America in general doesn’t regulate the title “engineer” like some countries do. “Professional engineer” is a legal title, but really the only people who get it are civil and structural engineers who need to sign off on blueprints and take legal responsibility for the design. That and engineers at consulting firms who want fancier sounding titles that make a jury trust them more.
brings back a good degree of manufacturing
The idea that manufacturing ever “left” is propaganda. Union factory jobs have gone down, but the US is producing more than ever. They just want to dangle the carrot of good jobs over people who don’t realize those jobs have been automated.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2583/industrial-production-historical-chart
Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name
Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It’s just weird that if that’s the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.
This article mentions that they are trying to disenfranchise people with the citizenship proof requirements, and it also mentions that they specifically want to disenfranchise women, but it doesn’t draw a connection between the two. In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).
To actually answer your question, though, at least from the conservative women I’ve talked to, they are fine with that. The conservative women I know are weak, and they essentially want to give up responsibility in exchange for freedoms. They actually want women to be second class citizens because it means that they don’t have to worry about anything (but they do have to just do what they are told).
There are old, conservative women who spent their lives as housewives who feel threatened by working women, so they want to maintain/go back to the status quo of women staying in the home (ignoring the fact that working class women have always worked). On the other hand, there are young, conservative women who do work, who yearn for the pretend vision of white, upper-middle class 1950s, where they get to just stay home and do what they want all day.
TL; DR: They essentially want to be like children, worry-free in exchange for less freedom.
P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
The need for citizen militias was specifically to support regular forces but also oppose them if necessary. The idea was that citizens should always be more powerful than the government. Some people think that modern weaponry means that people could never overpower the military, but we see it all the time.
In all honesty, the plan is likely not mass deportation, it’s increased fear combined with pandering to racist fans. Mass deportation would hurt the bottom line of too many important people. Undocumented immigrants don’t “do the work legal citizens aren’t willing to do” or “work harder than legal citizens”. Those are both racist liberal talking points. The reason they appear to work harder and do jobs that others don’t want to do is that the whole ecosystem of fear is designed to keep immigrants working jobs below minimum wage and/or in appalling working conditions.
If they really wanted to reduce illegal immigration, they could pass laws giving protection to any immigrants who report illegal working conditions. There would still end up being immigrants working in the “informal economy”, but at least big employers would have some risk.
Elbows have always been allowed on the table. The rule for fancy dining was that you couldn’t have elbows on the table during a course, i.e., when people are actively eating, but before/after, it’s fine. That’s a reasonable rule to be considerate of space.
For better or worse, I think the importance of the resume has gone down a little bit over the past few years. There are so many people blasting resumes to 1000 places with LLM generated cover letters that the only resumes that make it to the people with hiring power are through referrals.
To actually answer your question, though, I think a link to a personal website (or LinkedIn if you use it) is nice to give more space to elaborate on work you’ve done, especially of there are things that are better explained by photos.
For many positions, especially if you have a “foreign sounding” name, it’s good to specify if you are a citizen/permanent resident/etc. Companies may or may not be able to sponsor visas, and many positions, depending on the type of work, can only be done by citizens or permanent residents.
It is good to brag about yourself, but definitely avoid making your resume too wordy or long. Even people with really impressive careers will have a 1 page resume because people reviewing them need to be able to see the highlights immediately.
If you have a list of skills, it might make sense to try and be really explicit about how skilled you are with each thing. It’s going to be dependent on the job, but for example, if you were listing JMP and R on there, but you spent years on R and only did a class project once with JMP, the company might want to know that. You could put “R (expert)” and “JMP (familiar)” or something like that.
Obviously, you need a job to eat and pay rent, but if someone hires you specifically to do something you are only slightly competent at, it’s really a lose-lose.