A Gen X dad who commutes over 10 hours a week to work in a different state says it's advanced his career but takes away from family time

Jae Kim commutes 350 miles every week from Alabama to South Carolina for work.

Courtesy of Jae Kim

• Jae Kim, 55, drives from Alabama to South Carolina every week to work as a real estate broker.
• The drive takes him about five hours one way, and his biggest expense is gas.
• While the commute is necessary for his career, he said it can take away from family time. 

Jae Kim has come to terms with driving over 700 miles each week to get to work.

Kim, 55, moved with his wife and two kids to Auburn, Alabama, in 2016 because his wife grew up there, the city had a good education system for his kids, and it seemed like the best move for the family at the time.

The only problem: Kim owned a brokerage firm in South Carolina, where he and his family previously lived. He decided to make the move and figure out his work situation once his family was settled. Eight years later, he's still driving about five hours there each week to get to the office and five hours back home.

"I've come to terms with it," Kim told Business Insider. "I'm more at peace with it and the benefits that it provides, as long as it doesn't start taking away from the family."

Kim practices real estate in Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia, and the commute opens up opportunities for him to expand his business in those areas. But it's not easy — gas is his biggest expense with the hundreds of miles he's putting on his car each week. However, he said the nature of his job allows him to stay overnight at some of the properties he's working on, so he doesn't have to worry about additional housing costs.

"The only positive is I get to clear my mind for five hours," Kim said. "Aside from that, it's as brutal a grind as anybody's five-hour drive anywhere."

But it's worth it for Kim. The commute has benefited his business, allowing him to meet with clients across multiple states and earn more income. He's among a growing number of Americans who have taken on supercommutes, or commutes to work that take 90 minutes or longer. The pandemic opened the door for more people to take on longer commutes with the flexibility of hybrid work, allowing the potential to boost earnings at a job farther from home.

Of course, being away from family is a challenge — and Kim emphasized the importance of open communication and cherishing his time when he's back in Alabama.

"I've had to, in a large way, shift my priorities to ensure I'm putting my family first," Kim said. "And then everything else will have to fall into place afterwards."

'You have to over-communicate'

While Kim said he does his best to be present for his family when he's home, there's never enough time. He recalled asking his kids two years after they moved to Alabama if there was anything they wished would be different; they said they loved their schools and were making new friends, but Kim's youngest son said: "If I could just see you more, that would help."

"That was a kick in the stomach when that happened," Kim said. "So, since that conversation, I prioritized my time significantly differently. Whenever there's absolutely something that needs my attention, I'm not really stressed about it at work. I tend to find whatever it is that my family is doing and schedule my life around what their needs are."

BI previously spoke to Dennis Dabney, a Gen X dad who flies weekly from Texas to Arizona for work. Like Kim, Dabney said the commute was one of the best things that could've happened for his career advancement, but it can take a toll.

"You have to continue to have open communication with your family unit because things change, attitudes change, and you just have to figure out when things are getting out of hand or when things are going smoothly," Dabney said.

Kim tries to drive home every weekend to be with his family, and he makes stops along the way at the properties he owns. He recommends that anyone considering a long commute go into it "with eyes wide open" because it's not for every family situation. While it's most important for the family to be on board, having a supportive team at work makes it easier, as well.

"This makes marriage harder. It just does," Kim said. "So whenever you're away, you have to have that trust from the beginning and all the way through, and you have to over-communicate, which is tough. But it's needed to make it healthier and keep it healthy."

Do you have a unique work or life situation? Reach out to this reporter at asheffey@businessinsider.com.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/STGeovf

In a Taiwan war, the US could find itself fighting China without its top allies

The US may be forced to confront a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without the forces of top allies like Japan.

Issei Kato/Getty Images

• The US military may be forced to confront a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without top allies.
• Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada are likely to provide no military forces to counter China.
• RAND Corp. analysts said these "middle powers" could help in other ways, however.

