I’m bad at math but I want to have money
As stated in the title, I’m really bad at math: no matter what I do I can’t learn or understand it. Not to mention it has brought me to tears before, more than one time.
But I want to have a somewhat high paying job since my dream city is quite expensive (San Francisco/Bay Area) I’m willing to live in another city, or even live out in the countryside if I have a job were that’s what I can afford. Anyway, I really want to go to college and I’ve taken every career test out there but non of them seem to send me jobs I think are stuff I would enjoy and many of them make very low salary’s.
When I say a lot of money I mean between 30-60k. Depending on where I live. I also will not do the trades because I don’t want my body to be wrecked by the time I’m 30.
I would go into a field were I do not need to have a degree if it doesn’t wreck me. Essentially I grew up always worrying about money and I don’t want that for my future. Nor do I want a job that makes me hate my life.
The last thing is that I want to get the fuck out of my small town.
Anyway that’s it, thank you for reading this that far. I am usually a better writer than this, lol. But I am writing this well driving down a large road. That’s it thank you.
Jobadvisor
- Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA) or Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA): These require an associate degree, pay between $55,000 and $75,000, and focus heavily on human connection, movement, and biology—zero advanced math.
- Human Resources (HR) Specialist: A bachelor's degree in business, communications, or psychology opens the door. You focus on hiring, workplace culture, and employee relations. Entry-level roles usually start around $45,000–$55,000.
- Diagnostic Medical Sonographer (Ultrasound Tech): Requires a 2-year associate degree. It pays $60,000–$80,000+, involves working in healthcare settings, and relies on visual/technical skills rather than math.
- Paralegal / Legal Assistant: Great if you enjoy writing, organizing, and researching. An associate degree or certificate is usually enough to land roles paying $45,000–$65,000.
- Property Management / Leasing Agent: You help people rent apartments, show units, and manage tenant relations. Base salaries plus commission frequently hit $40,000–$60,000, and it gets your foot in the door in major metro areas.
- Digital Marketing / Copywriting: Since you mentioned you enjoy writing, building skills in content creation, SEO, or social media management can land you entry-level marketing roles ($40,000–$55,000) using free online certificates rather than a degree.
28. Useless degree. Bad health. Fat. Almost ten years of staying at home and being useless. I need a career, a non dead end job before depression kills me.
My skills to help job search: a nice voice. Bilingual in a non english speaking country. Decent with computers.
Stuff against me: unlike amazing western countries with 3-4% unemployment rate, my country probably has something along 20%. So almost all entry level jobs require references(unless you are overqualified)
I am fat, and have rather bad teeth, so not really attractive for "front" jobs.
10 years of parents house fucks your confidence and social skills up real good.
I am open to... almost everything right now. I am close to offing myself. I need a job. A carreer, I have 0 motivation to live, let alone working a dead end job.
Jobadvisor
- Remote Customer Support / Technical Support: Companies hiring globally or regionally in your area value bilingual fluency and a clear, pleasant phone voice above all else. Because it is work-from-home, your physical appearance and local unemployment rates matter far less. You use computers daily to solve customer issues, and standard support roles offer direct pathways to senior support, team lead, or account management.
- Virtual Assistant / Executive Assistant: Small business owners and overseas companies hire remote administrative support to manage emails, schedule appointments, and coordinate client communication. Your computer skills and non-English language capability are strong selling points.
- Localization / Content Moderation / Translation: If you are fluent in English and your local language, remote translation, transcription, or content moderation for international tech platforms requires zero face-to-face interaction and builds solid technical resume credentials.
- Frame the Gap: Do not leave a 10-year blank space. Frame it on your resume as "Freelance/Family Administrative Support" or "Independent Skill Development." Emphasize your bilingual fluency and computer literacy right at the top.
- Start with Short Freelance Tasks: Platforms like Upwork or local remote task boards allow you to take tiny voiceover, transcription, or data entry gigs. Earning even a small amount of income breaks the mental cycle of feeling "useless."
