Millennials Are Obsessed With Side Hustles Because 'They're All' They've Got (qz.com)

Quartz ran an article over the weekend which captures a growing trend among millennials: to have a side job -- or as many of them call it, the "side-hustle." One of the reasons that people need this other gig is obviously money, but there are other factors at play as well. From the article: The side hustle offers something worth much more than money: A hedge against feeling stuck and dull and cheated by life. This psychological benefit is the real reason for the Millennial obsession, I'd argue, and why you might want to consider finding your own side hustle, no matter how old you are. Now one might say that this "side-hustle" is not a new phenomenon at all. People have since forever have had multiple jobs to make the ends meet. But the author argues that in the post 2008-crisis, we have witnessed a whole generation where one gig would simply not cut it all for many. The article adds: Previous generations have also coped with such semi-tragedy; probably every human ever has been a sort of actor-waiter at some point. In any case, those of us who are employed generally understand ourselves to be lucky. Working as a benefits administrator, an ad-sales rep or even a Facebook engineer might not be the dream job. But your side hustle can keep you from feeling pigeonholed. It's the distraction from your disappointment, a bridge between crass realities and your compelling inner life. In the best-case scenario, your side hustle can be like a lottery ticket, offering the possibility -- however remote -- that you just might hit the jackpot and discover that holy grail of gigs. The one that perfectly blends money and love. The one that's coming along any day now.

Comments

Free time

[StikyPad]

Sorry, my free time is worth more to me than a second job.

Re:Free time

[magarity]

Everybody needs a hobby, is what this article boils down to. For the people in question, part time job is hobby.

Re:Free time

[sinij]

Sorry, my free time is worth more to me than a second job.

When you are unable to afford food, housing, and defaulting on your student loans you quite likely will reconsider this stance.

Re:Free time

[Anonymous Coward]

When that second job pushes you above the government income maximums for SNAP, housing or ACA assistance, or deferring student loan payments, you might not.

Re:Free time

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Your sig may be out of date....

It reads, "When will Slashdot support HTTPS?", and I'm seeing 'https' in the URL as I write this. Perhaps your dream has come true! :)

Re:Free time

[jellomizer]

Sounds like one of those entitled Baby Boomers.

When you are young, you have the energy to do these jobs, keeping busy is exciting when you get older doing too much weighs you down, as your life begins to expand beyond just work.

Re:Free time

[apoc.famine]

It's not that my free time is worth more to me, it's that I NEED that free time to ensure that I stay very good at and thus keep my first job. I get 5 hours of R&R every evening, double that on the weekend, and about 8 hrs of sleep daily. If I didn't have both the R&R and sleep, I'd suck a lot more at my job. It's not a dream job, but it's a good paying, stable job, that doesn't suck too much.
 
Good on everyone who shoots for more, but don't come bitching when it bites you in the ass.

Re:Free time

[grub]

/. hired a Millennial through TaskRabbit to set that up.

Re:Free time

[ShanghaiBill]

Sounds like one of those entitled Baby Boomers.

As a BBer, I have had a "second job" for most of my life. I have stacked hay, renovated houses, and done lots and lots of contract programming. TFA offers no actual evidence that 2nd jobs are more common today. It is all just conjecture and opinion.

Re:Free time

[PRMan]

defaulting on your student loans

Winner, winner chicken dinner. This right here.

Re:Free time

[PRMan]

I'm sure the second job usually involves cash under the table, to avoid exactly these issues.

Re:Free time

[Captain Scurvy]

Everybody needs a hobby, is what this article boils down to. For the people in question, part time job is hobby.

I would agree with this, but phrase it as: "Millennials try to turn their hobbies into part-time jobs." I think part of this trend has to do with the desire to eventually turn a "side-gig" into a job that can offer full financial support, and the Internet has made it possible for a lot of people to at least make a fair shot at doing that.

Re:Free time

[Oligonicella]

I'm sure it doesn't. Now what?

Re:Free time

[AthanasiusKircher]

Everybody needs a hobby, is what this article boils down to. For the people in question, part time job is hobby.

Actually, it's about more than "hobbies." Basically, TFA is about conflating a bunch of things that used to have different terms and corralling them under a new fancy appellation, i.e., "side hustle," which sounds like a really stupid dance people do at weddings.

A few things that are conflated here and had perfectly good terms before:

(1) "Hobbies" -- these are things that basically make you no money. Nominally, they might bring in a little income, but it's so small you don't really pay attention to it at all. You're more interested in the activity than the income. You might only sell some of your work to try to make the expenses "balance out" a little, not really to make a profit.

(2) "Dream jobs" -- these are things that people would like to do with their lives, but they can't "make a living" at it. So they have what used to be called a "day job," and then they work as a musician some evenings or on the weekends. It's more than a "hobby," because they actually would prefer a job as a musician, but the income isn't enough to make it work.

(3) "Second jobs" -- these are what poor people do to survive (i.e., put food on the table and make rent), and what middle-class people do to afford some desirable luxury or send their kids to a nicer private school. (The latter sometimes use the word "side job" too, avoiding the "electric slide" and the "side hustle.") Often they are menial part-time gigs, but they are distinct from the above categories because people generally would prefer NOT to do them.

The author of TFA seems to confuse all of these categories, which used to be straightforward in previous generations. Moreover, he adds his extra "first world problems" twist to his examples:

Maybe that's because many people assume the side hustle is just financially oriented, simply another adaptive response to recession-era economics. Google "side hustle" and you will find thousands of stories, but they are all focused on the how. As in, Dear internet, how can I make another $200 a month to cover my Verizon bill?

If you are struggling financially because of your Verizon bill, maybe your financial priorities are a little screwed up.

Last year, writing for the internet earned me a grand total of $415 before taxes, or about the price of two hotel nights on the outskirts of Manhattan or San Francisco. To say I'm not in it for the money would be understatement. Not because I'm above such earthly considerations. There's just very little money in it to be for.

The side hustle offers something worth much more than money: A hedge against feeling stuck and dull and cheated by life. In fact, given all the hours I've devoted to it, there's no question in my mind that I've lost more than I've made, if only in terms of my Starbucks spend.

If your metric for your side job is that you're spending more money than you're making at Starbucks, you don't have a "side job" or even a "side hustle." You have a hobby. And you have enough disposable income to not give a crap that you're spending that much money on coffee. Good job! Now stop meditating on your first-world problems and trying to conflate them with things real people do to survive or to get things that will really make their lives better.

If your writing hobby gives your life meaning, by all means, keep doing it. But please stop acting like most other people who have to work a second job on the side might also just throw away all their proceeds at Starbucks. Or... well, is that really what a "millennial" budget looks like these days? $200/month Verizon bill, $100/month coffee bill... but can't make rent or afford a car so you still live with your parents?

I really don't want to give into Millennial stereotypes (which I think are often inaccurate), but TFA is just BEGGING for it.

Re:Free time

[Frosty Piss]

When you are unable to afford food, housing, and defaulting on your student loans you quite likely will reconsider this stance.

Let me guess, majored in Medevil History?

Re:Free time

[AthanasiusKircher]

Let me guess, majored in Medevil History?

Umm, "Med-evil History"? Is that where you learn about blood-letting, curses and their effects on the body, and misuses for leeches?

Re:Free time

[bferrell]

For at least the last 10 years, that student yoke (sorry... loan) was a bad financial deal. That and every other lottery ticket we're being sold today is going largely unexamined critically.

The "kids" have become lemmings. Not their fault really. It's what they were trained to be.

Re:Free time

[AmiMoJo]

Fuck you.

For decades they have been telling kids to work hard and achieve all they can. To get a good job you need a degree, they said. And she enough, all the good jobs list a degree as a requirement.

Degrees used to be free of course, or at least quite cheap. And there were good jobs that paid the debt off.

Millennials made the decision to get an education based on the advice they had at the time. They were 18, younger even. And it worked out well for their parents.

But oh, sorry, we broke the economy and well, someone's gotta pay... And it won't be us, we've got ours.

Re:Free time

[Anonymous Coward]

My hobby is working on electronic musical things. Some people know about this and will bring me busted guitar amps and ask if I can fix them. I make money every time I do it for anyone that isn't me, which means it pays for itself plus a bit of extra for some tasty adult beverages.

I never thought of it as a side hustle, or even a second income. It's something I do that is fun, but will be much less fun if I have to rely on it for living or if people think they can bring me their busted junk and I'll fix it for free.

Re:Free time

[AthanasiusKircher]

I think part of this trend has to do with the desire to eventually turn a "side-gig" into a job that can offer full financial support, and the Internet has made it possible for a lot of people to at least make a fair shot at doing that.

I really don't think "the Internet" has a lot to do with this, nor do I think it's a "trend." Everybody acts like entrepreneurship was invented in the past couple decades. But how do you think people "got ahead" in previous centuries? How do you think we had a "rise of the middle class" that moved us out of the dark ages of feudalism, then led the charge for the Industrial Revolution, etc.?

A lot of those people were folks with ideas about what they'd prefer to do, and they kept working at a day job to make money to fund what might start as a "hobby" but then lead to a new business or a new invention or whatever. By the 20th century, big business had grown to the point that more people were employed in large corporations, so this idea of "hobbies" or "side jobs" leading to lead to bettering your life shifted instead to "night school" and credentialing/formal study on the side to convince an employer that you're qualified for something better.

The only thing the internet has done is "disrupt" some large corporations and their control in certain sectors, which perhaps makes it a little more likely for an individual to take the "hobby" route instead of the "night school" route again. But let's not kid ourselves -- the number of such people who eventually convert some online hobby to dayjob may be larger than similar entrepreneurs of the past couple generations, but as a percentage of people who dream of doing so... it's vanishingly small.

Re:Free time

[Etcetera]

Fuck you.

For decades they have been telling kids to work hard and achieve all they can. To get a good job you need a degree, they said. And she enough, all the good jobs list a degree as a requirement.

Degrees used to be free of course, or at least quite cheap. And there were good jobs that paid the debt off.

Millennials made the decision to get an education based on the advice they had at the time. They were 18, younger even. And it worked out well for their parents.

But oh, sorry, we broke the economy and well, someone's gotta pay... And it won't be us, we've got ours.

I pity the H/S graduating classes of 2007 and 2008, who didn't really know any better but weren't in a position to change course. Anyone afterwards knew damn well that they had to think carefully about their major, about getting a job, and about vocational schooling as an option.

Anyone before then should have remembered the echo from the dot-com implosion and recession, and/or was old enough to know that their degree in Religious Studies and Art History was not going to pay the bills. I remember telling people that, but they continued anyway. That was a *conscious* choice for them that they had plenty of time to reconsider their huge incoming student loan debt -- and with a decent job market, they had options.

Re:Free time

[phantomfive]

I really don't want to give into Millennial stereotypes (which I think are often inaccurate), but TFA is just BEGGING for it.

Don't. Create a new category like "self-entitled" or "dumb as a brick" (which fits most people with a $200 a month phone bill). These are traits that cut across generations.

Re:Free time

[lgw]

While there was certainly some lying to kids going on here, it was no secret that you won't get a job with a Grievance Studies degree. People who chose a worthless degree to pursue did indeed bring their problems on themselves.

For the rest, it will keep getting worse until the Tuition Bubble pops. With a STEM degree there will be a job eventually, but college debt has gotten out of hand.

Re:Free time

[Frosty Piss]

Let me guess, majored in Medevil History?

No, it's where you learn to be a spelling Nazi and a pedant.

Re:Free time

[zlives]

then you are doing it wrong.