If the US decides to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion, it may have to do so alone.

Several of America's biggest allies are unlikely to commit troops to save Taiwan, either because they lack the military capability or don't want to risk all-out war with an increasingly formidable China, according to a new report by the RAND Corp..

For Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada, aid "would be confined to diplomatic support for Taiwan and endorsement of likely US sanctions on China," concluded RAND, an American think tank, which surveyed experts in the four nations. If this proves right, it means that any military response to a Chinese invasion would be limited to American forces.

"Our respondents believe that the US will receive logistics and materiel support from other countries, but its forces will have to go it alone in responding to an invasion by China," Rafiq Dossani, a RAND senior economist who co-authored the study, told Business Insider. However, there was more support in Japan and Australia to commit their navies to assisting an American-led effort to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan.

That Canada, for example, might not be able or eager to rush to Taiwan's defense isn't a surprise. But for Japan, whose security would be gravely affected by a Chinese takeover of Taiwan, the issue is more complicated.

"Despite its military power, commitment to the region, and US backing, Japanese pacifism (both popular and constitutional) and the fear of a retaliatory attack by China are likely to limit Japan's military support for Taiwan, perhaps only to logistics and supplies," RAND said. "Any support that they would offer to a US-led military response would likely be limited to logistics and materiel support."

The goal of the RAND study, which was sponsored by Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was to examine how America's medium-sized allies may deter or mediate a conflict between China and Taiwan, a democratic island that China's communist leaders consider a breakaway province. The US is highly dependent on its regional allies like South Korea and Japan for basing, but the prospect it would have to fight without their ships and troops against what's likely to be a larger Chinese force may tarnish its deterrent power.

Researchers classified Japan, Australia, the UK and Canada as "middle powers," which RAND defined as nations "that are not small but lack the sheer size and influence to significantly disrupt the global order." The study excluded nations that already faced a risk of direct conflict with China, the US and their respective allies. India and South Korea were also excluded "because those countries have declared that they will not play a mediating role in a cross-Strait conflict."

RAND sent questionnaires to 49 diplomats, defense officials, policy analysts, business executives, journalists and legislators in the four nations. The various responses shared "remarkably common" views about a China-Taiwan war.

What is especially striking is the pessimistic self-image. The British experts, for example, felt that "the UK's distant location and weak military assets, in addition to its trade dependence on China, lead to limited UK interest in defending Taiwan militarily."

Nor do the four US allies believe that Beijing fears them enough to refrain from attacking Taiwan. "Our respondents thought that China views these four middle-power countries as too weak militarily to take on China on their own and as marginal players in a US-led coalition," the report found.

On the other hand, America's top allies don't share American fears that a massive Chinese military buildup and Chinese leader Xi Jinping's avowed determination to "reunify" Taiwan with China are steps toward war, but rather may be nationalistic posturing. "According to our respondents, China's main goal is to legitimize its current domestic political system (i.e., the rule of the Chinese Communist Party)," the report said. "To accomplish this goal, China must be seen within as a great power, preeminent in Asia, and able to achieve high economic growth. An invasion of Taiwan would jeopardize such perceptions and thus be deemed an unacceptable risk relative to the status quo."

Taiwan's military is not inconsequential, with nearly 200,000 active-duty soldiers, anti-ship missiles and mines, and soon F-16 fighters and submarines. But this is a fraction of China's military might, and Taiwan would probably need outside assistance to repel an invasion or break a blockade. While the US would provide the bulk of such a relief effort, allied contributions would be vital, as would unfettered use of bases in Japan and Australia.

To American hardliners already resentful that some NATO nations aren't spending enough to defend Europe, the reluctance of its allies may smack of cowardice, and stick the US with the burden of Pacific security. But this may also reflect military and geographic reality. Canada's small military could muster only a token force for Taiwan's defense. Britain's shrinking armed forces, which already have European commitments, would struggle just to dispatch a small carrier task force 6,000 miles to the South China Sea.

