Erica in PA
-
Posts
1,804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Erica in PA
-
-
I'm not proud of myself. We're on food stamps. We have one week until we get them again.
I'm stressing as we have $2.60 in stamps (even though it's on a card) and $2.60 in cash. I already know that $2.50 has to be used for milk. Probably all of it will go for milk.
We won't starve but I need ideas/advice to stretch what we do have. We have some chicken tenderloins but not many. Lots of par-boiled rice. A small lean roast that is destined for beef and noodles. I also have a decently stocked spice cabinet and baking supplies but no eggs. I also have some jiffy baking mix, possibly enough for one go of biscuits or pancakes (2 or 3 cups). Also have 2 pounds mild bulk sausage and 2 pounds of hot bulk sausage. Frozen peas and carrots as well as frozen mixed veg.
Help!
I just wanted to let you know that our family has been in similar situations, and we know how you feel. It is such a vulnerable feeling, and little things like running out of toilet paper three days before payday can feel like the end of the world when you don't have resources to fall back on. Just hang on, and you will get through it. A lot of ideas have already been shared, but here are a few suggestions:
I agree that I would buy a smaller amount of milk and stretch it, and buy eggs to make pancakes, waffles, etc for breakfasts. Maybe make a from scratch chicken pot pie with the chicken, peas, carrots, and some boullion cubes or chicken broth if you have it. A casserole of rice and mild sausage, maybe make a double portion since you have a lot of both and have that twice during the week. Use half of the roast for beef and noodles, and the other half for a stir fry with the mixed veggies and rice. If you have any beans or could buy one bag of dried beans, red beans and rice with sausage is delicious and filling. Whenever possible save some of the meal for the next day's lunches, even if it's only enough for one or two of you.
I would make bread, and have pbj for lunches, (maybe buy a small jar of pb?) or grilled cheese if you have cheese.
That's all that I can think of right now, but I wish you all the best as you navigate this tricky time! :grouphug:
-
DS (11th grade) is taking the PSAT this October, and the SAT next spring, and I am freaking out a little. He needs to score well on the PSAT to be eligible to take a free class at our local private college, which is the only reason he is taking it-- otherwise I would take this whole year for test prep and have him just take the SAT next spring. I am concerned for two reasons: 1. Ds does very well in school with english and writing, but is a poor test taker even when he knows the material well, and 2. He has little recall of Algebra 1 and 2, which he took in 9th and 10th grades and struggled with throughout, and he just started Geometry last week, which does not put him in a good position for the math section at all. I am wondering what would be the best way to get him as up to speed as possible on the math, and also work on test taking skills so that he can at least do well on the material he does know. I'm willing to invest a lot of time and effort with him, and allow him to focus primarily on these things for the next two months, letting some of his other subjects go on the backburner for now. What would you recommend? I feel very overwhelmed, so I can imagine how ds feels. I would love to have a good plan to present to him, one that will help him do the very best he can. Please share any suggestions you might have.
-
My 9 year old dd has just recently caught on to reading. I tried Phonics Pathways and then First Reader with her up to second grade, along with various easy readers, but really didn't make much progress. I used Reading Reflex with her last year, and now things seem to be clicking. A few months ago she read Ramona the Pest by Beverly Cleary, and she was very excited to have read a chapter book! My question is, what should we be using now for reading instruction? I would like to do some intensive work with her to help bring her up to grade level. I would say right now she is at about a late second/early third grade level. But I don't know what to use. I would like to use SRA's Multiple Skills series, which is what we use at the tutoring place where I work, but it costs hundreds of dollars and isn't really practical for homeschoolers. That program has small graded books that build incrementally, on skills like getting the main idea, finding details, sequencing, etc. It takes the student from knowing how to sound out words, to learning how to really read for learning. Does anyone know of a similar program that is more affordable for homeschoolers? Or any other suggestions?
-
I think you did all you can. Apologizing for not going to her first was a kind thing for you to have done, and it was all you can do. Honestly I would probably not desire much of a friendship with a person who is behaving the way this woman is, sulking and shutting the doors of friendship, and who seems to think the primary wrongdoer in the situation is you! If that were my child who wrote a letter like that, I might be hurt that the other mom told someone else about it, but that would pale in comparison with the disappointment and concern and embarrassment I would feel that my child had written it in the first place! The fact that she hasn't come to you and your daughter, with her daughter, and made sure that amends were made, and instead has fixated on what you did (that you have already apologized for), tells a lot about her, unfortunately.
