Leaderboard

CDC Now Recommends Wearing A Seat Belt Even When You’re Outside The Car | The Babylon Bee

60K a year divided by 60+ hrs a week is around $20hr. I made that 20 years ago and was younger than you at the time. (Thats the equivalent of $31hr. in todays inflation ravaged dollars BTW). Walmart employees start at $15. You don't have much to lose. Use the Chef skills as your fall back position. Having a buddy with inside info on a available position is a nice advantage. Chances are if you applied for that job online you wouldn't even get a reply much less an interview.

Do it now while you can - the older you get the harder it is to get anyone to give you a new job, let alone one in a new career path. Additionally, don't worry about a degree. They are a way to distinguish somebody from the rest of the fresh-out-of-school crowd that look for junior positions. If you reach your mid 30's and rely on a non-specialized degree (I mean not a MD, or similar) to get a job, you really haven't done anything with your 10+ year career so far and I wouldn't be hiring you. Experience and actual, provable ability (show what you've done, not what you should be able to do) greatly outweigh what a bit of paper from a school says.

I worked in outplacement, and work as a resume writer now (as one of my income pipelines). Not only have I changed my own career along the way, but I've talked to MANY others who have. I strongly encourage it! I've seen studies showing that career changers are some of the happiest people around... and my personal observations tell me so, too. Besides, how much more reason do you need than what you already wrote? You're burnt out (common for chefs by the way). You have an offer for more money, better hours. You acknowledge it's a "no brainer". You even have an idea that you could finish your degree with the extra time you gain. I would argue that you're not really worried about anything... but the fear of change itself. Are the skills you have transferrable to the new job? I would imagine your current role involves managing/motivating staff, meeting (food) production schedules, etc. Wouldn't much of that transfer? So, if you think you can do the job (as your buddy certainly does)... I say: embrace change! And don't assume you'll be there in 10-20 years anyway! That's old school thinking... it's not the way the job market works anymore. You should be constantly thinking: Am I still happy here? What skills have I developed? Which skills do I still need to develop? Am I keeping my personal/professional network up? etc. Managing your own career should be a natural and ongoing process for everyone, at all times.

Negated Mag ban would be nice.

it's ok... conceal carry in NJ is the prize, everything else is of a lower priority.

First I will take followed by PM gets it. Made in 1981 or 81. 22 LR Model 12 with front and rear sites and CMP DOCS, 650.00, US marked. FFL in Bayville you pay fee. 650.00 for rifle and docs. https://imgur.com/a/vNu58wQ

#metoo

just get rid of them. Significant tax savings.

@Cheflife15 At age 33, you are still young enough to start a completely new job in a totally different field or industry, which seems to now be the norm for your generation. It you find out that you enjoy whatever the new job entails, maybe even developing a passion for it, then it could possibly become a new career for you. As others have astutely pointed out, with your current salary and average hours you are working, a job change involving more money for less time working is quite appealing. I can relate to that scenario since when I was much younger in my 20’s, I also was making less-than-desirable hourly wages and working 60-80 hours a week. The difference between your situation and mine was that at that time, I was not burned out and was passionate about my work in my chosen profession. Yet, like you, in my mid-30’s, I was offered an opportunity in my industry that diverged from the traditional career path that I had gone to school for, but utilized my knowledge and relationships, which also involved potentially a much larger financial reward. I ultimately chose to purse that alternative opportunity and have had no regrets. The change proved to be quite interesting, exposing me to many new and challenging situations and resulted in a significant financial gain, compared to if I had followed through with my original career path. Understandably, change can be frightening due to so many unknowns. Yet, the rational exercise of weighing the pros and cons, of staying in your current job or leaving, still requires courage to jump into a new and unknown situation, environment and life. From what you have shared with us, makes me think that you may very well welcome and benefit from that change now, as will your growing family. It sounds like you’re meeting this coming Tuesday will be some form of feeling out interview. Remember, job interviews are a two-way street. Your friend’s boss will be interviewing you AND you are interviewing him and the company, since that is your chance to ask him/them all of the important questions that you have and get their answers. This is where the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow come to mind: “We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done”. It sounds as if you have established yourself as a talented, industrious, experienced, hard-working individual in a high-pressure environment of the high-end culinary world in the New York City metropolitan region. If, for whatever reason, this new factory opportunity does not work out, you most likely can return to the culinary world in some capacity, if you so desire. By the way, years ago, my company constructed the test kitchens facility at the CIA in Hyde Park, NY, which was a fascinating project. I wish you the best of luck with whatever you ultimately choose to do. AVB-AMG

I’d say do it. You are 23. You could also get supervisory or mgr jobs in retail that pay a little more than you are making now and only have to work 40 hours. Netting pretty close to where you are at now. Just as an example of alternative. The factory job may be more attractive. Jobs where you are dealing with retail customers can have its own issues. The change you may make seems like it will not be a financial risk. And it will give you your life back. Nothing more valuable than getting your life back. Missing time with your kids is something you can never get back. Keep that in mind. Edit: saw you are 33. But I maintain the same opinion. Good luck!!

i'm not an hvac guy...but what you're describing is what happens on cars when the freon's low.

You should probably invite 15-20 of us to the restaurant you work at so we can sample your culinary expertise before we make hurried suggestions ;-) New wife, new baby, new home, think you have your answer right in front of you.