Though Australia is a Pacific nation, and has diesel-electric submarines and F-35 stealth fighters, it still lacks the ability to project and sustain military operations 5,000 miles away in Taiwan.

But the biggest question mark is Japan: Okinawa is about 500 miles from Taiwan, Japan has territorial disputes with China over various islands in the East China Sea, and the Japanese military is rated among the 10 most powerful in the world. Furthermore, Japan's territory and the US military bases it hosts will be essential to any US effort to counter China.

Yet if Japan, Australia, Britain and Canada are reluctant to confront China, there are actions they can take to help Taiwan. RAND recommends that they create a joint plan for trade sanctions to deter China from attacking Taiwan. In addition, the four middle powers could play a role in mediators to prevent a Taiwan war from happening.

"Indeed, middle powers might be the only ones that can play a mediating role in such a conflict if tensions between the great powers were to escalate," the study noted. "However, as of this report's writing, no middle power has enough influence over both great powers to play such a role, even in coalition with other middle powers."

Which means these middle-ranked nations need to build up their capabilities, military and otherwise. "To build credibility with both great powers, the four middle powers need to rebuild and bolster their strategic autonomy, material power, and commitment to the Asia-Pacific region."

The study also implicitly raises questions about how much the US can count on its NATO allies for support outside Europe. While NATO nations did send small contingents during the Afghan war, confronting China is different.

"I think that NATO should take seriously the possibility of European middle powers preferring not to be involved in a conflict in which their adversary does not directly threaten their national security," Dossani said."

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/P62CWBZ

Ukraine's Air Force must ditch its Soviet-style approach to get the most out of F-16s

Ukraine will need a drastically different air strategy to have the best hope of using F-16s to push back Russian forces, airpower experts say.

Tech. Sgt. David Salanitri/US Air Force

• Ukraine will need drastic changes to unlock the full potential of its new F-16s.
• Ukraine's senior officers began careers in the Soviet military and are steeped in its mindset.
• Facing larger Russian forces, Ukraine's military must adopt a coordinated style of warfare.

Ukraine will finally be getting F-16 fighters later this year.

Now it just needs a good plan on how to use them against Russia, which has a larger air force, newer planes, and plenty of anti-aircraft missiles.

However, those F-16s could enable Ukraine to actually defeat Russia and reclaim lost territory, according to two American experts. But only if the battered Ukrainian Air Force is capable and willing to drastically change the way it fights in the middle of the war.

"Senior Ukrainian Armed Forces leaders must rid themselves of the Soviet/Russian doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures in which they have been trained," wrote David Deptula and Christopher Bowie in a report for the Mitchell Institute think tank.

"Old habits die hard. They must be willing to embrace new concepts and training — as well as a willingness to 'rewrite the books' on military employment. Finally, Ukrainian Air Force leadership must be incorporated into the Ukrainian General Staff to foster and facilitate integrated, all-domain concepts, planning, and employment."

"The bottom line is that it will not be easy," Deptula, a retired US Air Force lieutenant general, told Business Insider. "It will take years for the Ukrainian military culture to shift from the model based on their Soviet military history, to Western military doctrine."

Soviet doctrine tended to be rigid and top-down, with commanders expected to stick to the plan rather than take initiative in response to opportunities or setbacks on the battlefield. Joint operations were lacking: when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Russian Air Force failed to provide significant close air support and fighter cover to the ground troops. The Russian air force has shown itself capable of devastating area bombardment but not the more precise strikes needed to defeat a moving enemy or take out its strongpoints.

The problem for Ukraine is that many of its senior officers began their careers in the Soviet military, were trained in Soviet military academies, and created the nation's armed forces in the Soviet image. They tend to revert to this background when they struggle with advice from Western militaries, as happened amid the 2023 counter-offensive. This is changing as younger officers rise, but embracing a radically different military culture and mindset — especially during wartime — is extremely difficult.