-
Do you feel that parents who exclusively (from the beginning) homeschool all their children have a "harder time letting go of their children" than parents who don't homeschool to that extent? I heard this little factoid recently. ;) What do you say?
Yes. I think it will be emotionally harder for me when my kids leave home than it would have been if they'd been traditionally schooled. I'll be going from being with them almost every minute of the day around the clock, to not seeing them at all. If they'd been in school the whole time growing up, I would be used to spending most of my time each day without them. Not to say that it's not hard for other parents when their children leave the nest, but I think it's got to be more of a dramatic change when you've homeschooled the entire time.
If by "letting go," you mean micromanaging or letting kids make their own choices, I don't think that that necessarily goes along with homeschooling.
-
I've noticed over the last year or so that the majority of the people in my life (both online and IRL) have a very different definition of this phrase than I do!
I can't tell you how many people have said "we don't either" and then commented about how they were going to have to buy a new washer & dryer (or whatever the item of choice is) because theirs broke. Um...how?
When I say we don't have any money, I mean there is literally only a few dollars in the bank (if I'm lucky, sometimes we're even in the red), no savings, no CC to fall back on (it's maxed), no pulling from another area of our budget (there is ZERO wiggle room), etc. We LITERALLY do not have ANY money. That is us all.the.time.
So, I'm curious....am I in the minority? Do people just mean they don't have any extra without dipping into savings or credit (which they don't want to do, but will if they have to)?
I have noticed the exact same thing!!! I use the expression the way you do, to mean we have absolutely NO MONEY, anywhere, but a lot of others I've noticed mean they have no money that isn't otherwise accounted for. They could have thousands of dollars designated for a vacation, to pay all their bills, and to buy major appliances and furniture, but they'll say they have no money. I can't help but feel a little twinge when I hear that, knowing how much more difficult our situation is, but I know they aren't trying to be hurtful. They're just using the expression differently.
-
Honestly, Aubrey, I'd be calling social services, applying for anything and everything, including housing.
I agree. You need to take into account your mental and emotional well-being, not to mention that of your husband and children. This is a bad, bad situation, and even if you are willing to live with it yourself (and I don't think you should-- you deserve much better!!!), your kids should not have to live with that kind of treatment. Please call social services and let them help you.
-
On the one hand, I'm so glad you see it that way. It's a nightmare to have to think about moving in w/ family in the first place, & under these circumstances? Wow.
On the other hand...well, I don't think people move in w/ family for fun. Of course there's a compelling reason. Last month we couldn't buy groceries. Our water was almost turned off. Now dh's job is paying 1/2 what it paid last month, & that's w/ working extra hours. He's started having breathing problems related to the air. He's working nights to avoid the ozone, but nights pay worse than days.
Yesterday, we drove to church & the children's museum & home. By the time we got home, he couldn't breathe. He stayed inside the house either sitting at the desk or sleeping until 9 this morning. When he got up to get dressed & go in (he has to turn in paperwork on Mon mornings), getting dressed left him out of breath.
He's applied for every kind of job there is, from real business jobs to minimum wage teenager jobs to gas station clerks. He hasn't gotten called back on anything. We've contacted friends, & occasionally, there's a job available, he's promised an interview, & we never hear back & calls are not returned. It's excruciating.
I'm so sorry, Aubrey, that is an impossible situation. You all have been through so much over the past few years. On one side you've got extreme financial problems and health problems, and on the other side you've got family members that could cause you huge amounts of stress if you move in with them-- who have already started the dysfunction just in the discussion phase, which is likely to get much worse as the situation unfolds. If a friend came to me with your situation, and asked me my advice, I guess I would ask this: What would you do if living with your mother and/or dh's mother were not an option? Would you accept govt. assistance? Live in subsidized housing? Move to a cheaper, healthier place with more job options? Go to work yourself and send the kids to school? Would dh pursue job options differently? I would think about what I would do if the option of living with family weren't there, and see if any of those could possibly work. Then compare that best case scenario with the one you're currently pursuing, and see which seems better. Everyone has different tolerance levels for these kinds of dynamics, but for me, living with difficult family members would pretty much be off the table if there were *any* other option. As dedicated as I am to homeschooling, I would even put my kids in school before I would let myself and my kids be put in a high stress family situation 24/7.