Re:Free time

[Jfetjunky]

I did/do the second one you mention. And it was to do something I'm super passionate about, but I cannot justify leaving a successful career to do. So I was lucky enough to find someone to take me in and work at it part time. I got paid essentially minimum wage to build race cars, which my second boss made a nice chunk of money from from, and I was happier than the proverbial pig in mud. This became hard to manage, as being married and beginning to push well into 13/14 hour days multiple times a week and one day during the weekend just to pursue a passion wasn't her favorite thing in the world.

Re:Free time

[wisnoskij]

Well if it is a side-Hustle you can do over the phone or Internet, many people just do them during work hours.

Re:Free time

[AmiMoJo]

Perhaps they should have known, but what is the alternative? Without a degree it's very hard to get into many jobs, if not impossible. You either take that gamble and hope it pays off, or just give up and accept low pay.

Yeah, if you are lucky there are some well paid jobs that don't need education, but they are few and far between and things like houses are much more expensive now anyway. As it is you had better hope you find someone else with a good job because you need two incomes to raise a family.

Seriously, what vocation provides a good income these days?

Re:Free time

[Mr D from 63]

Previous generations called it moonlighting. Recent generations have accepted the myth that you can change things just by calling them by a different name.

Re:Free time

[wyHunter]

Actually this isn't all that new. I graduated high school in the early 1980s. I saw kids going to college and getting 10000-15000 (USD) in debut for a 4 year degree. 10K in 1986 dollars is supposedly 21600 today - though I suspect it's more. I said "Gee I think I'll do cheap community college for 2 years then transfer to a state school." Unfortunately circumstances changed and I ended up working and going to school at night for 8 years - but I finished a bachelors and masters degree with little debt. I do admit that college is a lot more expensive now. But at the time I wanted to be something other than a STEM guy but then I said 'What degrees have good jobs associated with them?" and studied comp sci. The biggest issue is that young people are lied to quite shamelessly by their parents, their school counselors, and the schools themselves. I didn't trust any of those people and my own decisions.

Re:Free time

[sdguero]

I'm an old millenial (we used to be called gen Y), but technically still a millenial.

The biggest flaw I see in my cohorts is that they try to take on the entire world's problems and blame their personal issues on the rest of the world. The internet makes us so connected that people instantly try to relate themselves into movements and jump to conclusions about a complex problems that really have no bearing on them whatsoever. I think Han Solo said it best... Delusions of grandeur. And when it comes to reflection on where they are today, where they want to be in the future, and the inevitable disappointment; the blame game starts, It might be with their parents, or the school/teachers. or the banks, or the government, etc. There is always some institution to blame for their shitty low income life. It's never their own fault.

Student loan debt is a problem. Maybe you should have chosen a different degree or a less expensive university, as the number of jobs for people with liberal arts degrees doesn't match up the the number of people graduating each year. Similarly, banks charge high fees. But you can always put your money in a credit union.

These are the kind of things I deal with too, but I have found that I deal a lot better with them (i.e. they get resolved sooner) once I take the onus upon myself, instead of blaming everyone from my grandparents to Obama for my lot in life. There was a graduation speech a couple years back where the speaker talked about one subject... "You are not special." I think more people aged 18-34 should listen to that speech and take the lesson to heart before trying to blame their problems on institutions.

Re:Free time

[Dunbal]

Posting pictures of yourself constantly is a silly hobby. If millenials devoted as much time to their career as they do to narcissism and/or their cell phones, they'd be the most successful generation ever.

Re:Free time

[110010001000]

Degrees used to be free or cheap? When?

Re:Free time

[HiThere]

Don't bet too much on that STEM degree. An H1B will work for less, and so will someone in a place with a lower cost of living.

Re:Free time

[110010001000]

This is the Internet, where any person can publish complete bullshit. No evidence needed.

Re:Free time

[HiThere]

The "cheap community college" has also gone away...or at least become a lot less cheap. When I went to college the community college cost $2/semester, currently the same college costs $31/unit. That means a 12 unit load costs $62. but now the cost is per quarter rather than per semester. So that means it what was $4 is now $186. That's a bit of a steep increase, though it's not as bad as the university increase.

Re: Free time

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia and it was free. Contrary to popular belief the founders were not in fact opposed to the notion of there being benefits for living in a society.

The California public university system was free until Ronald Reagan got elected governor and ended that. His rationale: college students were opposed to his policies. Reaganomics brought exactly that much thought on a national scale and over 30 years of it has ruined this country.

I went to college in the late 80s/early 90s. Paid for it with savings from working through high school, working summers, and the occasional job during school though I tried not to work when school was in. Graduated with zero debt, and near zero fun too but such is life. Got married in 2000 and my wife had to finish school that she'd interrupted when she was younger. We paid for that in cash too. It was hard but we did it.

College inflation brought on by Republican education cuts and privatizing student loans while letting the loan companies have essentially zero risk (thanks, 'free market' conservatives) have made either of those feats mathematically impossible today.

I literally couldn't do what I did were I to try now. I don't blame the millenials for what was done to them, unlike so many dipshits out there. The conservative fallacy that everything that happens to you is your own fault it's just excuse making for the utter failure of their entire philosophy.

We need something better.

Re:Free time

[cheesybagel]

Actually that would be Carleton Fiorina.

Re:Free time

[omnichad]

No, it's me-devil. It's about learning about the demon inside you.

Re:Free time

[dbIII]

was old enough to know that their degree in Religious Studies and Art History was not going to pay the bills

To a lot of employers a degree was proof that you would be able to get up in the morning, turn up for work and be able to figure out what to do with simple paperwork. The actual content didn't matter a lot for non-technical jobs until there were so many unemployed around that recent graduates had a lot of competition.
Some people who did those degrees you are contemptuous of some years ago see those of us who completed degrees based on science and technology as "the little people" who were "not taught people skills" and are working as management. So while it may seem a stupid idea to do such courses now it was not in the past, may not be in the future and possibly isn't really that much of a stupid idea now. What was stupid in hindsight was what I did - an engineering degree with a tight focus on manufacturing inspired by an approaching obvious manufacturing boom. It was stupid because the boom happened in China while engineers were laid off elsewhere.

Re:Free time

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bet too much on that STEM degree. An H1B will work for less, and so will someone in a place with a lower cost of living.

The only people who worry about H1-Bs are people who have so little skill at their profession that they're indistinguishable from H1-Bs.

Re:Free time

[JosephDoeden]

The internet made it possible for more peopel to dream of doing things. Still though, only the most motivated tend to rise up to challenges like that. The fact of the matter is most people aren't greedy enough to want much more than they consume unless inspired by peer pressure/social pressure. We can lay out all the opportunity in the world, and many may come for it, but the same relative percentage of the population will remain capable of pulling off a self employed side business or side hustle as the author has so sensationalistic ally phrased it. The internet has been here for 20 years as a library in every home. Not much has changed. Video tutorials are nice, but they are only good for the more physical tasks imo and they are more often than not made for the sake of the high monetization value. The point here is that mileniuals have only a marginal advantage because of the internet when it comes to training and raising their general productivity or economic viability. The same old rules apply. You need real like job experience to really get good at anything. The internet is great to learn, to share information, to communicate, but it doesn't replace real practice. Side gigs are hard to scale up and hard to actually get good at for most people. The distraction of a main career, family and social life, with the need to gain expertise for your side gig and then OMG you forget you also have to become a small business expert. Now you're learning two new fields AND doing all your normal life. More often than not people fail with it comes to monetizing their hobbies. I think behavioral benefits are what we are primarily looking at. Learning more trades often does not make us more money, but it helps makes us feel like more complete people and it helps build a more well rounded intellect. The problem is you still get old and die and the years you spent not focusing on a primary expertise is all lost fiscal years that you cannot get back. You can attempt to compensate for them, but they are gone. It makes more sense to focus on expertise while lowering your need for money as much as possible. This gives you the most time to live your life and make the income you need to meet your bills and have some spending money. You can also change gears and focus yet more if you wind up needing more money down the road.

Re: Free time

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Med-evil history, also known as Mengele studies?

Re:Free time

[Darinbob]

Hobbies can make you money. The IRS has a category for this.

Re:Free time

[Solandri]

You're leaving out the core reason all of this works - someone else has to want what you're producing with your hobby for it to have a chance at becoming a new business. Big companies work because they've found something lots of people want, and have made themselves super-efficient at producing that something. To succeed at doing your own thing requires (1) you be good at doing it, and (2) it be something someone else wants (i.e. will pay) you to do. (2) is what allows something to transition from hobby to business. Even if you're the best person in the world at catching Pokemon, if nobody else is willing to pay you to do it, you can't turn it into a career.

Personally, I blame the parents of the millenials (i.e. my generation). We insulated them from failure as they grew up, teaching them that they could be whatever they wanted to be in life, ignoring how good or bad they were at it, and whether or not it was actually a job someone else would be willing to pay them to do. And when they moved out on their own and real life threw failure at them, they didn't know how to handle it because they'd never experienced it before while growing up.

IMHO, my parents generation taught us right - hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Try to achieve our dream career, but to have a "safe" backup plan in case that didn't pan out. Yeah you can try to become a rock star or pro athlete, but you really should make sure you first complete that employable college degree (i.e. not art or English lit unless you're really, really good at it). Y'know, just in case your dreams of music or professional sports superstardom don't pan out like it doesn't for 99.999% of people who try it.

Re:Free time

[stealth_finger]

Sorry, my free time is worth more to me than a second job.

Yeah, In my my free time I try to do things I enjoy and that isn't working another job.

Re:Free time

[AmiMoJo]

Not sure about the US, but in the UK up to about 1997 they just gave you money to live on while you studied and paid all the tuition fees. Then in 97 they changed the money to live on bit into a loan, and then later made you take another load for the fees too. And of course the cost of books has gone up a lot too, as well as rent.

I gather than even in the US, fees used to be a lot lower and books were cheaper, you could get by with used ones etc.

Re: Free time

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that he's self employed that's six figures before additional taxes replacing payroll ones an employer pays, medical insurance, retirement contributions, paid vacations, income during slack periods and sickness periods, or insurance for these, plus marketing costs and unsociable hours. On a like for like basis in places with reasonably strong employment laws then he earns half gross compared to a salaried employee, although it's a different balance in at will states.

Re:Free time

[stealth_finger]

When full grants and bursaries were a thing (in the uk). Then those who benefited most from them took them away. When I did uni it was after that, but it cost ~£1000 a year. That was around '05. This year they are going for £9000+. That's just tuition. I got a loan for the full amount and grant for about the same. I probably got around the same debt in my whole time there as someone going today would pick up by the first year before they've even though about where to live and what to eat.

Re:Free time

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to disagree. I'm a volunteer firefighter (my full time job is a systems engineer), and in my spare time I've been writing mysteries based in my activities as a firefighter (shameless plug: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=soletsky). The internet has given me ways to connect with fans across the world that I couldn't possible have hoped to do through, I have no idea, snail mail? What global essentially free advertising platform did I have available to me prior to the internet?

Re:Free time

[dcw3]

Degrees used to be free of course, or at least quite cheap

Um, no. They were never free. And cheap, less expensive is more accurate...relative to what they are now...ridiculous. I grew up in the 60s...people saved up for college back then. If you went to college without you or your parents saving up in advance, you did it wrong. But yes, college prices today are ridiculous.

Re:Free time

[dcw3]

$2/semester? How old are you? And, where in the hell did you go?

I did a semester at community college in MI back in '76 and 14 credit hours cost around $400.