The US military has struggled with its own bureaucratic problems that hindered effective operations. For example, Deptula pointed to the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which aimed to eliminate rivalry between the US armed services that hampered joint operations (such as incompatible radios, which prevented Army troops from communicating with Navy ships during the 1982 invasion of Grenada). To spur jointness, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was given more power at the expense of the service chiefs, who also lost operational control over their forces in favor of regional combatant commands. Promotion to general or admiral also required prior experience in joint operations.

Nearly 40 years after Goldwater-Nichols, interservice rivalry — from football to funding — has hardly disappeared from the American military. But at least the US armed services have become accustomed to joint warfare.

This is something that Ukraine must do to win, or even just to survive. Facing superior Russian numbers and resources, the Ukrainian military must extract maximum efficiency from its forces. This means a flexible, coordinated style of warfare. For example, ground-based artillery and rockets can destroy Russian air defense systems, which enables Ukraine's air force to operate over the battlefield, and thus provide close air support to the army. Missions like close air support have a major impact on the battlefield, but Ukraine must shift to more coordination between its air controllers and air defense crews or risk shooting down its own jets, the Mitchell paper emphasizes.

Many others have warned that F-16s are very vulnerable in Ukraine's contested airspace and that the country may not be getting enough to sustain the losses that missions to push back Russian forces could entail.

These reforms won't be easy. "It took the US military decades to adopt to the tenets of joint force operations and the joint structure ensconced in the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986," said Deptula. "Some would say that some services, like the Army and Marines, never fully adopted. That said, this does not mean that the Ukrainian military can't adopt for certain operations immediately. They will have to if they are to achieve advantage over the disproportionate size advantage that Russia holds."

Deptula believes the desire to reform Ukraine's military is there, at least at the lower levels. "It will take a combination of leadership push, new generation officer pull, and a collective desire to reform to accept and institute a Western way of war relative to the Soviet model," he said. "The platoon and squadron levels are already willing and eager to adopt new ways. It's the leadership at the general military staff level — and individual service levels — that require reform."

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/kZTvBER

I was on a flight that received a bomb threat. We were treated like suspects, and the police examined everyone's handwriting.

Passengers lined up to board an Akasa Air flight, and Molina Singh.

Courtesy of Molina Singh

• Molina Singh was flying with Akasa Air from Delhi to Mumbai when her plane was diverted.
• After a note was found saying "Bomb on flight," all passengers had their handwriting examined.
• Some people's belongings were damaged after luggage was left outside in a heat wave.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Molina Singh, a 22-year-old from Delhi who was on board Akasa Air Flight 1719 on June 3. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I haven't traveled alone a lot — this was probably my second flight alone. My parents were worried about me because they think I'm a homebody.

I recently started working after college and joined the YouTube team for creator marketing and strategy. There was a creator campaign going on, and their head office is in Mumbai, so I traveled from Delhi for that.

The flight was in the air, and everything was going smoothly. Everyone was kind of asleep or just chilling, and suddenly, the cabin crew came up to all of us.

Everyone was woken from their naps and asked if a piece of cabin luggage was theirs. To the last row, no one identified the luggage.

I was sitting in row nine, so I could see the cabin crew working, and they seemed very confused. And suddenly, the captain announces that we're landing. Turns out, they were diverting to Ahmedabad, which is a good hour away from our destination.

They said there was a security concern. And as a person who's not traveled a lot, I was like, "Shit, what's happening?"

It took us 15 minutes to land. No one told anyone anything, and everyone was confused. We were asked to vacate the plane immediately.

Everyone was supposed to leave their luggage inside the plane, but half of them took it. I left mine because the pilot himself asked me, and I couldn't say no. I put my phone and wallet in my overalls, and I left.

We thought they just wanted to check something for 15 or 20 minutes, but thank God I took stuff because we were stranded there for like 12 hours.

