offspring he sires overall. Less attractive males secure fewer matings but value each of them more highly, and by allocating more sperm to each mating make the most of their meagre opportunities.
"This leads to the rather paradoxical prediction that matings with attractive males may be less fertile than those with unattractive males."
Whether or not the same principle applied to humans and other primates was still unknown, said the researchers – but there every possibility that it did.
"Human attractiveness is complicated and influenced by a number of factors, including cultural preferences," said Mr Tazzyman.
"Nonetheless, ejaculate size and sperm quality are likely to have been moulded by similar forces, like attractiveness and the number of sexual partners, that are important in other species."
- wong chee tat :)
Handsome men who are lucky in love may not be the best bet as a mate for women hoping to get pregnant, researchers have said.
Published: 7:00AM BST 10 Jul 2009
Uglier men with fewer notches on their belts are likely to be more productive between the sheets, it is claimed.
Research suggests that in many species, the most desirable males restrict their "sperm load" with each mating to ensure enough to go around.
The same could be true of humans and other primates, say scientists.
If they are right, women looking for the best chance of getting pregnant might be advised to avoid handsome lotharios.
The theory proposes that males have evolved to look for the optimum "sperm load" per mating.
This varies depending on how many available females there are to mate with, and what the chances of mating with them are.
Males with the opportunity to mate with a lot of females would be likely to produce less sperm on each occasion than those making fewer sexual conquests.
A smaller "sperm load" reduces the chances of any individual female getting pregnant. However, this is outweighed by the fact that many different females can be impregnated.
Such a trade-off is seen in the wild and has been observed in chickens and fish.
Researchers modelled the concept of "spreading sperm" mathematically in a paper to be published in the journal American Naturalist.
One member of the team, PhD student Sam Tazzyman, from the Centre for Mathematics and Physics in the Life sciences and Experimental biology (CoMPLEX) at University College London, said: "In some species, females mate with many different males. Each male's sperm competes with that of other males in a process known as 'sperm competition'. Since males have finite resources to allocate to breeding, they allocate them carefully to each mating to maximise their number of offspring.
"If a male puts a lot of resources into each mating he will get more offspring per mating, but at the expense of fewer matings. If, on the other hand, a male puts few resources into each mating he will secure less paternity per mating, but will be able to carry out more matings overall. Thus, there is a trade-off between number of matings and success per mating.
"How a male negotiates this trade-off depends on how easy he finds it to attract females. The more attractive a male is, the more females will be willing to mate with him, reducing the value of each mating to him. This means it is optimal for him to contribute fewer sperm per mating. Although this reduces fertility per mating, it maximises the number of offspring he sires overall. Less attractive males secure fewer matings but value each of them more highly, and by allocating more sperm to each mating make the most of their meagre opportunities.
"This leads to the rather paradoxical prediction that matings with attractive males may be less fertile than those with unattractive males."
Whether or not the same principle applied to humans and other primates was still unknown, said the researchers – but there every possibility that it did.
"Human attractiveness is complicated and influenced by a number of factors, including cultural preferences," said Mr Tazzyman.
"Nonetheless, ejaculate size and sperm quality are likely to have been moulded by similar forces, like attractiveness and the number of sexual partners, that are important in other species."
- wong chee tat :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)