Anonymous wrote:If you majored in dance, then I would think you would have the skills to go into theater (although not now with covid) or a dance troupe.
The bigger question, though, is why can't you keep a job for more than 2 months? Are you bored? Not self disciplined? Lazy? Choosing the wrong jobs?
Anonymous wrote:If you majored in dance, then I would think you would have the skills to go into theater (although not now with covid) or a dance troupe.
The bigger question, though, is why can't you keep a job for more than 2 months? Are you bored? Not self disciplined? Lazy? Choosing the wrong jobs?
Anonymous wrote:Op what are your interests? Why does it matter if lawyers make a lot of money since you will also have your trust fund?
Anyways, one of my best friend's makes 70K a year as a nurse. Has a trust fund that would equal out to about 70K a year. That coupled with her husband's 100K a year job means they have a pretty great life (they live in a low COL area).
You say that you're in your 30s and now your friends are able to afford things now that you aren't because they are getting promoted. So it doesn't sound like your trust fund isn't that big.
Today you should sit down and make a list of things you enjoy doing. Use that as a way to figure out what career paths fit with those.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Get married, have kids.
Problem solved.
Yup. Husband with a high income solves your problems. You don’t really want to work, you just want to have more money.
+3
It’s obvious
Anonymous wrote:I think the crux of the matter is that OP is thinking in terms of what they can do, and focused on the fact they are sure they can do if they get to the right level. If that is the focus, the process looks a little arbitrary and unreasonable, and it looks like hiring managers are just being, I don't know, pissy or obstinate or unfair.
But if you look at it from the hiring manager's perspective, if you could hire Person A for a given job, but they can only do well at it so long as they find it interesting and doing it only involves things the employee really cares about, or Person B, who has a proven track record of sticking with tasks even through the unexpectedly tedious bits, and when the scope of tasks changes ... which is the better candidate? Which one do you have to spend more time supervising and protecting from aspects of the job they might not like (because you know they have quit quickly in the past when they felt uninterested or too challenged)?
Any job with attractive characteristics (creative, exciting, pays well, whatever combination) will attract multiple applicants. I'd rather have someone with a little less talent and a lot more grit, because i think I will be much more likely to be giving high performance reviews to that one, especially over time. They are also going to be a lot less work to manage, and nobody has spare time and energy to spend when they could just have hired a better worker.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Get married, have kids.
Problem solved.
Yup. Husband with a high income solves your problems. You don’t really want to work, you just want to have more money.
Or even a husband with a low income, since OP will still have her income. That frees her to choose from a wider pool.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: How about you dance your way over to the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps other helping organization.
those are insanely competitive jobs- there is no way OP gets through a first round screening
Anonymous wrote: How about you dance your way over to the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps other helping organization.