You get paid what you negotiate, and what you are worth.
I work 2 sales jobs and know my worth is directly proportional to what I produce.
The same goes for anyone in any profession, male or female.
Employers will always want to pay you lower than what you want to be paid. That's the whole point of negotiation. And more importantly, proving you are worth more pay.
If they don't pay you enough? Take your talent elsewhere.
And stop whining.
Kaiser Sose is Big Brother?!?
Schooling is overrated. Education isn't.
This country was built on the backs of hard workers with a 10th grade education and a lot of guts.
Who in their right mind would loan tens of thousands of dollars to a kid with little-to-no long-term record of positive financial history, without collateral, for an intangible object, like a low ROI degree like psychology or sociology?
Only the Goober'mint.
The number one move to reduce or stop tuition inflation would be to cut the free-flow of government money. Schools would immediately re-tool their finances and cut the fat.
Second would be to allow the free-market in to fill the void.
We used to have an extensive guild and apprentice system in place to teach the young.
So many professions are taught "on-the-job," mentee and mentor. Plumbing, computer programming, sales, and all sorts of vocational work.
This argument for government recognition for your spiritual commitment has been co-opted by a complacent media who thinks the government should be the arbiter and God over all things personal and private.
Every Christian should yell blasphemy at the concept of having a license to ordain their spiritual covenant between them and God.
Regardless, marriage isn't a Christian thing. It's a person-to-person-of-whatever-belief thing. Let them decide. Or, let the churches decide who is eligible for their standard of marriage.
Why the f*** does Government have to be involved in EVERYTHING?
226 IN CHATTANOOGA,TN WHIT THE BLOOD GANG
by Carlos Hess
Why should the government have any involvement in marriage -- of any kind -- to begin with?
Did not the man resist arrest and run away, yes or no?
Given the events and how they unfolded, would you say the cops were 100% sure this man -- uncuffed, brandishing a knife, and resisting arrest -- was unarmed, yes or no?
Did the cops conduct -- or even have the opportunity given this man's unyielding resistance -- to a full pat-down and correct procedure to reasonably conclude this man was unarmed, yes or no?
Easy, how many times do you resist arrest -- via not following lawful commands and attempting to flee -- before you are considering a threat to the immediate surrounding area?
Bottom line, again -- given the FACTS of how many times he resisted lawful orders and arrest -- as long as he's UNcuffed and UNrestrained, he is a presumed RISK to EVERYONE in the near vicinity. Again, the cops DID NOT have enough information to determine if this man -- at that time -- was a risk or not, namely because HE CONTINUALLY RESISTED law enforcement!
To the poster above -- I missed the part on the video where the blows came after he was cuffed. If that's true, then it's definitely police brutality and they (the police) should suffer the consequences -- based on what happened AFTER the cuffing.
Thanks for the constructive rebuttal, Easy.
Picture yourself in his situation. The cops witnessed this dude pull out a knife. They witnessed this dude RESIST arrest and apprehension. They witnessed this man RUNNING AWAY fleeing arrest.
I'm assuming given all that was mentioned above, the cops did not conduct a pat down and reasonably assure themselves he was not armed and dangerous, beyond the knife.
Point is there was enough evidence to reasonably conclude this man was dangerous to the cops as well as the people around him. He had EVERY opportunity... EVERY opportunity... to submit. From the first instance he was tackled to the ground, to literally dozens of opportunities afterwards.
Remember, the cops were in survival mode themselves. Given they didn't conduct a pat down and conclude he wasn't armed, what's to say this guy, who gave PLENTY of reason to assume he was DANGEROUS and potentially armed, would not pull ANOTHER knife out and fatally stab one of the cops or a witness?
Are you REALLY going to take that chance, given what they witnessed?
Clearly anyone reading my dialogue with jjmez can see his lapse of logic when presented with facts, and his inability to answer questions when presented.
For example, he concludes police brutality when he cannot concede that in all likelihood -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- this man would not comply with lawful requests to surrender, not once (which should be enough), but multiple times, even after brandishing a weapon.
Then he concludes that police officers are supposed to serve and protect the community.
Since he refuses to concede a valid point for whatever reason, I ask the rest of you -- if that woman at the front desk was your mother, your wife, your grandmother, your friend -- and the cops let this man be, after resisting arrest multiple times and brandishing a weapon, and NOT submitting to a pat-down, and then he pulls out the concealed pocket pistol holstered to his ankle and shoots this lady dead...
Would you agree this level of force -- as unarguably violent as it was -- was necessary given the odds that this man was potentially capable after all that was witnessed? If not, what should the cops have done, since he refused arrest, attempted to flee, and brandished a knife?