Job Stability: Employee vs. Freelancer

[jhonny9546]

Hello everyone! I've been thinking about two perspectives:

1) An employee works for their one and only client, their employer.

2) A freelancer/entrepreneur works for multiple clients.

Now, for those who evaluate the "stability" and "security" of a job, how can one think that being an employee is more secure than being a freelancer (like commonsense would affirm)?

If an employee loses their job due to the client, they face significant changes: they might have to relocate to another city to find new employment, along with all the consequences that entails, such as moving, saying goodbye to old friends and acquaintances, and the need to rebuild their social circles. Additionally, children may have to change schools. Only the luckiest can rely on the support of their partner, without worrying that they might leave or betray them, as often happens.

On the other hand, if a freelancer loses a client, they have only lost part of their income but can rely on other clients to sustain their business. Furthermore, there’s no need for relocations or upheavals (which is very important).

Considering these aspects, what real advantage does being an employee offer compared to being a freelancer?

 

[SW15]

what real advantage does being an employee offer compared to being a freelancer?

This may vary from country to country depending upon employment laws and social safety nets.

In the USA, there are 2 advantages to employment compared to freelancing.

1. Access to more affordable healthcare
2. An initial base of paying clients to the employer, meaning greater company financial security

The United States does a very poor job protecting people who find themselves in unfortunate scenarios. The social safety net in the United States is a total embarrassment for a country that claims to be a developed nation.

State level unemployment payments to people in the USA who lose their jobs are ineffective. State level unemployment payments pay far below living wage, even if a person is fortunate enough to get the state level max payment (near every white collar worker makes enough money to get this, because it is set low). Most white collar workers who find themselves unemployed need savings or support from their parents to get through any period of unemployment and not become homeless. Blue collar and service sector workers don't have it much better on unemployment payments and avoiding homelessness. Unemployment systems are more designed for low wage workers than higher wage, college educated workers. It is my sense that the European Union has better social safety nets for people.

Additionally, the United States ties healthcare to employment. Unemployed and non-traditionally employed people find it difficult to get an affordable healthcare plan. The US government made 2 ineffective attempts to solve this, once in the 1980s (COBRA) and once in 2010 (Affordable Care Act). Regardless of one's political ideology, both attempts did not get anywhere near solving the problem. One could say that access to healthcare in the United States is an advantage of being an employee.

If an employee loses their job due to the client, they face significant changes: they might have to relocate to another city to find new employment, along with all the consequences that entails, such as moving, saying goodbye to old friends and acquaintances, and the need to rebuild their social circles. Additionally, children may have to change schools.

This happens regularly. I'll explain how it typically works in the US with this.

US companies are notorious for laying off people at any time with little to no warning. Without adequate savings or family help, US workers will either need to sell possessions, file for bankruptcy, or possibly relocate in order to avoid homelessness. This all happens because executive management ineptly runs the company or chooses their own self interests over the welfare of their own people. In the US, people can become homeless not because of any of their wrongdoing. It happens because they worked for incompetent or uncaring executive managers who terminated them to save money to cover up for their own management ineptitude. If an employee gets laid off at the wrong time in the business cycle (during a recession), they will have difficulty finding another job.

Only the luckiest can rely on the support of their partner, without worrying that they might leave or betray them, as often happens.

This is a risk specific to males.

Female unemployment has essentially zero consequences. Females are usually not dumped by the partners when unemployed.

With males, most will end up losing their girlfriend or wife if they are unemployed long enough. Males with girlfriends have the shortest leash while unemployed. Most girlfriends will leave within 3-6 months of any type of unemployment, which is barely long enough to get either an entry level or mid level white collar job. Wives tend to give 6-12 months because it takes longer to exit as a wife. The couple lives together and there are children involved.

White collar males have their SMV tied more with their employment than service sector or laborer male employees. Lower wage males can lose their jobs and not necessarily lose their girlfriends because their SMV is more tied to having a deadbeat and/or rebel type persona. Few white collar male can pull off the deadbeat/rebel persona.

For a man, it is better to lose his job when he doesn't have a monogamous girlfriend or wife simply because he won't need to concern himself with loss of access to pussie.

However, it is often difficult for unattached men to get pussie from new women. In the early 2010s, former PUA Roosh wrote the definitive article about getting laid while unemployed as an unattached man/man mainly pursuing casual sex.