So we were on the runway, and there was a heat wave in Ahmedabad. (Temperatures in Ahmedabad reached over 100 degrees Fahrenheit on June 3.)

Through overhearing cops, I figured out there was a tissue found in the plane that had "Bomb on flight" written on it.

Passengers waited on the tarmac at Ahmedabad Airport.

Courtesy of Molina Singh

Then they dragged us to arrivals at Ahmedabad Airport, where there was a barricaded area, which was very small for the 186 people on the plane.

The police asked us to write "Bomb on flight" in our own handwriting with our seat number.

People were worried because they didn't have cash or their phones, and they didn't let us go to the bathroom or give us water. It was just very hodgepodge.

At this point, you're not a customer of the airline, you're a suspect.

The police called out nine or 10 names who could match the handwriting. They took them to a separate area and made them do double and triple checks.

Then they took us all in two different sections to write "Bomb on flight," I think 36 times — dividing your tissue into four and writing on alternate sides.

Nothing is coming out of it. I think the problem was there was no protocol for this.

After three hours, they finally allowed us to get food and go to the bathroom, surrounded by a lot of police.

By 8 p.m., everyone had given up hope. This was also the time that everyone was trauma-bonded. I'm talking to aunties and people I've never talked to. We'd exchanged Instagrams. We were just using one phone and a charger to contact our parents and everyone.

Passengers, police, and luggage on the runway at Ahmedabad Airport.

Courtesy of Molina Singh

Finally, they gave us new boarding passes. It still took us two hours to board because they made us identify our luggage. Even in the night, it's burning hot. Because the luggage was under the direct sun for eight hours, people's MacBooks stopped working, and my lip gloss melted.

After we board the plane they give us a few packets of Namkeen, which are like chips. I'm like, "Oh wow, thank you for that compensation for the torture."

It was a wild experience. I think people were frightened and afraid at the start because no one gave us any information. We just figured it out on our own. After that, everyone was like, "Hey, this is something we have to get through."

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/WbQSwoV

35,000 student-loan borrowers in public service are getting $1.2 billion in debt wiped out after fixes to a key relief program

The Education Department approved more student-loan borrowers for debt relief through Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Getty Images

• The Education Department announced $1.2 billion in debt relief for 35,000 student-loan borrowers in public service.
• The relief is a result of ongoing fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
• The department is also carrying out targeted relief for borrowers on income-driven repayment plans.

Another batch of student-loan borrowers will soon see their balances turned to zero.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden's Education Department announced that it approved $1.2 billion in student-loan forgiveness for 35,000 public service workers.

The relief is a result of ongoing fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which forgives student debt for government and nonprofit workers after 10 years of qualifying payments. Specifically, according to the department, this latest relief comes from the limited waiver that ended in October 2022 that allowed payments previously deemed ineligible for PSLF to count, along with regulatory changes to the program.

"The additional Americans approved for PSLF today are hardworking public servants who will finally receive the financial breathing room they were promised — and all PSLF recipients can easily track and manage the process through StudentAid.gov," Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement. "This is relief that will bring real change in their lives and marks another win for this administration's relentless and unapologetic work to fix a broken student loan system."

The Biden administration has now approved $168.5 billion for 4.76 million borrowers, of which 946,000 of them were enrolled in PSLF.

This relief is among the Education Department's targeted efforts to improve repayment programs. For example, the department has also been in the process of carrying out its one-time account adjustments, which gives borrowers on PSLF and income-driven repayment plans an opportunity to ensure all of their payments are credited toward the forgiveness timeline.

With regards to PSLF itself, the department has made a series of changes over the past few months. It transitioned borrowers away from MOHELA, previously the sole servicer of PSLF, to a number of different servicers to facilitate the program better.

Additionally, the new SAVE income-driven repayment plan promised debt relief under shorter timelines, but its fate is uncertain, and conservative groups are currently challenging it in court.