Re:Free time

[houghi]

Where people in the past had some reasonable security when they had a job, that is now gone. And starting for yourself has never been so cheap. A website and you are in business. And most likely the website is cheaper than business cards.

And if it fails, you also have not lost that much and you can start the next website with whatever you intend to sell or nmake. If they are lucky, they are the next Uber or Facebook or whatever. If not, all they did was vote against solcial values in case they become the 1% that lives the American dream. And all that they lost is some sleep and time with friends and family.

Re: Free time

[Mass Overkiller]

According to the Department of Education, US Government spending on education since 1980 has quadrupled. Also, according to the Cato Institute, Federal spending on a per pupil basis (inflation corrected) is over 190% more now than in 1970. Privatizing student loans was a result of Sallie Mae becoming a private establishment in 1997. "Fees", aka: tuition, for University of California was established in 1960, 8 years before Regan was governor. He did however continue the trend and in 1968 the "fee" was $150; by 1975 when Regan left, it was $630 (tuition information from the History of UC, the Daily Californian blog). So no, college inflation was not brought on by "Republican education cuts". And student loans were made private in 1997 under Bill Clinton, however noted that this process was finalized in 2004 under George Bush. You want to make this a "Republicans-are-evil" thing by the tone of your post, but its not that simple. The free money to colleges and the "need" for a college degree are what drove up the costs. That is neither a Republican nor Democrat thing. Government spending on higher education has increased so much that the colleges were getting free money in the forms of grants and loans, so they kept increasing their tuitions. As more and more people opted to go to college, like you and your wife did, the colleges kept getting paid. So why would they lower the cost? If there was an increasing in demand with a fixed supply, then the only thing that can happen in increased costs. That transcends republican and democrat policy bias.

Re:Free time

[houghi]

People keep talking about the liberal arts people. Does anybody have actual numbers on how many there are and how many do not get a job that pays of their debt (regardless if it is in their field) and if possible, compare it with other studies.

Do all doctors get a job? Do all engineers?

Re:Free time

[kilfarsnar]

I'm worried about when the Bank-IRS nexus is complete and automated audits fuck everyone.

And yet people still talk about a cashless economy like it's a good thing.

Re:Free time

[painandgreed]

I really don't think "the Internet" has a lot to do with this, nor do I think it's a "trend." Everybody acts like entrepreneurship was invented in the past couple decades. But how do you think people "got ahead" in previous centuries? How do you think we had a "rise of the middle class" that moved us out of the dark ages of feudalism, then led the charge for the Industrial Revolution, etc.?

I would not dismiss the internet that easily, nor trends. Social media is certainly a thing, and something that may have existed in some form previously but is now much different and something that many /.ers tend to ignore or make fun of. Many companies have people whose job is to run their social media. It's like a combination of ad copy and public relations. Then there are things like Kickstarter. In the past, a hobbiest or artist might make a few items, perhaps even sell some. With Kickstarter it has become much easier to do so as you can take a small production item without viability in the normal supply chain and actually turn a profit. One friend of mine, who is probably one of the ones being talked about in the article, is making a living by managing Kickstarters for artists and niche products with a one time production run of a few hundred units.

Re:Free time

[david_thornley]

Personally, I blame the parents of the millenials (i.e. my generation). We insulated them from failure as they grew up, teaching them that they could be whatever they wanted to be in life, ignoring how good or bad they were at it, and whether or not it was actually a job someone else would be willing to pay them to do. And when they moved out on their own and real life threw failure at them, they didn't know how to handle it because they'd never experienced it before while growing up.

Get off my lawn, sonny. I was born in 1954, and I got that crap in school, along with "don't blow your own horn". I was once thinking of writing something about "Everything that held me back, I learned in kindergarten". My son, a millennial (had him late), was actually challenged in school, and by his advanced math program. He's in better shape than I was to succeed.

Re:Free time

[HiThere]

Around 1964 in California's Silicon Valley.

Re:Free time

[david_thornley]

I went to college in1970-1974, my son in 2012-2016, same institution, and by my calculations his education was about 4 times as much in constant dollars.

Re:Free time

[dcw3]

Ah, so that was probably during the "free" college days in CA.

Re:Free time

[JesseEnjaian]

And it won't be us, we've got ours.

bleh. that's exactly the attitude I've encountered from the older guys and gals. basically, our economy is Windows 95. a bunch of hyped up promises that constantly crashes. you can't blame the individual programmers for accidentally making one of the worst operating systems ever developed, likewise the older generation probably feels they struggled and earned what's theirs but don't feel individually responsible for this work of art.

Re:Free time

[LunaticTippy]

In thriving areas anyone in the semi-skilled trades such as drywall, painter, handyman, low level plumbing/electrical, etc. can make well above median wage without trying very hard or being very good. I've had so much trouble keeping people in Colorado and bay area California - they all seem to turn into unreliable drunks, raise their rates until I can't handle it, or become so damn busy that I can't count on them to help with projects anymore.

These are impossible to outsource and I would encourage any young person who enjoys building things to pursue something along these lines.

Re:Free time

[nvm_my_comment]

Then you could be a taxi driver in UK....

Re:Free time

[ltsmash]

Is there a word for something that's between a "job" and a "hobby"? It's a phenomenon you'll often see among people who don't need to work, but for whatever reason choose to be employed. Their job's characteristics include:

1) Very flexible work hours
2) Low stress
3) Little or no metrics for determining success
4) Little or no involvement of a supervisor/boss
5) Undemanding
6) Modest pay

The people I see who have these types of "jobs" generally have wealth from some other source (nearing retirement, rich parents, rich spouse, etc). Their financial picture probably wouldn't change significantly if they suddenly quit. So they've got reasons for working that are non-financial. Whatever you'd call their gig, it'd be inaccurate to call it a "hobby", because it's not enjoyable enough, and it generates a non-trivial (albeit modest) amount of income. Yet given its very undemanding and flexible nature, I think it's unfair to call it a full-fledged job. And there's nothing wrong with these types of "jobs", but it's really frustrating when people start comparing them with real jobs that people have to work because they need an income.

Re:Free time

[hyades1]

You had me right up 'til you pulled out that tired old "English lit and Art are useless" bullshit. Forbes, Fortune and a bunch of other sensible business media attest to the value of those degrees for people in the tech field. If I want a programmer, even good ones are a dime a dozen. Somebody who can tell me what's going to sell, and how to make it more attractive to the people I want to sell it to, is worth a hell of a lot more...and that very often takes the kind of expertise taught in the Arts.

"AAC&Uâ(TM)s employer surveys confirm, year after year, that the skills employers value most in the new graduates they hire are not technical, job-specific skills, but written and oral communication, problem solving, and critical thinkingâ"exactly the sort of 'soft skills' humanities majors tend to excel in."

http://fortune.com/2015/11/13/liberal-arts-degrees-critics/

Day job

[XXongo]

They used to call this your "day job." Artists, writers, and musicians all have day jobs, all except the very lucky few that hit it big.

Re:Day job

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no! Millennials invented this. If you think your generation had something similar, then you are wrong.

You might have waited tables while you waited for auditions, but you were never a true lumberjack-barrista.

You might have "dated" using Craigslist while you trained to dance, but you were never a true birdkin-phemynist.

You might have fixed PC's or designed websites during the evenings, but you were never a true unicorn-brogrammer.

Millennials invented this.

Re:Day job

[jellomizer]

The difference is that they having multiple steady jobs. The Day Job was meant to be your Primary Income.

Re:Day job

[JonnyCalcutta]

You're old?

Re:Day job

[Etcetera]

This sums things up perfectly. I keep seeing "news stories" about things that have been going on since mankind first drug itself out of whatever cave it was living in being rebranded as something that these newfangled kids are doing.

I don't get it.

The current generally has virtually no historical awareness for anything pre-2005. This is beyond the "normal" cyclic view of history and re-inventions, many of them have only the barest knowledge of life before YouTube. I grew up well after the '70s, but somehow I had cultural awareness of the Vietnam War and its influence on the then-present-day as I was a teen and into my twenties.

The current generation (I don't like the term "Millennial" since I find it to be too broad ... let's say the "Digital Natives" (vs. Generation Y, which was roughly born 1980-1992)) is living in the eternal present, unable to re-contextualize current events. Gen Y and Gen X are doing this too, but at least we're doing it ironically. We still remember the critical thinking thought processes we were raised on, whereas they never really got that to begin with.

Re:Day job

[Khashishi]

I think you got it mixed up. The "side hustle" refers to the other job.

Re:Day job

[93 Escort Wagon]

The current generally has virtually no historical awareness for anything pre-2005.

Don't use such a broad brush. It's not "the millennials" who are doing this - it's just a tiny subset of millennials who are trying to turn their blogs and/or their unknown websites (e.g. qz.com) into a paying gig.

I'm in my 50s, and while I tend to view "millennials" as rather self absorbed and lacking in perspective... I don't think they're any more so than my generation was, back when we were in our early 20s.

Re:Day job

[pete6677]

The difference is that now they do these things "with an app", as if that always makes it completely novel.

Re:Day job

[TheCastro1689]

I assumed it was about an illegal side job, I was disappointed when "hustle" just meant job.

Servants

[ShieldW0lf]

That's what they are... servants.

Re:Servants

[bluefoxlucid]

Of course they are! Even servants have servants these days!

People keep telling me folks should all just get better jobs instead of being burger flippers. This comes up a *lot* because I talk a lot about alternatives to minimum wage, because minimum wage increases concentrate wealth at the expense of jobs (no, your hamburger won't be $15; your $8 value meal will cost 13 cents more, multiplied by 31 billion sales per year, which takes enough of the *same* *total* *income* to make wage for 281,000 minimum-wage jobs--that's the maximum number of jobs that go away). One of the common answers is just "they should get better jobs instead." The other is some magical handwaving about money falling out of the sky (some people don't realize that the wages come out of the consumer's spending, and think that raising wage means more money magically appears in the paycheck, and so it can be spent and create even more jobs--a concept that would indicate infinite money and infinite jobs at all wage levels).

My more recent response has been pointing out that these people can bother feeding themselves, since those wage workers are your grocery baggers and burger flippers. People expect a register operator, stocked store shelves, bagged groceries, and a hot meal ready for them for two dollars; then they complain that somebody actually did all the work involved, and demand that guy stop mooching and go get a real job. It's ludicrous.

Really, I shouldn't talk about this on Slashdot. Bashing concepts like Basic Income is front-page material, but supporting positions are spam.

Re:Servants

[jellomizer]

Aren't we all?
I mean if we are not Serving someone(s) else, than what is the point of having a job?

Sure some jobs people have more authority and power than others, but they are still responsible to serving others in their own way.

Re:Servants

[flopsquad]

recognize the source of the increased payroll must be reduced dividends, since all other business operating expenses remain either constant or increase slightly

That may have been true in a different era, but increasingly (and specifically in the fast food industry GP was discussing), the source of an increase in wages would be:
Cost savings realized in automation + paying fewer employees more to work with/manage the robots.

Dividends don't have to go down, in fact they'll probably go up. And wages will go up too, but not enough to offset the lost jobs. This evolution might be hastened by minimum wage hikes, but MW is not fundamentally the cause. The cost of the machines keeps going down and down; for many fast food tasks, there will come a point at which it simply doesn't make financial sense to employ a human to do them at any meaningful wage, even if we slashed MW. This point isn't in some far off "Isaac Asimov" future, it's in the "before 2030" future.

Re: Servants

[ShieldW0lf]

I guess my point is, if all you do with your discretionary time is trade it for currency, you're an amoral object, not an actor.