-
We spent the afternoon w/ mil telling us why moving to CO is such a bad idea. In the kind of way that makes you really look forward to 70 degree weather. ;)
Then mom called. Oh. my. goodness. Is there anywhere we'd be allowed to just live in a tent? And can we trade something for a tent? :tongue_smilie:
There are the details: she's REALLY afraid we won't have enough space, so she REALLY wants us to have one of the bedrooms upstairs, too--I have told her I think that it's important for us to just use the bedroom/living room in the basement. Boundaries, you know. I don't want her to feel any more imposed upon than one does when someone's living w/ you.
But she keeps going on about us needing another room, so I finally said ok, because, you know, another room would be really helpful. The living room isn't even an enclosed, private room--it's kind-of split level, open to the rest of the house.
So then she starts going into the RULES of this extra room. It's...humiliating.
Then she tells me she hopes we won't come until next month. :confused: We've packed/sold everything. We talked to her ahead of time about a move date (Weds), & she said how glad she was that we'd be there to help her when she had foot surgery 8/1.
Now she says she's afraid that there will be too much work if we're there, & she'll feel obligated to help us get situated, & she really needed to rest that week. :confused: That even if I tried to get her to sit down, she'd lie to me & say her foot didn't hurt & help anyway.
I don't know what to say. Of course we can wait to come, but then she offered to pay our rent for Aug if we'd just not come until after 8/8. I don't know what to make of that. We have to pay Aug no matter what--our lease isn't up until 9/30. We were going to come sooner for dh's health & to save on utilities & to hopefully have more time to find an OB. But we don't HAVE to. She told me she'd been in tears praying that she was lonely, begging God that we'd come, & now...she's asking us to wait.
Help me. Does she mean wait? Or "don't come"? I told her about mil's offer for us to go there, but she still insists she wants us. She's stressed out trying to get the house ready, but she won't leave it alone & let me do it when I get there. But she's stressed about weird stuff--tape & bed work on HER bathroom *ceiling* that's not done well enough. Flat paint that's been used to touch up a glossy trim.
I told her we'd fix it for her when we get there, but then she starts telling me she needs to have carpet put in our part of the house. I don't know. She never completely makes sense, but...I'm worried.
And I have only slept about 6 hrs in the last 3 days, & dh is up late working on school, & my brother randomly showed up at my house tonight, & 4yo went to bed MAD at me that she didn't get a nap today. I was only able to console her by promising her 2 tomorrow. :confused:
We've had a stomach bug or pregnancy yuck or something all weekend. And running to the bathroom in the middle of the night 7mos pg is bad enough if you don't have to climb over boxes & dodge the obstacles that dh thought would be better all over the room than against the wall where a saner person put them.
But that's beside the point. I'm worried, stressed, & scared. I'm *extremely* oversensitive on a good day. And my relationship w/ my mother...is indescribable. I'd be embarrassed to try in one post anyway. She gets her feelings hurt easily, but she also has trouble sending/receiving communication, & she's not...always...logical. Volatile combination.
Oh freaking good golly what am I going to do.
I may have missed more explanation, but do you absolutely have to move in with someone? To be honest, neither your mom nor your mother in law sound like they have the laid back, helpful, selfless attitude that is required to live happily with another family. If these little things are such a problem up front, what is it going to look like when they have to deal with all the difficulties and stresses of having constant company, many of whom are young children!! The more details I read about both situations, it doesn't seem like either is a really good one. Can you stay where you are? Or is there a compelling reason why you need to move in with one of these family members? If not, I would cancel the moving plans and stay put.
-
Trying to decide what to use for my 10th grader this fall for algebra II. This student is more art/English oriented, has more difficulty with math, and is not anticipating a career related to math at all. Last year we used Chalkdust algebra I and he did okay with it. I was planning to buy Chalkdust algebra II this fall, but a friend offered to lend me TT algebra II instead, and based on what I've heard I think he might do a little better with that than with Chalkdust. However, a primary consideration for us is being prepared for the SAT. I've heard TT is considered a little light, but is it sufficient to prepare a student for the SAT? I expect ds to take geometry in 11th grade, and then I'm not sure what he'll do after that, if he takes any math. Also, would algebra 1, 2, then geometry be a good way to progress for the SAT? Any thoughts?