- Focus on Small Daily Wins: Treat job searching like a 2-hour daily job. Do not worry about finding the "forever career" on day one—getting any steady paycheck and professional routine will rapidly rebuild your confidence, social skills, and self-esteem.
Can HR keep me from using my electric bike?
I work in a field where I travel to people's homes for the day; my territory is about a 10 mile radius. I was recently in a car accident, and was without a car for a few weeks; during this time, I bought an electric bike to travel between visits. I'm hooked. It's faster and safer and I'm exercising as a bonus. HR knew I was on a bike because they knew about my car, but once I got a car, they said I HAVE to use it for visits instead of the bike. However:
they're not giving me any rationale or anything in policy that states I must use a car.
while my signed job description does state that I have to have a car, insurance, and a license, it also states under Non-essential duties, "Driving-Never"
using a bike over a car hasn't changed anything about the way that I do my job.
I'm also wondering, if they are able to forbid me to use my bike, can they also say that I can't walk or use public transportation?
Jobadvisor
Short answer: probably yes, they can — and no, this isn't really about the job description technicality you're focused on.
Here's why. As long as you're not in a union environment with a specific contract clause, most employment in the US is at-will, which means your employer can set reasonable rules about how you do your job, even without publishing a formal policy or citing chapter and verse. They don't need a written rule to tell you "use the car, not the bike" any more than they'd need one to tell you "wear the company polo" or "call before you knock." The absence of a written bike ban isn't really a loophole — the presence of a supervisor telling you directly is the policy, verbally issued.
On the job description: I think you're reading "Driving — Never" under non-essential duties in a way that doesn't quite hold up. That line almost certainly refers to something narrower — like driving a company vehicle, or driving other people (clients, coworkers) — not "commuting between appointments under your own power." The fact that having a car, license, and insurance is listed as a requirement at all is a pretty strong signal that car travel between visits is baked into how they expect the job done, even if nobody wrote "must use car for site visits" in plain English.
As for why they'd care, even though your actual work at each home hasn't changed — a few likely reasons, worth asking HR about directly:
- Liability and insurance. If you're in an accident on the bike during work hours, your personal auto/health insurance may not cover a "business use" injury the way a car policy would, and the company's own liability coverage may be structured around employees driving. A bike crash during a work commute between clients could open up gray areas about workers' comp or third-party liability that a car doesn't.
- Reliability/scheduling. Weather, road conditions, or a mechanical issue with a bike could make a company more nervous about no-shows or lateness than they would with a car, even if you've been reliable so far.
- Client-facing perception. Some client-facing roles have unwritten expectations about how staff arrive.
To your bigger question — could they also ban walking or public transit? In theory, yes, for the same reason: it's their call how they want you traveling for work, provided the reason isn't discriminatory or retaliatory. In practice, that would be a much stranger hill for them to die on, since walking/transit doesn't carry the same insurance/liability questions a bike does.
What I'd actually do here: ask HR (or your manager) point-blank, "What's the specific concern — is it insurance, liability, safety, or something else?" That's a fair question and reframes this from "prove you have the right to tell me no" to "help me understand the actual risk you're managing," which tends to get a real answer instead of a stonewall. If it is insurance/liability, there may even be a way to address it (e.g., providing proof of a rider insurance policy) rather than losing the bike entirely.
I'm not an employment lawyer, so if you want to actually push back formally, an employment attorney or your state labor board can tell you whether anything here crosses into disability accommodation or contract territory — but nothing you've described suggests they're acting outside their rights.
How to answer "are you interviewing for any other jobs?" during an interview?
Twice now, in separate interviews, I have been asked if I am currently interviewing for other jobs. They follow it up with something along the lines of wanting to know for timings. That explanation does not make sense to me and I assume they want to know how much competition there is for the role.
But I want to know is there a correct answer to this question? Are they hoping to hear a specific response?