Still, the Education Department has vowed to do what it can to carry out relief. It's planning to finalize its broader student-loan forgiveness plan — expected to benefit over 30 million borrowers — in October.

"From day one of my Administration, I promised to fight to ensure higher education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity," Biden said in a statement following Thursday's announcement. "I will never stop working to make higher education affordable — no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us."

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/xnSw7AM

Trump has big problems with Big Tech

Trump recently threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg if he is elected president in November.

Win McNamee/Getty Images; Alex Wong/Getty Images

• Trump name-dropped Mark Zuckerberg in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview published Tuesday.
• Trump said he was in favor of TikTok because it competes with Zuckerberg's platforms.
• Last week, Trump threatened to jail Zuckerberg if he's elected in November.

Former President Donald Trump can't seem to stop himself from taking every given opportunity to bash Mark Zuckerberg.

The latest shot at the Facebook founder and Meta CEO came in an interview that Trump gave to Bloomberg Businessweek, published on Tuesday.

The wide-ranging interview, which took place in late June, covered Trump's opinions on the economy, foreign policy, and his views on several CEOs.

While he praised Apple CEO Tim Cook and JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon, Trump railed against Big Tech companies, calling them "too big" and "too powerful."

"I don't want to hurt those companies. But I don't want them destroying our youth, either," Trump said.

Trump emphasized that while he didn't want to destroy Big Tech companies because they're important for competing against other countries, he believed some guardrails still needed to be implemented.

"If you go after them very violently, you can destroy them," Trump said. "I don't want to destroy them. I want them to thrive."

"But I don't want them to influence elections. I don't want them to destroy children when children are, you know, committing suicide all over the country, which has been happening," he added, seemingly referencing Zuckerberg's appearance at a dramatic Senate hearing in January.

During the hearing, Zuckerberg made a rare apology to the families who blamed social media abuse for their children's deaths.

"I'm sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered," Zuckerberg told the families in attendance.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized to families at a US Senate hearing about the impact that social media has on children https://t.co/Iq04bvSNIE pic.twitter.com/fx6BofJR9S

— Reuters (@Reuters) January 31, 2024

Although Trump suggested that he would take a cautious approach to what he calls a "complex situation," he didn't sound like he would exercise that same nuance on Facebook.

"Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm for TikTok because you need competition," Trump told Bloomberg. "If you don't have TikTok, you have Facebook and Instagram, and that's, you know, that's Zuckerberg."

Representatives for Trump and Meta didn't immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

No love lost

The GOP presidential nominee has long been critical of the Meta chief.

Last week, Trump threatened to put Zuckerberg in jail after accusing him of committing election fraud.

"All I can say is that if I'm elected President, we will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time," Trump said in Truth Social post on July 9.

"We already know who you are. DON'T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!" he added.

The feud between the two seems to stem from Meta's decision to bar Trump from the platform following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The ban was lifted in early 2023.

"All of a sudden, I went from No. 1 to having nobody," Trump said in his interview with Bloomberg, adding that he now relies on his own platform, Truth Social.

Zuckerberg's tense relationship with Trump contrasts starkly with that of his Big Tech counterparts, some of whom have gone all in on Trump.

Zuckerberg's tense relationship with Trump contrasts starkly with his peers, some of whom — including Elon Musk, fellow PayPal mafia member David Sacks, and venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz —have gone all in on Trump.

Musk, in fact, gave his endorsement just minutes after the failed assassination attempt on Trump on Saturday.

"I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery," Musk wrote in an X post.

For what it's worth, Zuckerberg also commented on the shooting, saying that he was "praying for a quick recovery for President Trump."

"This is such a sad day for our country. Political violence undermines democracy and must always be condemned," Zuckerberg wrote in a Threads post.

On Friday, Meta announced that it was removing the remaining restrictions and penalties it had imposed on Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Meta said the decision took into account Trump's formal nomination as the GOP's presidential candidate, which took place on Monday.