-
It's not my understanding that the Sabbath restrictions apply to Christians, so I don't think that God requires us to avoid particular activities on Sundays- however, church is very important to our family, so we would not allow our children to play sports and miss church. There have been sports and activities that our kids haven't been able to participate in because of this, and it does annoy me that people schedule sports for Sunday morning. Of course not everyone attends church, but there is still a large number of people in our country who do, and I think the number is large enough to be worth considering. With all day Saturday available, and most of the day Sunday for most people, I think before noon on Sundays should be avoided when scheduling activities like these.
-
Inductive reasoning concludes that there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and likelihood of proselytizing, which increases as thread length increases.
Funny how differently I see this. I would explain what you're noticing as there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and the likelikhood of actual biblical content being presented, which increases as more and more people post things related to, but contrary, to Scripture. It's also curious to me that people can disagree with certain biblical perspectives, using words like "misogynist" and "unhealthy," and that is encouraged and even celebrated, but when somone else says others "may be missing out" on something by a certain perspective, that is quickly condemned as "proselytizing" or "judging." It's amazing that people don't see that double standard, which exists so consistently and blatantly on this board.
-
.
Boy, IME these in the middle positions can be tough. You have both the atheists and the fundamentalists coming after you.
Believe me, it's no picnic being a "fundamentalist" either. LOL Especially on this board!! :tongue_smilie:
-
What if a husband physically or emotionally abuses his wife? Should she submit to that?
I don't think anyone can follow that passage literally, unless they have a husband that treats them fairly. Even then, I doubt they follow it literally 100% of the time.
Okay, I'll say it. I don't take Paul literally, and do not choose to follow that part.
Boy, IME these in the middle positions can be tough. You have both the atheists and the fundamentalists coming after you.
As I've said, there should be discussion as to what submission means, and what spouses should do in different circumstances. While I think it's a grave error to not accept any part of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I would rather hear comments like yours about Paul's letters upfront. A lot of people skip over that point, and it's difficult to have a conversation about the details when you're coming from such different places. So the difference really isn't so much about men and women, but what do you think of God's Word-- is it something we can pick and choose what we like from, or is it God's authoritative Word to mankind with no error or flaw?
-
I think you may be missing an important point. There aren't just two positions among Christians. There aren't just two positions among people who take the Bible literally either. I think it may be a tad insulting to state that those who don't agree with a certain viewpoint don't like what the Bible teaches in those texts. They may fully believe what the Bible says in those texts, but their interpretation of what the text is saying may differ.
I don't mean to be insulting, but I understand that some might feel that way. I have found other comments in this thread insulting/uncomfortable/inaccurate as well, but I'm looking past that in an attempt to stay on point. As I said, it can and should be discussed as to what the Bible means when it says submit-- but it *does* say submit, more than once! So to deny the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands, when it clearly does, is disingenuous at best. Much of the conversation on this thread doesn't even quote or refer to the Bible passages in question at all-- it's more like, "Do you like the idea of submitting to your husband? I don't, so I don't do it." It's more a discussion about whether we like the idea personally than about what the Bible actually teaches- which is troubling when there are so many Christians posting on the topic. That is why I felt compelled to post-- it doesn't matter whether we like an idea or if it tickles our ears-- God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. For Christians, God's Word should be the ultimate authority, not our preferences.
-
I accept that that is your opinion, but I very strongly disagree. Would you prefer me to renounce Christianity as an antiquated, misogynistic religion? Because that is what your interpretation makes Christianity appear to be. Do you really mean to set up this dichotomy: accept a literal and infallible interpretation of the Bible or don't be a Christian?
Galations 3:28:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
If all of us are one in Christ, none is above or beneath another. Therefore, this power dynamic of God -> husband -> wife, doesn't make sense.
Should I divorce my husband so that I can be my own agent and have this setup: God -> me? Or do I fall back under my dad's authority: God -> my dad -> me. Am I less of a person because I am female? Does God really require me to have a male authority figure in my life (father, husband, brother, son, etc.)? I'm sure that He does not.
