Maybe it is a confusion between the comments on a reference and the claims on the applicant’s CV… some referee (presumably the applicant’s current employer) has said the applicant is “not going anywhere” – implying lack of drive and ambition – and the applicant has said one of his skills or anyway good points is “holding down a job” – ie sticking to a task, exhibiting loyalty. But with this interpretation, both statements are rather undermined by the applicant evidently seeking another job.
The applicant has indicated that he can literally “hold down a job”, meaning physically keeping it from going anywhere. The usual meaning is being able to keep a steady job and not bounce around from one employer to the other.
Uh, yes, but … The direction of “what’s meant by” still seem to be in backwards order.
Seriously, try it this way: “But them not going anywhere isn’t what’s meant by holding down a job.”
I just want to know the antecedent of “them”.
It’s a variant on the old joke about the incompetent doctor who claims he has never lost a single patient. When challenged that several people have died under his care, he responds, “Sure, they died, but they were always right where I left them,”:
But yes, the setup here is awkward, the wording is awkward, and I’m not sure the joke works in a single frame comic. I suppose it helps to know that Norris (the interviewee) is an inveterate slacker who has had many different jobs. My interpretation is that the interviewer has challenged Norris about his ability to hold down a job, given the frequent job changes. Norris responds that he is excellent at holding down a job. The interviewer continues to probe and determines that Norris is merely claiming that none of his departures were due to the job not going away.
I’m with Powers. What’s the “them”?
This one, I don’t understand in the literal sense. It isn’t that I don’t get the joke – I don’t even understand the sentence.
ignatzz, I think what the cartoonist mean to write is more like “`holding down a job` doesn’t mean `keeping a job from going anywhere`”. (As mitch4 said, the actual wording seems backwards.) In other words, in the interviewee’s resume, he’s boasted that he’s “held down a job at [Megacorp]” for five years, by which he means that he’s not advanced or done anything meaningful with the job. The joke is that “hold down” can have a positive or negative meaning.
I thought it was something like he was being asked why he left his previous job and he said “It wasn’t going anywhere” usually meant to mean it was not satisfying nor a means to further goals. I figured after probing the interviewer realized that by “not going anywhere” he meant “they expected me to show up on a regular basis and do work all the time” i.e. to hold a job. Except it seemed tortuourously expressed. Escpecially the “them”.
I interpreted holding down a job to mean that the job applicant was holding back the performance of other employees (i.e. someone else’s job), at his old workplace. His old company was going nowhere as a result of his employment.
And then there are the review comments like “An employer will be very fortunate indeed to have Mr. Smith do any work for them.”
My guess is that the joke got over- and under-edited – when you change one bit of the wording to try and make it clearer, but don’t make enough changes, so the sentence turns into nonsense (or, worse, you use the wrong “your”)
Comics I Don't Understand 
Maybe it is a confusion between the comments on a reference and the claims on the applicant’s CV… some referee (presumably the applicant’s current employer) has said the applicant is “not going anywhere” – implying lack of drive and ambition – and the applicant has said one of his skills or anyway good points is “holding down a job” – ie sticking to a task, exhibiting loyalty. But with this interpretation, both statements are rather undermined by the applicant evidently seeking another job.
The applicant has indicated that he can literally “hold down a job”, meaning physically keeping it from going anywhere. The usual meaning is being able to keep a steady job and not bounce around from one employer to the other.
Uh, yes, but … The direction of “what’s meant by” still seem to be in backwards order.
Seriously, try it this way: “But them not going anywhere isn’t what’s meant by holding down a job.”
I just want to know the antecedent of “them”.
It’s a variant on the old joke about the incompetent doctor who claims he has never lost a single patient. When challenged that several people have died under his care, he responds, “Sure, they died, but they were always right where I left them,”:
But yes, the setup here is awkward, the wording is awkward, and I’m not sure the joke works in a single frame comic. I suppose it helps to know that Norris (the interviewee) is an inveterate slacker who has had many different jobs. My interpretation is that the interviewer has challenged Norris about his ability to hold down a job, given the frequent job changes. Norris responds that he is excellent at holding down a job. The interviewer continues to probe and determines that Norris is merely claiming that none of his departures were due to the job not going away.
I’m with Powers. What’s the “them”?
This one, I don’t understand in the literal sense. It isn’t that I don’t get the joke – I don’t even understand the sentence.
ignatzz, I think what the cartoonist mean to write is more like “`holding down a job` doesn’t mean `keeping a job from going anywhere`”. (As mitch4 said, the actual wording seems backwards.) In other words, in the interviewee’s resume, he’s boasted that he’s “held down a job at [Megacorp]” for five years, by which he means that he’s not advanced or done anything meaningful with the job. The joke is that “hold down” can have a positive or negative meaning.
I thought it was something like he was being asked why he left his previous job and he said “It wasn’t going anywhere” usually meant to mean it was not satisfying nor a means to further goals. I figured after probing the interviewer realized that by “not going anywhere” he meant “they expected me to show up on a regular basis and do work all the time” i.e. to hold a job. Except it seemed tortuourously expressed. Escpecially the “them”.
I interpreted holding down a job to mean that the job applicant was holding back the performance of other employees (i.e. someone else’s job), at his old workplace. His old company was going nowhere as a result of his employment.
And then there are the review comments like “An employer will be very fortunate indeed to have Mr. Smith do any work for them.”
My guess is that the joke got over- and under-edited – when you change one bit of the wording to try and make it clearer, but don’t make enough changes, so the sentence turns into nonsense (or, worse, you use the wrong “your”)