Thus far, my current book has earned $363.54 in royalties, and my related expenses (promo, author copies, CIP) have totaled $383.54, for a net of -$20. This represents my highest book/chapter income across all publications and awards.
When I worked full-time as a computer programmer and lecturer, I earnt extra by teaching chess (just occasional evening + weekends.)
I also invested some savings.
I think multiple income is important in later life.
I’m now retired and get income from:
- UK State pension
- Work pension
- Savings (invested in an Individual Savings Account to save on tax)
- teaching bridge
So basically you want to work more than a full-time job, but neither job offers enough overtime.
Or be paid better.
I read something last week:
“Don’t call it a ‘Side Hustle’ if it’s an additional job you need to feed and house yourself!”
I’m sick of people my age (Olde Fartes) saying “Why don’t these kids just get a good (well-paying) job?”
It’s not so easy these days, Gramps…
Working hard on multiple streams of expenses, I see. Fortunately, I have that one well covered. I don’t even have to work at it.
You just need the right side hustle. I’m gainfully employed in a full-time job that uses my engineering PhD, but I also have a side gig that pays 3-4X the hourly rate that my day job does. The market isn’t big enough to quit my day job - I spend maybe 120 hours a year on it - but it’s a nice supplement.
I don’t think I’d want to work a side gig that only paid 1-2X the hourly rate of my day job.
Some of the professional YouTubers make good money. The Slow Mo Guys channel, for example, is estimated to earn $250K - $450 per year for its owners. It’s enough to justify them spending a fair bit of coin on good videography equipment (including some really expensive slo-mo cameras) and put a lot of effort into making high-quality videos for their channel. If you like making movies, have good editing skills, and can come up with a steady stream of ideas for content that other people would find interesting, you can make good money this way.
It is an interesting situation, because you basically have a higher payed job with a limited number of hours. And then you fill up the rest of the hours with your regular job.
But then I wonder if you would have quit your regular job if the side gig allowed you to work full time?
I’ve often wondered myself. It certainly would have meant more income overall, but also more risk. My regular job is very stable/secure - not so much for the side gig.
This is a really important point regarding “streams of income”. To poor/working class people these are called multiple jobs just to make the rent. Not remotely what the insensitive well-off imagine when thinking of “multiple streams of income”.
There’s a YouTube channel called The Financial Diet that makes some excellent points about the large gap in world views between the rich and normal people.
I used to always feel bad when I heard about teachers with a second or third job, because I’m in a district that pays well enough that it isn’t really necessary.
Then I realized I have second and third jobs: I do various types of consulting/professional development/tutoring and make decent money doing it. But it doesn’t feel like a “second job” because it has usually been “extra” money (though sometimes a pretty important extra!) and it’s still work in my field. In fact, it’s the work I do at my day job that gave me the skills I need for these other jobs.
When I hear “second job”, I think “night shift”. I never had to wait tables to pay the bills, so it wasn’t a second job. They generally pay better than my day job, so not a second job.
It makes an intuitive sort of sense that having multiple streams of income would make you more financially stable than having only one. And that perception isn’t completely wrong. But there’s also a very real sense in which it can make you less stable. While you’re less likely to lose all five gigs at once, you’re more likely to lose any one of them (and not be eligible for unemployment the way you might be if you lost your only job). And if you need the income from all of them, losing just one can still present a serious problem. You may also find it more difficult to replace gig #5 while continuing to work gigs #1-4, while a person who lost their only job may have more flexibility to meet the demands of the new job they’re applying for.
Elizabeth Warren and her daughter co-wrote a book, The Two-Income Trap, about the financial problems associated with middle- and upper- class women entering the workforce. I read it over a decade ago so might be fuzzy on the details, but one point that struck me was how, contrary to what one might expect, having both adults working full-time actually made families more vulnerable to bankruptcy than having just one breadwinner. Traditionally, when a man lost his job, he would receive unemployment covering about half his salary, and his wife could get a job that would cover the rest. But if the wife is already working, she may not be able to get a second job, and if the husband grabs the first part-time gig he can, he may lose his unemployment. Theoretically, a two-income household could choose to live on just one income and put the rest into savings, but that’s not always practical. Part of the reason is that, with so many household incomes increasing, housing prices went up. But part of it was also that housing has always been a significant expense, especially for families with children. The quality of public schools varies widely by district and individual school; two identical houses on opposite sides of a street might feed into very different schools, and therefore be priced very differently. Few parents who can afford the better one will choose the lesser one just in case one of them loses their job.
Despite the scoldings so many love to give about frivolous spending, the trend over the last several decades has been for people to spend more on housing, and less on both luxuries and necessary-but-flexible expenses like food and clothes. Ironically, if there were a family that blew half their income on gadgets, Starbucks, and travel, they would be more financially secure than most, because they could weather the loss of half their income without being unable to pay the mortgage. Similarly, if a single person has one steady job that pays the rent and all non-negotiable bills, plus a variety of gigs that pay for the extras, that’s a pretty stable way to live. But if that person would potentially face eviction if any one of those revenue streams dried up, they’re actually in a much more precarious situation than someone with just one job.
Back when I was in my thirties, I decided that I would need more than one source of income. I did have a nice retirement plan, but thought that having a post retirement of at least 85% of my highest income earning year would be a good goal.
Subsequently, funds were invested in a diverse range, including real estate, annuities, and the stock market. It has paid off; my multiple sources have exceeded my initial goal of 85%.
I was able to retire at age 59 after working 30 years at my last job.
I recommend highly taking a similar approach before you hit middle age - remember, time has a great influence on how your money grows.
I’m currently investing about 30-40% of household income in a global index fund. I’m not sure if this counts as multiple streams of income in the way that we are discussion, but I am setting myself and my family up for the future.
And what do you recommend to the people who work in jobs that don’t offer retirement plans?
The rich-man privilege rolls off your post in spades. You might wish to get out in public sometime, and investigate how the other 90% lives.
The median 401(k) balance is just $35,345:
Never mind.
Seems pretty clear what his recommendation is: start saving and investing as early as you can. People work for 30 or 40 years, yet don’t save for retirement. That’s 30 to 40 years for them to get their shit together. It’s not like retirement comes as a complete surprise, as a totally unforseen event that no one could see coming. People just put it off, until they no longer have the 30 to 40 years that is the key to making investing work. Later, when they realize that those years have slipped by, then they don’t have the large amount of money in the budget that it takes to amass a decent retirement savings. If that’s how 90% of people live, that doesn’t invalidate the fact that investing small amounts, consistently over decades, is how the people who are successful get there, retirement plan at work or not.
And what do you recommend to people who work 3 jobs just to make rent and eat with zero money left over???
There is a surprising amount of “advice” in this thread that does not reflect reality for a lot of people.
[quote=“ftg, post:30, topic:968399, full:true”]
Multiple jobs really aren’t “multiple income streams”. IMHO, they are still part of the same income stream of “your labor”. Ultimately limited by the number of hours you can work in a day.
The idea is to have passive streams of income so that you are receiving money even while you do other stuff (or nothing).
Is there an expectation that every thread should reflect the reality of everyone? Or is it OK that some do not? People open topics about vacations they plan to take or have just taken but not everyone can afford that trip to Bali or Paris.