It's not anyone's responsibility to make the Bible or Christianity more palatable by skipping parts that don't appeal to some people. God's Word stands for itself, and I would not presume and disrespect God and His Word by suggesting that I can leave out parts or write them off to make someone else like Christianity better-- or to make myself happy, either. There are parts of the Bible that are obviously meant to be figurative. There are other parts that are clearly meant for a specific people or time-- but the Bible itself makes it clear which those parts are-- this section in Ephesians does not. Paul appeals to the relationship between Christ and the church-- when that changes, so will God's plan for marriage (it never will, because it is eternal).
I just think it would be much more honest for people to come right out and admit, "I think people can choose for themselves which parts of the Bible they want to follow. I don't like what the Bible teaches about women submitting to their husbands, so I choose to not believe that part." At least that would make their position clear, and avoid a lot of discussion about what the verses actually mean, because it wouldn't make any difference to those with that viewpoint anyway.
-
Context of the age in which it was given. Not applicable today. Not an eternal blueprint for a good marriage.
Women were property when this was written. Only very recently have women been given the same status as males (and it could be argued that we're not quite there yet). I am not my husband's property. I am not my father's property. I belong to myself and to God. I work with my husband to make decisions for our family. A benevolent dictator is not what I want for a marriage partner. ;) I want (and have) an equal partner whom I respect, trust, and love just as he respects, trusts, and loves me. :)
There is nothing in that passage to suggest that it is a cultural consideration. Paul appeals to an analogy between Christ and the church, an eternal relationship, so it's more reasonable to conclude that in fact it is an eternal blueprint for a good marriage. The only thing that makes anyone think it shouldn't be followed today, from all that I have read and heard, is that people today simply don't *like* it. It doesn't tickle our ears, or tell us what we want to hear about men and women and how God has designed us to function together in marriage. That is a very bad reason for dismissing truth from God's Word.
-
I once heard a very well respected leader in the homeschool community, who also happens to be a pastor and a husband, say that if a man truly loves his wife as God intended for him to, there will never be reason for her to have to submit. I believe that because it's the way my marriage works.
I'm not sure how this statement, or others made in this thread, square at all with Ephesians, which explicitly commands woman to *submit*, and husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Unless you decide to throw out Ephesians 5 totally, you can't deny what is being said there. There can and should be discussion about what God meant when he commanded women to submit to their husbands, and what that looks like (i.e. there is still discussion, both are still equally valuable to God, women are not doormats, etc.), but it is simply not biblical to suggest that women are not called by God to submit their husbands. When a man is loving his wife as God commands him to, it is much easier for a woman to submit to him and it functions beautifully the way God intended-- it brings both of them contentment. However, whether the husband fulfills his responsibility or not, the wife is still responsible to follow God's instructions to her. A loving husband still needs a wife who will submit (and a submitting wife still needs a loving husband) for their marriage to glorify God, according to Ephesians 5.
-
I'm not sure I understand what it is you want. Do you want someone to congratulate you for doing thing and nursing/carrying a baby? Do you think you are the only one who has ever had to care for an newborn/infant while sick?
I get that you had a house fire that was devastating. I've fought enough house fires to know exactly how devastating they can be. I'm sure you lost just about everything material. But you didn't have to sleep in your car. You did have people to help you out. No, maybe it wasn't the people you wanted or expected to help you out. But the fact remains you were probably better off than most people who loose everything under disastrous circumstances.
You say that you get "riled up" when someone implies that you are expecting too much. Maybe you should ask yourself why. If many people are riling you up, maybe you should re-evaluate your position. Could be they are right.
There are people here who live hundreds and thousands of miles away from family with no help when they get sick or have issues or disasters. They find a way to make it work for themselves - Every. Single. Day.
Honestly it comes across like oh poor me. Get a grip and stand strong. You can't force people to help you out. You really should only depend on yourself. Being resentful because your mom helps your brother more is just... childish.
Wow. There's being direct, and then there's just plain mean. Do you speak to your children this way when they have been hurt by someone?
-
I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence.
