Moni--It's now suggested that one's resume not suggest one's age; there are ways to word it so that it can't easily be figured out. I see (after reading articles,) that resumes have changed quite a bit. Also, you have a better chance if you can get your resume to HR through someone already working for the company you're interested in. I guess that's obvious, but it seems like resumes are too easily tossed now, without some kind of an "introduction" by someone on the inside. I'm still looking for that resume-writing article I read as it was very good, but for now this is an article on interviewing: http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/109366/7-things-you-should-say-in-an-interview Granted, it's geared for new college hires, but there may be a couple of points you can pick out of it. I'm sorry this job-hunting is so tough right now. I started working verrrrry part-time recently, subbing in my local district. Are you not interested in nanny jobs now? I saw a friend yesterday who is working part-time as a nanny sub, through an agency. She loves the flexibility. I hope you don't mind my unsolicited advice.

When I worked as a security guard, most of us got minimum, or maybe 10 cents above. Few stayed at it for any length of time. At my last site, where I'd been for about 4 years, when they required that we take on more responsibility, I went to bat for an increase ... which I didn't need, being semi-retired and getting pensions, but the alternate at the time did. They took me off of the site. ole joyful

"LAVISH SPENDING IS NOT THE SAME AS PROVISION OF CLEAN, WELL MAINTAINED AND SAFE ENVIRONMENTS. SPENDING DOES NOT EQUAL RESULTS, EITHER. WHERE DID ANYONE SAY THAT THIS TYPE OF MONEY WOULD IMPROVE OUTCOMES?" I was assuming that by what you said, "It seems to me that if we concentrated dollars on the things we can control, the outcomes certainly won't be any worse and they might just get better." and what beaglesdoitbetter1 said, "What if the community doesn't care about the school and the local politicians don't focus on making sure that it is in good repair?" that curriculum and opportunity was part of what you meant. The KC "experiment" was meant to address the fact that the inner city schools were losing so many students to nearby, better performing districts, which meant less money for the inner city. To put it bluntly, they were trying to solve their white flight problem. The theory was that if they pumped enough money into the district to make it completely state of the art, then parents would be more likely to move into or stay in the district. And because they would have every available educational tool at their disposal, the students would be better educated and test score would go up. What they found was that the district wasn't failing because of lack of funds, but because of a useless school board, 10 incompetent superintendents, and the fact they made it impossible to fire terrible teachers. The district has been mismanaged for decades, has lost its accreditation twice in the past 15 years (in 2000 and in 2011) and, last I was aware, only provisional accreditation status. There was a discussion a couple of years ago about a state takeover of the district, essentially dismantling the school board, but it wasn't a popular option, because no one wanted that kind of government oversight. I am 100% for a state takeover. The district has had 30 years to be successful and has failed, and I think that having the state takeover would be a step in the right direction, since clearly nothing else has worked. The Governing article is dated Sept 2011. They didn't mention it in the article, but in 2010, 29 out of 61 schools were closed in order to save money due to low enrollment. It was a radical thing to do and people were understandably furious about it. The superintendent who did this was hired in 2009, vowed to make a change for the better, and was apparently known for turning around struggling districts. In Aug 2011, he abruptly resigned to take a job in Detroit. Sorry for the passion, but it's a serious issue and one I've been following closely. I don't have kids, or even live in the district, but a failing school district affects more than just students; it's detrimental to a city. Someone who has or wants a family is going to think twice about living in the city because of the schools, resale value on homes won't be as good as they could be because the demand isn't there. About half of my friends have children and the ones who are transplants to the area wouldn't dream of living in the city (where they'd prefer to live) because of the schools. The ones who do live in the city and are locals, do so because they went to Catholics schools and will send their kids there.

Rhizo, in Ontario the minimum wage was extended to servers. In the past they earned less, as they received tips. People are torn whether to even tip these days, because of that.