It is the things we do for free that make us moral actors.

These people are literally objects. Like, hammers and screwdrivers.

Re:Servants

[geoskd]

Congrats, you've just raised the bar of employment above the heads of the marginally skilled, and put them on your 'Basic Income',

Thats a Good Thing (tm). No one does those jobs because they want to. They do them because they have to. The sooner those jobs are fully automated, the happier everyone will be. I would argue that it is far far better to have a set of people on welfare than it is to have that same set of people working at crap jobs for the rest of their lives, if for no other reason than because the automation will always do a better job than a disgruntled person.

Automation is by far and gone the best thing to happen to our world, and yet conservatives claim its the coming of the end of days because it takes away jobs. Somebody somewhere managed to convince the entire population of the planet that it is their god given right to toil away their lives at jobs they hate in pursuit of one day making enough money so they can retire and stop doing those jobs they hate so damn much. The whole thing is a relic of a soon to be bygone era. A thousand years from now, the people will look back in horror at what they will consider to be the equivalent of slavery and say its small wonder we wanted to kill each other all the time.

Re:Servants

[HiThere]

Yes... Unfortunately, not increasing the minimum wage only delays the automation by a year or so, as the cost of automation keeps falling.

Defending the status quo in minimum wages is a losing game, because the other side isn't standing still no matter what you do. Even if you cut the minimum wage automation will continue increasing, because there are some jobs that can already be done for considerably less than a person can live on that haven't yet been automated.

Re: Servants

[flopsquad]

It is the things we do for free that make us moral actors.

I post on slashdot for free. I wonder what that makes me?

Re:Servants

[maugle]

I disagree with the notion that automation will take over everything. Especially in the realm of fast food, because it's been tried before. Has anyone had a meal at an automat lately? Not since the 1970s, you say? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re: Servants

[cryptizard]

Some people have jobs that they actually like and feel good about the work they are doing.

Re:Servants

[david_thornley]

In which case a minimum wage increase won't destroy fast food jobs, since fast food workers create enough business value to justify $15/hour.

aka a "side job"

[phorm]

These have been around for awhile. Usually it's a change to
a) Get a little extra cash
b) Do something you enjoy a bit more than your day-job
c) Build skill/experience/clientele

It's not a bad thing to have, especially in your "day job" goes south. I know some people whose side-jobs became a fledgling business and grew from there.

THey're called hobbies

[AuMatar]

And most of us have them. We leave work and work on something we're passionate about, but might not pay enough. Or might not pay at all. Or we volunteer at a charity. Or at our kid's school. This is nothing new, the number of people looking to make money from them is just increasing. Maybe. Its not like doing side jobs was ever that rare.

Also, hustle?

[phorm]

I'll add to my comment that I've *NEVER* heard this called a hustle, and it seems like a terrible term to use because classically "hustle" has been a term for a scam, con, or some other way of shady way of making cash.

Re:Also, hustle?

[rgbscan]

Trust me, driving for Uber is indeed a scam. "Hustle" definitely applies, it's just the driver getting scammed, not doing the scamming :-) But it's better than selling Herbalife...

Re:Also, hustle?

[thinkwaitfast]

More commonly known as moonlighting. There was a tv series in then 1980's with Bruce Willis.

Re:Also, hustle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now jobs have employment contracts with anti-moonlighting clauses. Seems the 1%ers want to hire me for 16 hours/week and demand that I make myself available to them 24/7 on my own dime, then tell me I'm a lazy good for nothing bum for not breaking their contract and getting a second job to make ends meet. Or I break the contract and get a second job, then they call me at my other job and tell me I have 30 minutes to drop everything and present myself to them because of an emergency "rush" or don't bother showing up for my shift.

Re:Also, hustle?

[__aaclcg7560]

Now jobs have employment contracts with anti-moonlighting clauses.

With 20+ years of experience in IT support, I've never seen an employment contract that prohibits me from moonlighting. Especially since all my contracts also prohibits me from working more than 40 hours per week.

Re:Also, hustle?

[aaarrrgggh]

Anti moonlighting clauses are generally unenforceable unless you are salaried and there is a reasonable probability of conflict of interest.

Side jobs come in waves. I had engineering co-workers that were waiters and bartenders in the early 90's recession, but it became uncommon until ~2008 and the downturn.

Generally everyone should have a side job of some scope-- it is how you become a "1%er", but more importantly it is how you diversify mentally and financially. It doesn't have to be much; I have some friends who spend an hour or two a month on things and it works well for them.

Re:Also, hustle?

[__aaclcg7560]

I'll add to my comment that I've *NEVER* heard this called a hustle, and it seems like a terrible term to use because classically "hustle" has been a term for a scam, con, or some other way of shady way of making cash.

Also known as multi-level marketing. I used to have a roommate who was really big into being an entrepreneur that he was a member of four or five MLM programs. Coming up with the rent every month was a major hustle for him. He barely got by as it was it. He blew off anyone who suggested that he get a regular job and focus on one MLM program. I don't know what happened to him after the dot com bust. It wouldn't surprise me if he was working on another hustle or two.

Re:Also, hustle?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Generally everyone should have a side job of some scope-- it is how you become a "1%er", but more importantly it is how you diversify mentally and financially.

I guess I am in that position. I will help my brother-in-law out with his business as apparently finding someone who can solider 2 pipes together and have them not leak who is also dependable is almost impossible. So once a month I work a weekend for him so he as the owner and only real worker (like I said I work for him 1 weekend a month) can have a weekend off. I'm on call 24x7 and he pays me $5 bucks and hour to have the phone on and then I get $30/hr min 1hr to go fix something.

Re:Also, hustle?

[cdrudge]

If you worked for a agency (development, advertising, marketing, etc), any non-compete clause could essentially be anti-moonlighting clause.

I use to work for a development company that would take on pretty much any type of work. The non-compete they wanted me to sign said I couldn't work for any company that could be a competitor of the business. That meant other development agencies, but also even companies that possibly would want my employer's service some day. I declined signing that agreement.

Re:Also, hustle?

[Oligonicella]

Did you check your state laws? A contract can contain pretty much anything. Doesn't mean it's enforceable.

Re:Also, hustle?

[__aaclcg7560]

If you worked for a agency (development, advertising, marketing, etc), any non-compete clause could essentially be anti-moonlighting clause.

I've worked for a East Coast firm with an employment contract so restrictive that I laughed out aloud, signed the contract, and returned it to HR. When I pushed back against a micro-managing manager who got on my nerve, he threatened me with the contract. I told him to review the contract with a CA labor attorney. The manager backed off in a hurry and I finished the contract without further incident. That contract was unenforceable in CA.

Re:Also, hustle?

[cdrudge]

I didn't sign it. I was a lowly developer and have a right to earn a living, so the non-compete was very likely not enforceable and I wasn't going to sign it. I pointed that out and my boss/owner of the company and he flew off the handle. He said it hurt a lot that I didn't trust the company and that they would never use it to prevent me from working. I said it hurt just as much that they wouldn't trust me to go "work for the competition" and if they did indeed trust me, there was no for the non-compete in the first place.

After that, the whole thing was dropped. It turned out they just used a non-compete form letter they found on some small business website that claimed that all small businesses must have one or else doom! They never even talked to a lawyer and once they did, basically learned what I told them already.

Re:Also, hustle?

[mrbester]

My contract had a clause stating that any development innovation I made on my own time was to have its ownership, copyright and all other benefits given over to the company. I refused to sign unless that was taken out and warned them about the breach of employment law they were committing if they had it in someone else's contract. Not that it was enforceable anyway.

Re:Also, hustle?

[GameboyRMH]

My job has an explicit anti-moonlighting clause, IIRC it was added to my job contract within the last 4 or so years and after I'd been moonlighting. I've been violating it just over the last couple of weeks. Of course they have to catch me first ;-)

Re:Also, hustle?

[Blaskowicz]

Worse, I thought a hustler is a male prostitute (or just a prostitute)

Re:Also, hustle?

[phorm]

Hustler is a men's mag, but a male prostitute would be a "gigolo"

It used to be called

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

"moonlighting"

Re:It used to be called

[Howitzer86]

Heh. You just reminded me that some employers take a dim view of that, especially if you use company resources and contacts. I know, I had to ask permission in some instances, because of how closely related the freelancing get with the day job. Perhaps moonlighting sounds dirty because it's supposed to.

Re:It used to be called

[Oligonicella]

especially if you use company resources

Quelle surprise - That's because that's called theft.

Re:It used to be called

[Howitzer86]

I don't freelance on company hours, and I have permission to use software licenses and the company provided computer (these are the resources I refer to). There was a couple of times where I needed to ask permission to work with someone because they were also customers/associates of the company.

The first time, it simply became an actual work project that I did during work hours. I had done some freelance work with them before getting this job so I was a little bummed out that I wouldn't get a check, but I understood and did my job. The second time it was considered okay to help them as an freelancer, because they weren't really a customer so much as they were a friendly company (not a competitor). I am absolutely forbidden from working with competitors, I don't even bother looking for work in that capacity.

So yeah, this is where I defend myself: I do my due diligence and ask permission to avoid conflicts. Even when I don't ask, I inform, just in case it's a bad idea. I am not a thief, and I don't divulge company secrets nor data. I am a good employee.

Music

[Sir_Eptishous]

I've been playing in bands longer than I've been working in tech.
I do it for the love of music, but the extra cash doesn't hurt either.

Re:Music

[wkwilley2]

Same here man, although it gets harder and harder just to break even where I am, but that's the nature of the beast I'm afraid.

If you can still do it and turn a profit, more power to ya.

Re:Music

[Sir_Eptishous]

It probably depends a lot on where you are geographically.
Some markets pay much more for live music than others I imagine.

Re:Music

[angel'o'sphere]

I think the term "making money" refers to the amount of money in relation to the hours put into "making music" versus you would make if you worked at McDonalds.

If you practice twice a week and on top of that once with the band per week, lets say 2 hours ever time, that is 6 hours practicing per week. Assuming normal vacations and other causes, you do that only 45 weeks per year we come to 270 hours per year practicing. Now lets assume you play in a small band, just 3 people (Bass, Drums and Piano) and have a gig every month, lasting lets say 3 hours? And you let a hat go around, you make $150 per evening, divided by 3 that is $50 per gig or $600 per person per year.

Total hours worked is 270h practicing and 36h gigging, so you "make money" of $2 per hour.

That is by no definition "making money", it is a "waste of time". No lets factor in your gasoline and guitar strings and we are very quickly in the negative.

Actually, that was a no brainer, sorry that it took so much writing to point it out to you.

Re:Music

[Anonymous Coward]

I bring $4200 worth of digital lights, stands and wiring to each performance. I bring another $3k worth of instruments, amp, IEMs, wireless transmitter and associated gear. I don't bring the PA, and usually earn about $100 a night.

Over the last two years, I've totaled a -$5k, paying out five thousand dollars more than I've made, and I gig out about twice a month.

So yeah, pretty easy to come up negative.

Of course if you just play a cheap beater and rely on the rest of the band (me) to bring everything else, you can make a few bucks.

Re:Music

[davec727]

A musician is someone who loads $5000 worth of gear into a $500 car to drive 100 miles to play a $50 gig. There's just not a lot of money in live entertainment unless you're one of the .1% that make it big.

Re: Music

[Sir_Eptishous]

Every place we play the band gets a tab on the house, usually 2-3 beers a piece.