"In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for President on the same basis," Meta's president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, said in a blog post.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/U5B3Tpf

I'm 57 and reentering the workforce. I refuse to do work I find boring.

The author is reentering the workforce after a 20 year hiatus while she was raising her daughters.

Westend61/Getty Images

• After 20 years at home with my kids, I decided to reenter the work force. 
• The last job I had had been 21 years ago and paid $53,000.
• I realized that I can only do jobs that I'm passionate about now that I'm 57. 

Recently, I decided to reenter the traditional workforce after 20 years at home with my daughters — after having been a teen mom earlier in my life. This brief detour steered me in a u-turn-like fashion away from my true passion.

Earlier this year, an opportunity popped up out of the blue. It was part-time, in my administrative wheelhouse, and it would pay $20 per hour. When I called my adult son to share the news, he said, "That's great, as long as it doesn't interfere with your writing."

For context, I left my last job as an executive assistant 21 years ago, where I made $53,000 annually. This included a generous benefits package and a beautiful office where lunch was brought in daily. It was one of the best jobs I've ever had, and I've had a lot of jobs.

I started working when I was 13

My enterprising, people-pleasing spirit emerged in early childhood. By the time I was 13, I had parlayed cleaning skills learned from doing chores at home into extra jobs as a mother's helper. The neighborhood moms raved about me, and I craved their affirmation.

Now I see clearly that, by taking this new job which was unlike anything I've ever done, I was satisfying an unhealthy part of myself that still feels the need to prove something and quiet still-whispering voices from the past.

So, in one of the happiest phases of my life, which includes an empty nest, a happy 23-year marriage, three kids, and two out-of-state grandbabies, I'm thankful to be able to visit often, I went ahead and sabotaged myself.

I quickly realized the job wasn't what I thought it would be. I also realized that at 57, I'm no longer willing to do work I'm not genuinely interested in.

My passion is writing, and I've finally reached a point where I'm fortunate to be able to pursue it. In the past two years, I've taken classes and realized my dream of building a byline.

I've had tons of jobs

As a young divorced mom, I had two jobs. I did early morning surveillance for a PI firm investigating Workers' Compensation cases and then waitressed the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift at the local coffee shop. Those were challenging times, and I was always searching for the next, better job.

My move up from waitressing came when one of my regulars, a very Mad Men-esque general contractor couple, offered me my first secretarial job. I'd hit the big time, making $8.50 an hour in the late 1980s.

In 1998, at 30 years old, I purchased my first home, thanks to one of those jobs of a lifetime that included a 401(k) plan. I was ultimately let go from that one. And in the way that the universe always has its plans, had I not been canned from that job, I wouldn't have met my husband.

When I was young and hungry (without a college degree), an instinct propelled me to tolerate less-than-ideal work environments because my choices were limited. The jobs have been amazing, eye-gouging, and everything in between — for example, I became a licensed nail technician in 1992 and learned that doing nails wasn't as fun or profitable as it looked.

In the early 2000s, a stay-at-home mom with two toddlers, I began looking for ways to reinvent myself. I started my own Mexican food catering company. My pièce de résistance was single-handedly catering a Cinco de Mayo party for a Philadelphia Eagles player. I learned that catering is exhausting.

An early adopter of social media and natural connector, I began tweeting and blogging about Kelly Ripa's Homemade Millionaire. Writing about and promoting fellow "Mompreneurs" led to work with a PR firm, which led to writing my first children's book, a first-of-its-kind social media guide, in 2014. I was 47. The book led to school assemblies and dozens of television appearances over several years. I also completed the manuscript for a young adult novel.

Now, I know I can only do things I am passionate about. So, on a Friday afternoon, I told my boss I wouldn't be continuing. When I called my son to tell him the job didn't work out he said, "From now on, passion projects only."

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/UWfvF7q