:iagree: I haven't posted at all on this topic, because honestly I don't feel that my viewpoint is welcome on this board, but I have to say that I agree 100 percent with what you've said here.
-
Actually, it depends entirely on the style - there are many styles I can do much easier on my knee-length hair than I can do on my sis's mid-back hair. The extra length is a big bonus when it comes to just about any crown style, for example - one simple braid wraps all the way round, with sufficient extra to enable me to secure it with just one clip. Takes a mere 30sec longer than a simple braid. About the only style that is harder at this length is a french twist - I really do have too much hair to easily do this style. Otherwise I've found that the more length I have, the more I can do :).
ETA: Besides, a foot of hair is a foot of hair - it's a drastic change *to the owner* no matter what length is left, even if it isn't noticeable to anyone else.
Maybe so. I just wouldn't want my dd to be hung up on having such a dramatic length of hair, personally. If it were heartbreaking to think of having waist-length hair, I'd think some heart/reality checks were needed.
-
My dd9, almost 10 has very thick, long hair. Her hair reaches down mid bottom and it is very thick. Very nice. The problem is, it's so much that she can't handle it herself. I have to braid it for her almost every day. She can barely put it into a ponytail by herself. She does wash it by herself!
She was almost in tears yesterday and today at my suggestion of cutting about a foot of it off. Her hair would still be almost waist length. I have tried to teach her how to fix it herself, but she doesn't get it.
Would you make her cut it?
Do your girls this age do their own hair?
Any other suggestions?
Should I just shut up and be thankful I get to fix her hair almost daily and that I have a dd with beautiful hair?
I'll be the naysayer and say I'd have it cut. Waist long hair is still *Unusually* long, and probably still more than most children could care for on their own. It's not like you're getting her a chin-length bob! Going from mid-bottom length to waist length shouldn't be a big deal. She would still be able to do every hair style imaginable, and in fact, more easily with a little less length.
-
I know that the Bible says we are God's elect. Without God's choosing us, we would never become believers. This is confusing because if God does the choosing and gives us the grace to believe Him (i.e. without Him touching our hearts and giving us the grace to believe, we would not have the ability to become Christians), then how can anyone be blamed if by themselves they can't come to God and become Christians and can't go to heaven as a result?
I want to believe that God does the choosing, but I also believe there is free will and people respond to God and choose Him. How do I reconcile the two and have peace?
It bothers me that my loved ones cannot believe simply because God chooses not to touch their hearts or give them the grace to believe and therefore they won't go to heaven.
It is easier for me to believe that God shows everyone His love; then some people choose to accept His love and gift of salvation and believe while others choose not to believe Him. Does this make sense?
If God did all the choosing and enabling, doesn't it make God alone responsible for our salvation? Doesn't it make it unfair that He chose some and not all? Since we are all sinners, we are equal in God's eyes; no one is better than another. Also if God did the all the choosing, then why bother evangelizing because no matter how much we pray and how much we share His love, those He chooses not to choose wouldn't believe anyway and those He does choose would believe no matter what.
Does my question make sense?
I am sorry for this rambling. I am simply very frustrated.
Romans 9-- this passage, and wrestling with and finally submitting to its teaching that God is sovereign and can do with all of us whatever He choose, really helped me to accept the doctrine of election.
-
Long story that I won't go into, but I'm supposed to go look at a house next week that looks like a great house, but it's right next door to a big public elementary school. I don't know why, but I'm not at all excited about moving into a house next door to a public school. Would you? Or am I just being really weird?
If my kids went to the school, it would probably be a plus. But as a homeschooler, I'd think we'd have all the inconveniences (noise, traffic) and none of the benefits. I also think it could breed a sense of dissatisfaction with homeschooling for my kids to see all those kids with a different lifestyle right outside their own windows (esp. having fun outside). It could make them feel pretty left out. Some kids might not mind, but two of my three would definitely long to join the school kids!
after months of looking. dd got her first job
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
That's great!! My 16 yos has been looking since the spring as well, and just got a job at a local surplus grocery store this week. He starts tomorrow! A lot of ds's friends recently found jobs after a long search as well. I wonder if this could be a sign that the economy is looking up? Or maybe it's just that college students who originally had these jobs since the spring have left to go back to college? Whatever the case, I'm happy for these students to finally have the chance to work!! :)