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

If you're playing locally and they give you at least $5, that's still enough to turn a profit. That's enough for 2.5 gallons of gasoline, which should be enough to drive you 50 miles at a bare minimum. My whole point is that there are nearly zero expenses if you're a musician; your vehicle is the only cost. So unless you're traveling far to perform, it really shouldn't cost you anything except your time.

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

If you're playing gigs as a side job, then presumably you have some kind of real job. McDonald's is not going to hire you to work 3 hours every weekend, so that's an invalid comparison.

As for practice, that's free: if you're counting your practice hours, you're doing it wrong. Music is a hobby that you're making some side money on by playing local gigs, it's not an actual profession for you if you're in this position.

It's only a "waste of time" if you don't truly love playing music. People who do that do it because they really like playing music, and they play gigs to make extra cash because they can. If the gigs dried up, they're not going to sell their instruments and go play video games instead, they do it because they love it.

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

Yes, I get all that, but does no one here understand how profit is calculated? When your expenses are zero, any money you make at all is profit. (Though for a gig 100 miles away, the gas for that is going to cost a few dollars.) This isn't a profession, it's a hobby job, so the costs of the gear aren't accounted for, and the musician needs the car anyway to go to his day job so that doesn't count either (though the mileage does).

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

Would you still own those instruments, amps, etc., if you decided to quit the gigging, or would you sell it all on Craigslist?

I have a guitar and amp too. I don't play in a band, and obviously don't play gigs either. I don't count the value of my guitar, amp, etc. towards anything because it's not a business, it's just something I do for fun in the evenings, just like a game console for other people is something they buy to have fun and isn't counted towards any business profit calculations. I would hope that any real musician didn't buy himself a guitar just to make money.

If you did spend a ton of money on performance equipment that you otherwise would never have bought, then there's two possibilities: 1) you're really dumb for taking on a side hobby-job that's actually negative-profit to that magnitude, or 2) you love playing live so much that you're willing to sink some extra money into the equipment needed to do it well. (I guess there's also 3) you think there's a chance you could hit it big, in which case it's really a risky investment.) #1 is pretty stupid, but I would never fault someone for #2 (or #3 as long as they really enjoy what they're doing and won't be sore if they don't hit it big).

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

Fuck you too. I have played music, but never for money or for a crowd. If you're playing gigs to make a big profit, you're an idiot. If you're doing it because it's fun, that's fine; I've known guys who did just this and I can see why they'd like it. But they didn't bitch and complain about how they weren't getting paid enough; they knew it was just a hobby-job, and they did it because they loved to play music, not because they were trying to strike it rich.

Re:Music

[tepples]

Another expense is performance royalties for the songs you play.

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

That sounds like a band that's actually trying to "make it big".

The guys I knew who played gigs were in a jazz band and played at local restaurants. They didn't have CDs, a website, T-shirts, or anything like that. Nor did they have "rehearsal space" (they just went to someone's house), or need a sound guy. They just played on weekend nights here and there for a little cash and because it was fun. They had day jobs as engineers; they weren't hurting for money, nor were they looking to go pro. You're talking about something entirely different.

Re:Music

[Grishnakh]

Someone actually keeps track of that? And will rat you out for it?

Re:Music

[wkwilley2]

That's the problem my band faces. The music scene on the Eastern Shore of MD is all but extinct. Save for the cover bands and acoustic acts.

Re:Music

[tepples]

You appear not to have run into ASCAP's enforcers. Yet.

Re:Music

[LunaticTippy]

My musician friends spend a lot on practice space, either in their home or a shared rental. A basement around here costs at least $1500/mo which would be super hard to make up in gigs. Depending on specifics you can spend thousands on instruments/equipment and it requires maintenance or gets stolen.

Many people don't think of their practice space as costing money, but it does. I converted a basement jam space into an apartment, get $2k/mo for it and sent the people using it to a shared space that is only $500/month. They rarely clear that btw.

Nice

[jwymanm]

Oblig https://www.youtube.com/watch?... If you aren't filling your day with work work work you aren't living! You and your wife should have at least 3 jobs between the two of you. Come on, day care is expensive how else will you afford the Samsung S15 and iPhone 10 Plus+ for your 5 year olds?? Think of the children..

I'm not buying it

[rsilvergun]

These aren't hobbies. These are folks working second and third jobs because their day job doesn't pay enough for rent + food + car. I don't see a lot of actor-waiters, I see a lot of folks doing Uber on the weekend to make rent.

Re:I'm not buying it

[PRMan]

rent + food + car + STUDENT LOANS

Re: I'm not buying it

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on where they live and what their responsibilities are. Public transit many places just doesn't cut it. Even where it does to get from point a to b, start throwing in points C D and E - groceries, pickup / drop off kids from wherever, one more stop somewhere, and it falls a bit flat even where it works for getting to one's job.

Re:"Millennials"

[thinkwaitfast]

I've been doing this since high school. Many friends also, sometimes replacing their day job. Nothing new.

It's also instability

[damn_registrars]

Few people - including those of us too old to be millenials - have truly stable employment any more. Long ago we signed away our rights to contest being fired or laid off. If one job pulls in enough money to keep you afloat, you need the second in order to put money away for when the first one is no longer there.

Re:It's also instability

[PeeAitchPee]

Long ago we signed away our rights to contest being fired or laid off.

You can thank people like the Millennial I fired for sleeping on the job. Or the other one I fired for (repeatedly) feeling like he didn't need to show up for his shift. Why should an employer have to waste time and money going through some bullshit appeals process for dead weight like these two clowns?

Re:It's also instability

[damn_registrars]

That is a different matter, there. Those have been offenses that one could be fired on-the-spot for even back when workers did have rights, and they deserve that status. The problem is that now the employer has so much power over the worker that they can can them at a moment's (or less) notice for no real offense at all. Not long ago the idea of a career was almost guaranteed to any hard-working skilled employee. Now it is devolving into the realm of pure mythology.

Re:It's also instability

[PCM2]

In California, you'd better have pretty good documentation of the times you reprimanded those employees before firing them, or you could still be subject to a wrongful termination suit.

Re:It's also instability

[WinstonWolfIT]

California is an at-will employment state. As long as the employer is okay with taking the insurance hit they can and will at-will you out the door for no cause whatsoever.

Re:It's also instability

[PRMan]

I have a friend who worked for a company in Washington state where HR told him that he COULD NOT fire 2 employees for exactly these reasons.

Re:It's also instability

[PCM2]

Real life called, it said good luck with that.

Re:It's also instability

[houghi]

That must be communist Washington, because I live in socialist Belgium and the process to fire somebody who does not show up goes as follows:
First time, oral warning
Second time, written warning
Thrid time,second final warning
Fourth time, your are fired.

And they do not even need to do step two and three.
It also means you are fired for ugent reasons, so no farewell check and no unemployment benefits. So you get away with nothing.

The same will happen if you are late for work, although they might add a step or 2 where they talk with the person and see why it happens.

Now if they want to fire you because you do not do your job, they will add extra steps again to see what the reason is. They can then still fire you, but they will have to pay a severance pay. I have seen companies not fire people because they were unwilling to pay the severance pay.

In once case the person was unhappy, told this to anybody and they said 'so leav' and he did not want to do that. He wanted to get fired, wo he would get a severnce pay and unemployment benefits. He made a stupid mistace that would have cost him 5EUR or less, but I saw it happen. It was seen as fraude and he could leave right away.

I have been on both sides of the table. If they want to fire somebody, they will. Oh and it does not matter if they are in a Union (unless they are a voted for Union rep, then the rules are a bit different), The same rules will apply and if you are stupid, the Union will not protect you.

It's the Great Recession...

[__aaclcg7560]

After I was out of work for two years (2009-10), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy, I spent the next two years working a daily job (Monday-Friday) and a weekend job (Friday-Sunday) to recover financially. When I got my government IT job, the two-hour background investigative interview lasted four hours as I had to provide the names and phone numbers of the 20+ contract assignments I've done during that time. The government finds it suspicious if you deviate from what they considered is an average person. An average person would only have one job for two to three years.

Re:It's the Great Recession...

[Joe_Dragon]

You can just list the firm that you used or put down contractor with a list of clients or did you really do an on line job app with 20+ work places?

Re:It's the Great Recession...

[__aaclcg7560]

I worked for three different contracting agencies during that time. One provided the daily job. The other two provided multiple assignments for the weekends. The investigator insisted that I list each assignment..

Re:It's the Great Recession...

[__aaclcg7560]

Fortunately the government IT is full of nutjobs.

But I'm not ex-military like so many of my coworkers.

Re:It's the Great Recession...

[__aaclcg7560]

Don't act like you're some special snowflake.

Your opinion, not mine.

[...] not because they're passing some oppressive judgment on your lifestyle.

Seems like you have a very bad habit of projecting your opinions on to other people.

Re:"Millennials"

[chipschap]

Old people are annoyed by what young people do.

On the contrary, I'm definitely "old" by most definitions and I feel for young people. They have it harder than I did in so many ways. You are only young once, and not for long; you deserve to enjoy it.

Depressing...

[MitchDev]

So let's see, 8 hours to sleep at night, 8 hours for your main job, travel time to and from job, less than 8 hours left in the day for living, and you want to fill that with more work beyond the stuff you need to do like cook and feed yourself/family, taking care of your home/apartment, etc?

Fuck that, where's that extinction-event asteroid when we need it?

I though all these computers and automation was supposed to make us need to work less...

Re:Depressing...

[Cro Magnon]

Exactly! I only have one job, and with 9 hour days + lunch + commute, I'm away from home 10-11 hours. Side job? Who the hell has TIME for a side job???

Re:Depressing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I though all these computers and automation was supposed to make us need to work less...

Yeah, but the people who own shares in the corporations realized that instead of letting the people creating all that productivity benefit from it, they could funnel that value to themselves and make even *more* money for doing nothing. Then, it occurred to them that people's productivity had become *so* high that even if they made employees work just a few hours a week more, in any reasonably large corporation that would result in significantly *more* money in their pockets, for which, again, they'd have to do absolutely nothing! What could be better?

Of course too much is never enough, so that became an upward spiral. Then add in minor upgrades like stagnating wages vs. inflation and several rounds of tax breaks for the wealthy, and you arrive where we are now: trying to convince people that having multiple jobs to have the standard of living society tells us is "normal" is also normal.

It will all cave in at some point; you can only take such activity so far before it all collapses. Of course, as with most of human history, the people who cause the collapse will find a way to benefit from it while the rest get screwed, but things should be better for a little while after that until the cycle ramps up again.

Re:Depressing...

[King_TJ]

It's always been this way ... and when I first got into the "work world" after college, the whole thing depressed me too. I spent a lot of time asking, "Why? What's the point of all of this, and how did my parents stand it?!"

But the elephant in the corner of the room that everyone likes to ignore is this: People with these "side jobs" are often working smarter, not harder. For example, say you want to start a side business selling something online? You may have to burn a few of those precious weekends working on the setup -- but once the e-commerce site is running, it sells to visitors 24 hours/7 days without you having to do much with it. Your role is probably only going to be in the packing/shipping of products ordered, and handling returns as needed. Granted, that can take some time, but you get to choose when you do it and for how long. You could box up a few items right before bed, perhaps? Or knock some of it out while you're watching some show on TV at night, relaxing. If it does well enough? Now you can afford to pay some teenager to do the hands-on stuff for you, making the operation completely hands-off.