Jobadvisor
There's no single "correct" answer, but there is a smart way to handle it — and honestly, the "we're asking for timing" explanation isn't as bogus as it sounds. It's usually both things at once: they want to know how fast they need to move, and yes, it also signals how in-demand you are.
What they're actually listening for:
- Are you serious about the job search (not just window-shopping)?
- Do they need to compress their process/decision timeline to not lose you?
- Are you in demand elsewhere — which, counterintuitively, tends to make you more attractive, not less. Interviewers read "other people want this person" as social proof.
How to answer:
Be honest, but keep it brief and confident rather than detailed. You don't owe them company names, stages, or offer numbers. A good template:
"Yes, I'm exploring a few other opportunities, but this role is the one I'm most excited about, so I wanted to make sure I gave it my full attention."
Or if you're earlier in your search / less far along elsewhere:
"I'm having some early conversations, but nothing that's progressed as far as this. I'm giving this process priority."
If you're not interviewing anywhere else, it's fine to say so — but you can frame it as intentional rather than desperate:
"Not right now — I've been selective about where I apply, and this role stood out enough that I wanted to focus my energy here."
What to avoid:
- Don't say "no, this is the only place I'm applying" if it's not true — if you get another offer later and need to create urgency, you'll have burned that card.
- Don't overshare specifics (company names, comp numbers, exact stage) — it's not necessary and can be used to lowball you later, or just reads as oversharing.
- Don't sound like you're using it as a threat ("well I have three other offers so...") unless you're actually trying to create urgency and are comfortable with that move — it can read as leverage-y if done clumsily.
One more thing worth knowing: if you do have a competing offer or a timeline crunch, this question is your natural opening to say so — it's one of the few moments in an interview where mentioning "I do have another offer with a deadline of X" actually works in your favor, because it's literally what they asked. Just say it plainly, not as a power move.
My Job Hired the “Unicorn” Candidate. My Team Is Disappointed.
So I finally got to meet a real-life “unicorn” hire.
For about two months, the company I freelance for was looking for someone to manage our paid media. They got tons and tons of applicants, as you would imagine. Our recruiter even asked us to share the job posting with our own networks to make sure they were really reaching everyone possible.
The final candidates had to do an assignment and a presentation. I wasn't involved in that part of the process, but from what I heard, these were full decks with pages and pages of work.
After alllll of this, they finally found the candidate who “knocked it out of the park.” Keep in mind, they went into this search specifically looking for someone who would really “WOW” them, (their words, not mine).
Well, that was in the spring. He's been here for several months now, and what do you know? Upper management has already expressed that they're disappointed and feel like he oversold and underdelivered.
Here's the thing: the guy is doing a perfectly fine job!
But the company built up the role and the search SO much that I'm realizing a “unicorn” candidate is basically set up to fail. Once you spend months searching through hundreds of applicants, putting finalists through multiple rounds and projects, and waiting for someone to blow you away, you've created this insane expectation for whoever actually gets the job.
This guy beat out hundreds of applicants and a handful of finalists who completed these huge projects, and now management is disappointed because...he turned out to be a normal person doing his job?
And at the end of the day, this is an associate-level paid media role lol. What exactly did they expect? There is only so much one person in that position can do.
It really made me realize that sometimes hiring the “unicorn” is less about finding an extraordinary employee and more about creating expectations that no employee could realistically live up to once you actually GET the job.
Jobadvisor
- The Assessment Dynamic Favors Pitchmen Over Operators: Intensive presentation rounds reward candidates who are great at selling ideas, creating beautiful slides, and speaking with high-level strategy buzzwords. But day-to-day paid media execution is largely tedious, operational, and analytical—A/B testing ad copy, tweaking audience targeting, and managing budgets. Management bought the pitch deck, but they hired a person who has to do the actual admin work.
- Extreme Hiring Friction Creates Artificial Value: Behavioral economics calls this the "effort justification" bias. Because leadership spent so much time, energy, and candidate goodwill to fill the seat, they convince themselves the payoff must be monumental to justify the process.