Take the factory job - getting 20 hours a week back will do wonders for your outlook and general enjoyment of life. Once you get some time away from your "cooking as slavery" routine, re-approach it with a different perspective. Would you still enjoy being a chef but in a different context? I know squat about cooking as a profession, but if I were in your shoes I'd take the factory job in a heartbeat and then after a few months or a year take a look at starting a specialty meal prep service out of a commercial kitchen space, not a restaurant. Maybe a prepared meal business for local pickup/delivery that does custom diet plans? Keto/Paleo/Gluten-Free meals? Maybe get your start by prepping occasional sampler meals for co-workers at the factory and working word of mouth from there?

UPenn and Drexel on board too. Faculty and staff probably exempt because they are union. Funny thing is, profs and staff are the more vulnerable age group, just goes to show it's nothing but political theater.

If they're going to require it, why in the hell would faculty be exempt from it? Seems to defeat the whole purpose if everyone's not on board.

Meh, take out suicides and drug/gang related shootings and as a country we have less gun related issues than the EU, that is the reality. Fix the issues with the gangs and drugs and figure out how to help people who want to kill themselves and we get rid of 95% of the issue but that doesn’t push the narrative so we can’t do that.

So, why do YOU think the gun control movement doesn't focus on actual criminals then? That's what the gun rights crowd has been promoting for years! How impressed should we be that someone in the gun control movement finally came to the same view, a decade or 2 later? And also, FWIW: we're certainly NOT the highest level of gun crime in the world, despite our high gun ownership rate. Though murder (by gun or otherwise) is, as you say, "awful" - let's not forget that our rate of gun homicide has been played like a fiddle and wildly exaggerated by the press and the gun control movement. There's no need to buy into that spin. This is a country of 330+Million people - even rare events rack up a high body count pretty quickly, simply because of our massive population size. if we're talking about saving lives - and want to focus on sheer numbers - we'd be far better off starting a national diet & exercise campaign than focusing on guns! Gun homicides are simply dwarfed by obesity-related deaths. Gun homicides - last I checked - don't even hit the "top 20" causes of death in the U.S. I'm not adding these last 2 points to minimize the issue - but merely to offer a rational, fact-based perspective and sense of proportionality.

Fair question, and I had to do some digging to find an answer. EUAs are temporary. An EUA doesn't have an expiration date, but the authority under which it was granted will be rescinded at some point. EUAs are pretty rare, and they can only be issued in response to certain declared Public Health Emergencies where no treatment or diagnostic test exists, or is available in sufficient quantity. So there is a regulatory trigger, without which an EUA isn't possible. You'll never see an EUA for a line extension of cosmetic botox; no emergency there. The EUA for Pfizer was approved to meet the emergency, and EUAs for J&J, and Moderna were approved because the 'sufficient quantity' test wasn't met. We'll soon be over that hump, so while AstraZeneca has indicated they intend to apply for US approval (they haven't yet), I have a hunch that they won't get an EUA-they may not even apply for one-and would have to go for full approval if they want to sell in the US. Given the missteps AZ has made previously, even that will be tough to obtain. When the regulatory trigger that allowed approval under an EUA expires, so does the EUA...so if a drug is to remain on the market after the declared emergency ends, it has to obtain full approval. A handful of EUAs were issued in response to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak (for vaccines, antivirals, and diagnostic tests), but when the Public Health Emergency for H1N1 expired in mid-2010, those EUAs all became invalid...so anything worth carrying over past that time had to go for full approval. The EUAs for MERS and Zika both expired because those diseases have largely gone underground, so they aren't needed. The EUA for the Ebola vaccine is no longer in effect, because the vaccine (two, now) went on to obtain full approval. The antiviral Remdesivir was approved under an EUA for treatment of Covid patients, but it has since gone on for full approval, so that EUA is no longer in effect. A reference on EUAs

I don't think the FDA or the medical community really cares, once the EUA is approved. Getting the vaccines in arms was, and is, the priority. 'Fully approved' vs 'Experimental Use Authorization Approved' is a distinction without a difference. The FDA has their hands full right now, but will eventually go back and dot the i's and cross the t's with full approvals...but they will do that using the same clinical trial data set they already reviewed to approve the EUA. So, no surprises are likely to crop up. It's not like a new set of clinical trials is run for approval, vs. what was run for the EUA. They will have the advantage of having some real-world data from the millions of people who have been vaccinated, and that is very reassuring, but it's neither tightly controlled nor was the population selected for statistical validity across risk factors the way the clinical trials were. It's worth remembering that any prescription medicines in your medicine cabinet were almost certainly approved based on a clinical trial with perhaps 300 to 3000 people participating in phase 3. The trials leading to the Covid vaccine EUAs included 30,000 to 40,000 for each company seeking approval. Why? There are two ways to get to a statistically-valid endpoint quickly for a vaccine clinical trial. One is to be working with a disease that spreads rapidly, so your test population hits the exposure target quickly. The other is to make the trial friggin' huge, so that you can include a lot of risk subgroups right out of the gate, and still hit statistical significance in a hurry. These trials happened to check both boxes.

Better think of another forum name if you plan to continue posting here! GLWS.