And same kind of thing with people who really do find a way to make their second job a sub-set of their hobby. I know a guy in town, for example, who is really into history. Since he was interested in digging up everything he could find about local history in our city anyway, he decided to start compiling it into books. He's got 3 of them out now that he sells via Facebook and occasionally at a local flea market table, or in other people's shops. He was going to hang onto all of those notes and photos and copies of historical documents anyway ... so putting them into book format didn't take a whole lot of extra effort, really.

Re:Depressing...

[guruevi]

You work 7 days a week? Many people, especially millennials and beyond barely work part time.

Re:Depressing...

[MitchDev]

I think you are confusing "hobby that pays now" with "earning enough to survive"

Re:Depressing...

[Shajenko42]

Of course it was! I mean, you have people who do nothing but go from party to party, riding on a new yacht each week, buying house after house after mansion...

Oh, you thought the PLEBS were going to work less? Sweet summer child...

Re:Depressing...

[MitchDev]

I'll be there with the torch and pitchfork crowd once they wake up and turn off reality TV and start go after the real enemy of the people....

Re:Depressing...

[Shajenko42]

By that time, the rich will have automated turrets mounted on the walls of their gated communities.

Re:Depressing...

[Quirkz]

Sometimes the side job is fun enough that it's not too painful trying to squeeze it in. Writing that novel, making that movie, coding that game/project. If you want to do it some time, and you don't get to do it at work or in your sleep, then evenings and weekends are where it's at.

Alternately sometimes the allure of money is enough to make it worthwhile, even if the work isn't quite fun. Dot-com startups, for instance. There you're sacrificing time for potential payoff (and/or the education you get along the way).

It's still not easy, but there's plenty of valid reasons for making that choice.

Re:Depressing...

[david_thornley]

You're not going to run an e-commerce site like that, not for long, anyway. If you've got a nice easy way to make extra money, other people are going to catch on, and the profit margins are going to drop fast. It'll wind up with the only people making money being the ones who put real work into it or have some sort of special angle.

It's Blinkered Perspective Time!

[bistromath007]

"...probably every human ever has been a sort of actor-waiter at some point."

Could the people who write about millenials' employment habits please go to a state other than California for just one fucking day?

This isn't a problem, it's a feature

[MikeRT]

If we had a saner regulatory and tax environment like Canada or half of Europe today this would be the starting point for a lot of new small businesses. Heck, it's a great way for people to try new stuff, get OJT and possibly find a better career than the one they're in.

Re:some wisdom

[__aaclcg7560]

The number of Pokemon you have collected is not suitable for a line on your resume.

Never mind that my job site has TWO Pokemon gyms.

When I was younger, it was called a hobby

[QuietLagoon]

But if you give it a different, cool-sounding name, you can write a magazine article.

Re:Side project...

[Sir_Eptishous]

I've never met a software developer, musician, or artist who didn't have a side project of some sort in addition to their "day job".

What?!?
You're putting software developer in the same category as musician or artist?!?

Which one of these things doesn't belong?

Are Millienials Karflegening Too Many Vizbogs?

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Quartz ran an article over the weekend which captures a growing trend among millennials: to have a side job--

Oh, boy, sounds like somebody's written another article that describes twentysomethings doing normal, everyday things as if they were members of a completely alien species having incomprehensible interactions with the fabric of the fifth dimension.

I wonder how out-of-touch and annoying this particular article is going to be? All right, I'm taking a deep breath. How bad could it possibly be? Here we go, let's do this.

--or as many of them call it, the "side-hustle."

Oh, God, my eyes! I wasn't ready!

Re:Are Millienials Karflegening Too Many Vizbogs?

[PRMan]

I had 4 jobs at that age too. Adjunct professor, part-time youth pastor, writing a Windows front-end for a miniframe program. We called it, "part-time jobs on the side".

Re:Are Millienials Karflegening Too Many Vizbogs?

[AbRASiON]

As someone who is well past 20, I also thought, what the fuck? Do they really call it a side hussle? Generally a side hussle sounds dodgy to me.
Either I'm out of the loop and that's the lingo the young folk are using, or alternatively, it's a load of bullshit written by a journo who thinks they 'get' young people.

Lipstick on a pig

[Zibodiz]

I'm sorry, but this is straight-up nonsense. I've worked as many as 3 jobs at a time to make both ends meet in the middle, and no -- it's not a positive thing. At this point, I'm self- employed, and finally able to spend time with my family, which is actually what I want to be doing.
Just because you dress up your poverty as a plus (e.g. "Being unable to afford food has helped me lose 90 lbs!" or "I'm in the best shape of my life, because I walk 10 miles a day. How did I find the motivation to exercise this much? I got my car repo'd!"), does not mean that you should advise others to try it. I'm happy that I can afford food and a car. I'm also happy that I can do that with only 40-ish hours of work each week.

Re:What Free Time, I have Kids

[__aaclcg7560]

My IT support contracts for the last 10+ years prohibits me from working more than 40 hours per week. Since my day job pays the bills and I got the time, I'm free to hustle after work and on the weekends.

Re:"Millennials"

[jellomizer]

Dag Nabbit those lazy Mellennials who are working multiple jobs. Why don't they settle in one good paying job!
No we will not retire (We are going to stay at our high paying jobs until we die), we will not train you to take our position. We will tell them to work hard, when they do we will show them that life isn't fair and hard work isn't the case but just luck.

We want America like it was when the rest of the world was bombed out and rebuilding from WWII. To show how special we were because everyone happened to be in the middle of the war.

Got a side hustle through my plug

[bad-badtz-maru]

Millennials are obsessed with side hustles solely so they can use the phrase "side hustle".

Re:Side project...

[PCM2]

He's a Rust programmer. The elegance and beauty of his code speaks for itself.

Re:Side project...

[tlambert]

I've never met a software developer, musician, or artist who didn't have a side project of some sort in addition to their "day job".

What?!?

You're putting software developer in the same category as musician or artist?!?

Which one of these things doesn't belong?

Writing software is considered a creative act.

I was one of the participants in the Department Of Labor study that decided that,

Jobs that are more than 50% creative are exempt from overtime pay requirements. Software engineering, unless you are job-shopping it as a contractor is considered more than 50% creative. Which means that if you are salaried, you don't get overtime pay.

Personally, when I write software, it's being processed in the part of my brain that processes music. Meaning I literally can't write software if there's music playing at the same time.

You can't blame them.

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the older generations, up front they actually know what they are getting into and need to prepare for a life where you can't take anything for granted and you need to fight tooth and nail to keep what you have. So I'm not surprised by the whole multiple job thing increasing.

Feel bad for us old fucks, we bought into the American Dream because that's what our parents told us to do. Go to college, get a job somewhere for 30 years, buy a house, have some kids etc. But then we found out the hard way that even when you do the right thing your job loyalty means nothing. Your house can be taken away in a minute flat and you can lose a huge amount your retirement savings over the whims of greedy idiots on Wall St. Oh and don't have a serious medical issue or you will lose job/house/saving all in one.

So why I can't promise an easy life for the younger generations, at least you know up front the American Dream is a total lie and to change your thinking accordingly. Newsflash right?

Mind you I'm talking about the Middle class here. The "Lower" class has always been fucked and always will be. Working 2-3 jobs has always been the norm.

Again as always a BIG fuck you to all the scumbag companies who pushed our jobs overseas because they had to "stay competitive" and manufacturing in the USA was too expensive. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

We have a Trump voter here.

Re:You can't blame them.

[wyHunter]

I didn't make the above comment, but I suppose you're a trust-fund owning low information Clinton voter?

Re:You can't blame them.

[serviscope_minor]

Why on earth do you think that?

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

Middle/Lower class and "jobs pushed overseas" are major themes of Trump. He's a blue-collar billionaire, after all.

Re:You can't blame them.

[serviscope_minor]

The bleeding out of jobs is a huge problem whether you're a Trump supporter or not. Trump is as much part of the problem as anyone, and has no qualms about using the absolute cheapest source of labour.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

Oh, what he actually does is only partially relevant. The rhetoric matches the rhetoric of the Trump campaign (including the "fuck you" at the bottom)

Re:You can't blame them.

[david_thornley]

Or a Sanders voter, or a Clinton. GP is talking about real problems, acknowledged by a lot of politicians, and it's possible to think that one person talking about certain problems would be reasonably effective, while another would be a disaster.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

It could also match the profile of a typical Sanders voter, but not many Clinton supporters align with Clinton's support of Wall Street, and Clinton is a free-trade advocate so "pushing jobs overseas" doesn't match her either. "Manufacturing jobs" are something Trump has especially hammered on, although Sanders is right behind.

Re:You can't blame them.

[david_thornley]

I haven't seen good evidence that Clinton is an undue supporter of Wall Street (she has to be some kind of supporter to keep the economy running), and AC didn't mention free trade. Some of the problems AC mentioned are related to free trade treaties, but can be addressed while having free trade treaties (maybe not the TPP, but Clinton has come out against the final proposal after supporting the negotiations).

AC is clearly against shipping jobs overseas, and that conflicts with some of Clinton's stances. However, even in a matter like this it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Clinton is the better choice, compared to Trump.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

I haven't seen good evidence that Clinton is an undue supporter of Wall Street

Clinton has gotten a lot of support (ie: money) from the banks. Whether or not you think she is an undue supporter or not, you can see thereby that she is favored by the banks.

AC is clearly against shipping jobs overseas, and that conflicts with some of Clinton's stances.

Now you're getting it.

Re:You can't blame them.

[david_thornley]

"Favored by the banks" and "against the common welfare" are two different things. We need the banking system, or something very like it. It needs to be policed a whole lot better, but that might actually please some banks. If everyone else is doing something profitable and sleazy, it's sometimes necessary to get sleazy just to compete.

Clinton favors free trade, which includes shipping jobs overseas, and so I'd think AC disagrees with her on that point. It's reasonable to think Trump might be worse, and so someone might well vote for Clinton while thinking she'd ship fewer jobs, or at least that there would be more good jobs in the US with her as President than with Trump. I've never voted for someone while agreeing with them completely (although a particular state senator came close).

The context is that someone claimed AC was obviously a Trump voter. I'm claiming that someone with AC's views might well vote for Clinton, although I'd think AC would have liked Sanders better.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

It's reasonable to think Trump might be worse [on trade], and so someone might well vote for Clinton while thinking she'd ship fewer jobs

Why is that reasonable? Other than general dislike of Trump.

although I'd think AC would have liked Sanders better.

Maybe true.

Re:You can't blame them.

[david_thornley]

Clinton has laid out her policies, and seems to stick to them. Trump has said a wide variety of things, many of which contradict each other, and it's reasonable to doubt he'd carry out what he says. Trump's background is very strongly pro-big-business.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

You are saying that Clinton doesn't flip-flop? Try to figure out if she favors or opposes TPP. Try to figure out how she feels about invading Iraq. I like Clinton (here is an example why), but lets not pretend that she's not a politician. Also, Trump put his own platform down fairly clearly during his RNC speech (did you watch it?)

But anyway, what thy actually think and do is a little irrelevant here where we're talking about how their fans perceive them.

Re:You can't blame them.

[david_thornley]

Clinton supported the TPP when she was helping negotiate it. That was several years ago, and when the thing finally came out there were all sorts of problems with it. So, Clinton liked the idea of the TPP, but disliked the particular implementation. Nothing wrong with that.

The Bush administration deceived a lot of people before the invasion of Iraq. Powell said that he was given a lawyer's brief as preparation for his UN speech, and didn't have time to check most of it on his own. Given that, I don't blame anyone for voting for the Iraq disaster.

The problem with Trump's positions is not that he doesn't have a platform, it's that he says so many different things that it's not clear that he takes it seriously.