- The Scope Paradox: As you pointed out, it is an associate-level position. An associate cannot single-handedly double company revenue or reinvent the brand strategy. They are bound by platform algorithms, company budgets, and existing product-market fit. Expecting "magic" from an operational role ignores structural reality.
- The New Hire: He beat out hundreds of people, passed every test, and is doing solid, reliable work, yet he's implicitly branded a "flop" simply for being human.
- Management: They feel let down because they confused "thorough hiring" with "guaranteed perfection."
- The Existing Team: You are now left watching a process that burns out morale and sets bizarre benchmarks for what "good performance" looks like.
Employer requires high school transcripts for background check, and candidate has to provide them…and pay for them.
I’ve applied to countless jobs over the years, and I’ve never encountered something like this. For the education verification section of the background check, the background check company requires the prospective employee to upload their high school transcript. To get my transcript, I had to order it from the third party service that my high school uses for electronic transcripts, which cost me $10. I know, it’s only $10, but money is already really tight right now, and it’s the principle that bothers me. I feel like I’m doing someone else’s job.
I finally got the transcript, and now I might not even be considered for the job anymore. The background check did find that I got myself in legal trouble twelve years ago for dumb things I did in my teens. Now the person that interviewed me has stopped responding to my texts.
Jobadvisor
That's a frustrating combination, and I'm sorry — both the money stress and now the silence from someone who was texting you regularly are legitimately hard to sit with.
Let me take these one at a time.
On being asked to pay for your own transcript:
You're not wrong that this feels backwards, and honestly, your instinct is right — this is unusual. Employers can ask you to provide documents as part of a background check, but many candidates never hit this because most employers either don't require transcripts at all, or the background check company (not the candidate) handles the request and cost as part of what the employer is already paying them for. Some employers do shift this cost onto candidates, and it's not clearly illegal in most states, but it's a practice some states are starting to push back on (a few have laws limiting what costs can be passed to applicants, especially for lower-wage positions). If you want to check, your state's Department of Labor site would have the specifics — but practically, it's probably not worth fighting after the fact for $10; more just a signal about how this employer treats applicants' time and money.
On the background check finding something from 12 years ago:
This is the part that actually matters, and there's a real process issue here worth knowing about. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), if an employer is going to take adverse action (not hiring you, rescinding an offer) because of something in a background check, they're legally required to:
- Give you a pre-adverse action notice — a copy of the report and a summary of your rights — before they make a final decision.
- Give you a reasonable window (typically 5 business days, though it varies) to dispute inaccuracies or provide context.
- Only then, if they proceed, send a final adverse action notice telling you the decision was made and explaining your rights.
Ghosting you via text isn't a valid substitute for that. If they're planning to reject you because of the 12-year-old issue, they're supposed to give you a chance to respond first — not just go quiet. Many employers who use background check companies are contractually bound to follow this process because the background check vendor requires it of them (it protects the vendor from FCRA liability too).
So a few things worth doing:
- Ask directly. Text or email something like: "I wanted to follow up on the background check — has a decision been made? I understand employers are required to provide a pre-adverse action notice before taking action based on a report. I'd appreciate an update." This isn't combative; it's citing a real legal process, and it often gets a response fast because now they know you know your rights.
- Check if you actually got that notice already — sometimes it comes as an email from the background check company itself (not the employer directly), and can be easy to miss or land in spam.
- If it's been a while with total silence, that itself might just mean the role got filled or priorities shifted — companies are often bad about closing the loop even without a background check issue involved. It's not necessarily about the finding.
- Depending on your state, some places also restrict how far back an employer can consider certain records, or require an individualized assessment (considering how long ago it was, its relevance to the job, and what you've done since) rather than an automatic disqualification — this is common in "ban the box" states.
I'm not a lawyer, so if this actually costs you the job, it may be worth a free consult with an employment lawyer or your state's labor agency — particularly if you never got that pre-adverse action notice and they reject you anyway. That's a real procedural violation, not just an annoyance.