Forum:Adding teenagers to unemployed category

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Adding teenagers to unemployed category | Post

I suggest that the community as a whole should decide whether we should add the unemployed category for Teen Sims. Apparently Nikel said that he believed the value was unneeded for teenagers. I sort of agree, but then I also think that adding the category would be more accurate. However Young Adult Sims don't have this parameter (because they have college instead) either, so I'm sort of half and half when deciding whether or not I think that the unemployed value is relevant for teenagers.

-- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:27, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm stumped. I'd like to see what others have to say on this matter. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:27, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

I personally see it as teens automatically being "unemployed" unless they are "working teens", so it seems redundant to say that a teen is unemployed to me. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 00:23, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

True. But the thing is that adults are automatically "unemployed" unless they get a job. So I'm still unsure about it. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:28, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that adults are assumed to work where teens are not. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 00:43, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

I guess so. (shrugs) -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:54, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Icemandeaf. I only ever see teens as "students" unless they have a job, so I don't think that teens without a job should be added to the unemployed category because that would include the majority of them (I think) and could "clutter it up". ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 02:15, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm still against adding unemployed value for career parameter on teens. It's not appropriate to call them unemployed Sims since they're never meant to hold a job anyway. Think if you have a teenage brother; you wouldn't call him unemployed or slacker. He just holds no job, so adding "none" as the value is more proper. But if it's none, then there's no difference than omitting the parameter altogether. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:03, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm still in the middle about adding unemployed value for career parameter on teenagers. The reason I'm not strongly opposing it is because it's possible for them to have jobs, unlike Young Adults. And in practice pretty much every teenage townie becomes employed sooner or later anyway, even though their careers are normally randomized.

But then I'm not giving strong support on adding unemployed value for career parameter on teenagers, because they have school and thus can't get a full time job anyway.

But then what about elders? Should the unemployed value be added for them? Or should they be treated the same as the unemployed teenagers? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:17, December 5, 2014 (UTC)