Re:You can't blame them.

[phantomfive]

Bush sucked donkey balls that's true.
Did you watch Trump's RNC speech?

Re:Lottery?

[__aaclcg7560]

I find it easier to check around bus stops and parking lots for discarded lottery scratchers to enter into the second chance drawing website. Never won anything online over the last eight years, but I did find an unused scratcher stuck to another scratcher that was a $20 winner. After the Great Recession, I found and entered 500+ scratchers over a two year period (2009-10). These days I'm lucky to find a half-dozen or so scratchers each month.

Re:Side project...

[PRMan]

I'm a software developer and other than my first underpaid out-of-college job (when I had 4 jobs), I've never had a second job. I do a lot of church volunteer work on the side, but I've never had a paid second job.

we need single payer health care to make this

[Joe_Dragon]

we need single payer health care to make this work good. Be for people get to the braking bad level just to pay there doctor bills off. Or letting the jail / prison system take up the slack at a much higher cost.

Re:we need single payer health care to make this

[wyHunter]

Yeah like the US government running anything makes it work at all.

Re:we need single payer health care to make this

[djinn6]

Well, the US government got a man on the moon in 8 years. Elon Musk doesn't even have a man in orbit after 14.

Re:we need single payer health care to make this

[wyHunter]

At a very different time, when there was the will to do it. I don't see that in recent decades, unfortunately.

2008 crisis?

[PCM2]

This part interested me:

It’s true, the 2008 crisis forced plenty of people to look for additional sources of income, not least of all the recent graduates who, with little experience and limited networks, were confronting the job market for the first time.

Really? I thought the 2008 crisis was when the housing bubble burst. Are people who are "confronting the job market for the first time" really looking to get home loans? Or was it just that their first jobs didn't pay all that great?

Statements like this one just reinforce in a lot of older people's heads the idea that Millennials, as a group, are the "everyone deserves everything" generation. What did these people expect when they had "little experience and limited networks"? Did they honestly think anything had changed about first jobs since the dawn of time? My first job was at a goddamn 7-Eleven, FFS. No reason to go looking for some bullshit armchair economist's theory of why that was.

Re:2008 crisis?

[Moof123]

Where the hell were you? The housing market crashed, but so much more went with it. Lots of folks got laid off. The lucky ones who got a new job often found that they were deep underwater in their house, even if they put 20% down.

Being part of an interlinked economy means that nobody is an island. Crappy loan products peddled to suckers can blow up a bank and take down everyone else with it. Young folks hitting the job market at that time were SOL. Colleges are not subsidized nearly like they used to be, so the same degree you have costs a lot more (usually necessitating student loans). Companies shipped all the lower end jobs overseas, taking away entry level jobs to gain experience. So the few open positions of any consequence for a few years after 2008 all required 5-10 years experience and super specific job skills.

We littered the country with a whole heap of well educated debtors that really struggled to get a decent job. Many of them did get crap jobs, and many had to go live with their parents due to the crushing debt they got that could not be serviced on a service job.

Re:2008 crisis?

[wyHunter]

It is a crock, yes. But unless you have been living in a cave for 8 years, the employment economy contracted dramatically, and it still hasn't recovered. YES there are as many (slightly more) jobs than before but the population has grown (remember that 'We need 150K jobs/month to keep up with population growth' that was touted throughout the Bush presidency as to why he was doing a bad job? Well, he was, and we do, but Obama somehow gets a pass because people are less well employed, less financially secure, and more poor.

We need laws so that worker misclassification stop

[Joe_Dragon]

We need new laws so that worker misclassification stops or that places that call someone an 1099 do not have the level of control that they have right now.

Right now we have uber that is pushing the limits of 1099's.

Amazon Prime Now Delivery Drivers where they controlled there routes / uniforms / training / geographical boundaries / etc but they called them 1099's to get out of overtime / minimum shift pay for people required to report to work / fuel, insurance, maintenance, tolls and other vehicle expenses / etc.

We used to call that "Volunteering"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You young whipper snappers get off my lawn!

Re:Side project...

[angel'o'sphere]

Most software developers believe "coding" is an art. /. is full with posts of "such believers".

Most software developers I know don't have a second job ... However I work sometimes on several projects as a consultant simultaneously. I hate it to sit a customer site and have a 40h/week when I only have work for 15 or 20 hours.

So I rather honestly bill them less and have a second project.

Woody Allen moonlights

[Streetlight]

Woody plays his clarinet on Monday evenings in the Woody Allen & the Eddy Davis New Orleans Jazz Band in New York City. I'm pretty sure he's not a millennial nor does he need the extra cash.

My wife has a male second cousin who married two years ago right out of college to a women also just out of college. They now live in a large metro area of ~3 million and both have responsible jobs in secure industries. They have little or no college loans to pay off and were able to buy a nice, 2 BR condo in a good part of town. They do not subscribe to pay tv but are very computer - Internet savvy. Never the less he occasionally drives for Uber on weekends and she has been selling on eBay some kind of do-dads she makes. In meeting them I get the feeling they are just go getters. I know he's a smart investor and right now is looking around to buy a condo to rent out in town where there is a real shortage of housing. He may turn into a real estate baron, but hopefully not like the one that's been in the news lately.

Re: "Millennials"

[ishmaelflood]

Actually I m cutting back to three days a week, for 90k ayear, and mentoring two replacements. One is Chinese, she'll probably work out. The other one seems a bit useless, !ike most wasp engineering graduates these days. Get off that fucking phone.

What's old is new again?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just sounds like the same old thing with new buzz-words.

I see three things here:
Folks doing a second income because they have to, and perhaps in an area they like, but not necessarily.
Folks doing a second job, maybe not even making much at it, because they like the work (and would probably do it as a sole job if it would pay the bills).
Folks with hobbies because, well, why not, and they don't need the income and stress from "clocking in". They can stop or pause these things whenever.

I'm in the third boat. I make 125K/year in a boring IT government job. I'm bored, writing right now, on my lunch. I've had my own business, but gave it up after a couple years after being at the IT government job because it was a hassle juggling both, and doing a job late at night and having a problem the next day is not good for the day job.

My hobbies include: kayaking, amateur radio, and firearms. Pretty much all of my spare time goes into these activities as much as I can.

Amateur radio has me volunteering a good deal, at various events providing extra/backup comms, plus minor firstaid-type help. It's fun and another social outlet, and the family participates as well.

My guess is most folks progress from the first type of activity to the second (more enjoyable second job), and if they can afford it finally to the third (hobbies only).

ACA subsidy phases out gradually

[tepples]

The Affordable Care Act lacks hard "maximums" for precisely this reason. It has a cutover from Medicaid to the Marketplace between 100% and 137% of the poverty level, and then the premium subsidy has a sliding scale that phases out gradually between 100% and 400% of the poverty level.

Re:ACA subsidy phases out gradually

[cryptizard]

Unless you live in a state with a Medicaid gap, then you could fall in the middle and get completely screwed by the obstinance of your state government.

Re:Millennials are obsessed

[citylivin]

" (I'm from Canada".... " Except this time you guys get a chance to buy a house."

What canada do you live in that doesn't have an insane, through the roof, bubbled property market?

No one under 40 can afford a house in canada. Heck even most gen-xers would have had to buy in around 2008 or so to get even a moderately affordable townhouse!

In the major cities (toronto, vancouver) under 40s can't even afford condos anymore! Its all rich foreigners and investors now, and the rental market is being squeezed hard. Hard to find a 2 bedroom in the lowermainland for under 1800 now adays...

re: Original article mixing up terms?

[King_TJ]

Dunno... I think I have to cut the author of the original article a little more slack than the parent poster is doing.

I'm not here to argue for the term "side hustle" as the best choice of words. But traditionally, you had a lot of people who worked one full-time or "career job". And then when situations arose where that wasn't cutting it for them to maintain whatever lifestyle they were used to, they'd take on a second job. Sometimes we called this "moonlighting".

The thing is, this "side hustle" seems to me like it's a little bit different. The traditional taking on a second job tended to involve selecting something relatively non-demanding. You might work the night shift at a local gas station, for example, or deliver pizzas. It wasn't usually anything you actually enjoyed doing, but rather, something you could *stand* to do after already putting in an 8 hour day at your primary job. I think what the Millennials are talking about is figuring out something you already kind of like doing, and turning it into a small side business opportunity. It's not about applying for entry level jobs in retail businesses. It's about making the effort to print up business cards or flyers and building a promotional web site, and convincing people they should buy some product or service from you that you can provide in your spare time. BUT, it's a "hustle" because you're probably trying to "fake it until you make it". You want your customers to THINK they're dealing with an entrepreneur who is working on getting that big business loan or venture capital money before long, to really grow the business into something big. But in reality, you're going to make up excuses why you're out of something or can't be there at 3PM next Thursday when your customer would really like the service. Because this is about some extra money on the side; not a hyper-focused effort on going full-time with what's offered.

If there's anything that's a sad commentary on today's society, I think it's not so much that you've got a generation willing to do some of this for the sake of regular trips to Starbucks. But rather, it's sad that the traditional "moonlighting" job positions are often not even available for that purpose today -- because you've got so many applicants who need those as their MAIN job to survive.

Weird quoting

[wonkey_monkey]

Millennials Are Obsessed With Side Hustles Because 'They're All' They've Got

Why put just "they're all" in quotes? It "looks really" weird.

That is also assuming....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can find a primary job that gives you a stable enough set of work hours to carry a part time secondary job as well. If you are mostly in the minimum wage to low 15s (maybe 20s now.) most of the jobs are rotating schedules (especially food service, non-cashier retail, convenience marts) Which often interferes with your ability to consistently manage a side job without having to find a new primary job as well.

Maybe my experience is out of the norm, but I have had multiple other friends from across the US vouch for similiar situations, becoming trapped in a min wage job that barely meets their expenses without offering enough time surrounding it to educate, get out, or otherwise advance to somewhere better.

Re:That is also assuming....

[MitchDev]

And thanks to H1-B visas and similar job destruction, even a college degree is no gaurentee of a good-paying job anymore.

Side hustle?

[chompers]

"A hedge against feeling stuck and dull and cheated by life" So you 'hedge" against this by working more? When I'm feeling "stuck and dull and cheated by life", I go and do something fun or interesting. If you need a second job to pay bills, you're not cheated by life: you're simply surviving. Millenials are more screwed up than I thought...

If you don't live in a city like San Fran

[rsilvergun]

or LA forget public transportation. And if you do the extra cost of living there will negate any savings on a car. Our entire transportation system is one big catch 22 built by the Car companies in the 50s and 60s to maximize their profits. The Millennials weren't even alive when those decisions were made so it's not like you can blame them.

Re:Weird

[guruevi]

Europe has a better UBI than the US. In the US you're still expected to work at least once in a while, in return here in the US we pay way less taxes.

And they better hustle

[BlytheBowman]

...because if they don't, they will become homeless and therefore be labeled drug addicts and mentally ill and worthless and they will get beaten up and burned by groups of teenagers, and stomped on and beaten up by police. And their former friends living in $6000/mo Bashiki designed Ikea hell apartments won't have anything to do with them.

millennials/college

[p51d007]

The other problem is they were sold a bill of goods that says you HAVE to have a traditional 4 year degree, to get a job. In the early 70's, my HS counselor was asking me what college I wanted to go to. I told him I didn't really want to go to a "normal" college and learn all the crap they make you learn. He asked what I really wanted to do. I told him I LOVED playing around with electronics. He said how about a technical college. After explaining it to me, it was a no brainer. I went to a 2 year tech college, didn't have to go into debt (back then, a 4 year would have cost you 10,000 at most). I went to Texas and worked for Texas Instruments for a couple years, moved back and have been gainfully employed, no layoffs, cutbacks in my field. Today, getting a 4 year BS degree can leave you in such debt, and the jobs in some markets if you can find one in your degree field, pay squat, forcing some to have 2 jobs, 3 jobs, just to pay rent (that is if they move out of mom & dads). Everyone complains about "big oil" big pharma" etc, but this country needs to have a SERIOUS discussion about "big college". A major university can pay their presidents way over 6 figures, over 7 for their sports coaches, professors earn a ton, sometimes using teacher aids to actually teach the class because they are too busy writing books and what not. Universities are nothing more than money generating. And boy to they build palaces to themselves. Perhaps not building new sports stadiums all the time, glass and marble halls to stupidity, the price of college could come back down. Considering the lack of real knowledge coming out of 4 year colleges, I wouldn't spend my money supporting them.

Re:millennials/college

[Ol Olsoc]

The other problem is they were sold a bill of goods that says you HAVE to have a traditional 4 year degree, to get a job.

Certainly sold that along with their parents.

In the early 70's, my HS counselor was asking me what college I wanted to go to. I told him I didn't really want to go to a "normal" college and learn all the crap they make you learn. He asked what I really wanted to do. I told him I LOVED playing around with electronics. He said how about a technical college.

Wow - you gotta be my doppleganger! The only real difference was I took both the Technical route plus the Academic classes - which they tried to discourage. "You're such a smart boy, Ol! If you do this, some peopel will think you are stupid." Tough, says I. I was a real oddball, thinking of alternative career paths even in High school.

Today, getting a 4 year BS degree can leave you in such debt, and the jobs in some markets if you can find one in your degree field, pay squat, forcing some to have 2 jobs, 3 jobs, just to pay rent (that is if they move out of mom & dads).

Many graduate with the equivalent of a modest house mortgage. And unless you are in one of the few really good paying fields, you better be prepared to make maybe 30 K a year.

Everyone complains about "big oil" big pharma" etc, but this country needs to have a SERIOUS discussion about "big college". A major university can pay their presidents way over 6 figures, over 7 for their sports coaches, professors earn a ton, sometimes using teacher aids to actually teach the class because they are too busy writing books and what not. Universities are nothing more than money generating.

As the research money passed from places like Bell Labs to Universities, much of the drain started. Now they are in competition with each other not only for research money, but compete for The pay at the top, for buildings, for sports of course, and are at this point teetering with top-heaviness.

They have squeezed that turnip as far as it can be squeezed. Graduating with 80-100K of debt, and trying to start life as an adult on the meager pittance most degrees afford is simply a non starter any more.

And a note to the Universities. Those things that you are really interested in, the sports stadiums and coaches that must be paid millions, and fleecing fans you extract more and more from every year. Here's something that might make you shit your Kalvin Klines. Who is going to make the millions in donations to your football programs, and give your universities special "gifts" in order to pay the face value of your sason tickets and come to your stadion and pay the crazy prices just to park and get shit faced? When they don't make enough total money a year to pay for one season?

Your product just isn't worth it, and in many places attendance is showing, as the crowds grow positively ancient, and teh new crop of fans aren't showing up. This cash cow is dying from being overmilked and underfed.

Re:"Millennials"

[Tablizer]

Translation -- Old people are annoyed by what young people do.

Now they get on my lawn at 10pm. In the old days they were off it by 7.

Re:Lottery?

[__aaclcg7560]

Who DOES that???

Scavengers.

A GenX'er View

[imperious_rex]

Being a Gen-X'er, I bought into the life-script of go to college, get good grades, get a "real job" with good pay and benefits, work for 30+ years, and retire with a big nest egg. What they (society) doesn't tell you is that while the old rules worked fine for Joe and Jane Average 30-40 years ago, they don't work so well now. The ROI of an expensive college education is becoming increasingly questionable, given the current environment of wage stagnation, globalization, and automation technology.

Speaking for myself, despite the Great Recession and mediocre wages (the best I ever get is 3% annual raises), I have been moderately prosperous for the past 15 years. I haven't let "lifestyle inflation" cut into my savings rate, and I run a tight ship financially as I have no credit card debt and my only debt is a 30-year mortgage. In addition to my day job income, I average $700 per month from my dividend investing portfolio which is currently yielding approximately 10% annually. It has taken me 8 years of steady investing to get here, and I'm almost at the point where my dividend income can pay for my minimum monthly mortgage payment (should I so choose). Making money without trading one's time is a truly wonderful thing.

As for "side hustles" or moonlighting, I think it has become a necessary tool in overcoming wage stagnation. While I don't have a side-hustle, I am considering doing side work as a freelance writer to cultivate a third source of income and to have greater opportunities than what my day job can provide.

If you really want your eyes opened about how the game is played and how to use a different playbook to get ahead, then read the following books:

* Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki
* The 4-Hour Work Week by Timothy Ferriss
* The Millionaire Fastlane by MJ DeMarco

Re:A GenX'er View

[serviscope_minor]

The 4-Hour Work Week by Timothy Ferriss

I read that, or some of it. The thing is, it requires you to have enough money to pay all of those people to work for you.

Side Hustle = Second Job

[JosephDoeden]

Are we suggesting millennials invented the second job now?

The author is moonlighting

[istartedi]

The author is moonlighting as a coiner of new phrases for old things. Wish him the best, and hope his boss doesn't find out.

Since Forever?

[ACE209]

People have since forever have had multiple jobs to make the ends meet.

Not in civilized countries I would argue.

Fellow Gen-Xer here

[Weaselmancer]

Yeah, all that. I bought into the same life script. I'm behind where you are, however. I don't have a portfolio, and my wife and I still have leftover college loans we're working on. And two kids. We're focusing on the college loans at the moment. After that it's portfolio time. We'll miss maybe the next 3 years of investment while we focus on getting caught up.

And like our millennial friends under discussion, I have a side job. The whole purpose of which is to get those old college loans paid off so I can get to Happy Portfolio Land and start working on my retirement. I can pay the bills with my current job easily, but progress on old debt is glacial without the second income. I hope to be where you are right now, as soon as I can manage it. And I'll check into your reading list - sounds interesting.

And I'll also offer up a good tip to anyone reading this article this far down. I know an excellent way to score a second job, which I discovered accidentally and has worked well for me: Work well at your current job, and then quit under amicable terms, and offer to help out after you're gone.

If your current job is something you could do part time from home (and let's face it - a lot of IT jobs with a little creativity and a few bash scripts could be), then make that happen. Use your time at work to groom it as a second job. Optimize everything. Work it like you're trying to put yourself out of a job. Then put in your two weeks after you find something better. At this point your negotiation skills will come in to play. Make your pitch. Your employer gets the benefit of having the same work done, by the exact same guy, but at half price. And they don't have to pay for insurance, vacation time, etc. Your new job will cover all that, and your old job will become your extra income. This isn't theoretical advice either, I have actually done this.

A few style points to mention. Give old job your cell phone so they can contact you, but let them know that your full time job is a priority. Don't endanger your bread-and-butter job over any issues with the side job. And one last point - if you do this, do not cheat on your taxes. Ever. Claim all your income. Your old job will be reporting you as a liability, so the IRS will already know about you. Play it above board, always. You'll thank me later.

Re:Side project...

[Shajenko42]

Millennials typically aren't the ones writing stories about millennials. It's usually the previous generation complaining about whatever it is the new generation is doing.

Re:Lottery?

[TheCastro1689]

I knew that second chance thing was bogus, thanks for confirming it.

Life? Don't talk to me about life.

[bitterblackale]

I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed about that article.

Re: Original article mixing up terms?

[david_thornley]

I used to know a guy, old enough to have served in Vietnam, whose life was basically side hustles. His wife had the "real" job, and he went out and ran various money-making schemes that were profitable enough to be useful. One of his schemes got him his house, for example. I had an uncle who hated regular work, so he got in with the local entrepeneur communities and made his living with over-the-counter stock trading. This isn't exactly new.

Working a "day job" and trying something else at night was fairly common for artistic and performer types, hence the phrase "don't quit the day job".

What's making part of the difference is computer capability. I have a non-computer wargaming hobby, and in the 1970s or so it took big bucks to make something look professional and finished. Despite the collapse of the hobby (after it became computerized), I can get better-looking and better-made games and such from people working out of their garage and able to do this for fun than I could from the business in the 70s.

Re:"Millennials"

[chipschap]

Name one of us who, when young, didn't screw up and make mistakes. I'm not going to be one of those geezers who says that "when I was young blah blah blah." As I said above, I think we had it better than today's kids, who have so much to cope with and sadly, less of a bright future.

Job Insecurity

[DarthVain]

I think this has more to do with millennials being saddled with more job insecurity than ever before. It would simple make sense to have a side job (or side hustle, whatever stupid hipsters) when the job you're in could end at any time.

All those employment statistics that people see fail to really show how many of those "created" jobs are part-time, short term, contract, consults, etc... The side job also basically gives you more experience when you inevitably have to start looking for a new job every 6 months. Between outsourcing, insourcing, weakening unions, companies wanting "flexible" work forces, etc... it is no wonder really.

I don't think it is totally about money (though I'm sure that's part of it), boredom, or liking some hobby in particular, or dream job. I think perhaps that some may seen value in doing something the actually enjoy on the side just in case they can get it to pan out. Not only are they doing this on "their" time which has meaning, but also they'll be more motivated to stick with it if they do, and understand that it likely has more experience value than just getting shifts in retail or service.

For example: You could be a fresh young coder out of school, you manage to land a coding job, but it is long hours, contract, doesn't pay great, and you are constantly looking at job postings to keep employed with the next coding gig. However you are also an artist, so you do that on your own time/dime, but try to make a go of it as best you can say using social media and a web store you created, while trying to sell some original works where ever you can. You probably don't make a lot of money doing it, but enjoy it so it isn't so bad. Thinking down the road, perhaps you'll be involved in a project or a job competition where they are looking for an artist for a video game where coding might be an asset (or vice versa). You may have made a bit of a history of work and have a portfolio to show and be an established (somewhat) successful artist. I believe in investing it is called having a diversified portfolio...

Anyway just my take on it. I think if I was put in the same situation that is how I might approach it.

re: e-commerce sites

[King_TJ]

I disagree. The whole point is *always* to find a niche, though. You can't sell just any old thing online and expect money to keep rolling in. I used to do computer support for a guy in St. Louis, years ago, who started a business out of his mom's basement selling motorcycle windshields. He'd collect them up at salvage yards and anyplace else he could get them cheap, store them in the basement with little tags telling what size they were and what they went to -- and listed them online.

It wasn't like he got rich off of it -- but it brought in enough income so it paid his bills and supplemented his mom's social security checks.

Does...

[dddux]

Does being unemployed count as a side-job??

Re: e-commerce sites

[david_thornley]

Yes. He put in some work, ran an e-commerce site, and got a decent income out of it. Anybody else could have done exactly the same, so if that became known as a way to make lots and lots of money without much work, there'd be so many people searching junkyards and putting up motorcycle windshield sites that it would become mostly unprofitable.

Your historian friend is in the same situation, except that he did a whole lot of work because he liked doing it, and that's a big competitive advantage. Any competitor would have to put similar amounts of research time into it, and the money alone presumably wouldn't justify the prep work that would have to go into it.