Getting Laid While Unemployed And Living In Your Dad’s Basement

It's debatable whether the tactics Roosh promoted actually are successful in getting unattached men laid while unemployed.

if a freelancer loses a client, they have only lost part of their income but can rely on other clients to sustain their business. Furthermore, there’s no need for relocations or upheavals (which is very important).

The problem with this sentence is that it assumes that the freelancer has a good base of paying clients for a product/service.

It's very difficult to build a business from scratch and get paying clients for a product/service.

Most freelancers/entrepreneurs fail with their entrepreneurial venture and end up having to close the business due to a lack of getting clients.

Getting those initial paying clients to launch the business and get it to a point where there's sustainable income is the major challenge for any freelancer/entrepreneur.

 

[Manure Spherian]

Considering these aspects, what real advantage does being an employee offer compared to being a freelancer?

Reliable schedule, predictable work, showing up to a routine day, an eight-hour day versus round-the-clock babysitting of a business, no marketing or advertising, health insurance, social aspect.

Very few people can do entrepreneurship or self employment. And the notion pushed around the net for decades that such work is more stable than ordinary employment is BS. I've been at my job for seven years, and at the job before, five years. Plenty of people have been at jobs for years or decades. The notion that being an employee is so volatile is BS.

The notion that a job stands for "just over broke" is BS too. Plenty of employed people are doing fine or better.

Imagine if everyone actually fell for this and was trying to be self employed.

 

[SW15]

The notion that being an employee is so volatile is BS.

I work in an extremely volatile field regardless of broader economic conditions. Layoffs are common in my line of work.

Freelancing is likely worse though. We seem to agree on that idea.

the notion pushed around the net for decades that such work is more stable than ordinary employment is BS.

Ordinary employment has become less stable since the 1970s in the United States. The GI (1910s-early 1920s births) and Silent Generations (late 1920s-1945 births) were the last generations to enjoy greater stability in the workplace.

Employers prior to the 1970s were more loyal to employees.

There is now no loyalty between employers and employees. Employers can lay off at the drop of a hat.

That said, getting freelance work is more difficult than getting traditional employment.

 

[Manure Spherian]

I work in an extremely volatile field regardless of broader economic conditions. Layoffs are common in my line of work.

Freelancing is likely worse though. We seem to agree on that idea.

Yes, I get that they are more common in some types of work. I do not believe they are common generally but I am ignorant on the subject and might be wrong.

I work in healthcare, and in more than two decades of work in it, I was laid off once because the hospital I worked at closed.

That said, getting freelance work is more difficult than getting traditional employment.

There is a toxic notion in the RP space that each and every man should have his own business. I remember Stirling Cooper once was stating why working for someone else is not good because one is at the mercy of an employer who can lay him off. He then went on to put his foot in his mouth by saying that in his own businesses in the past he had much stress because he was worried he didn't have enough money to pay his employees! Haha. Way to sell entrepreneurship as an enviable position.

With that said, I myself am going to attempt to soon make my own "side hustle" and I think men cut out for entrepreneurship should do it. I am pleased to see that the subject of entrepreneurship is being taught to my young children in their homeschooling co-op and I'd like to see them business-minded early!

Ordinary employment has become less stable since the 1970s in the United States. The GI (1910s-early 1920s births) and Silent Generations (late 1920s-1945 births) were the last generations to enjoy greater stability in the workplace.

Correct.

 

[plumber]

very often the feeling of going to employment is negative. must go because of debt.

very often the feeling while running a business is positive. a feeling of hope (even if you have little of it).

when unemployment is low, working as an employee can be nice as often the employer will take care to the needs of the employee or risk them resigning. when unemployment is high, usually employers will push the employees beyond, as they can just get another.

the same skills that allow an employee to excel are the same ones that an entrepreneur needs. Keeping a top employee is difficult, if they are in debt it is easier.

I still remember when Amazon started FBA. In the beginning all of a sudden one person could run a big business by themselves. No need for many direct employee. Was it better to be a Amazon seller or an Amazon employee. Lots of wealthy people that followed either path. In most cases the sellers earned more money.

Insurance and credit industry has done a good job in creating fear. And with government support. .....

No stability exist; it is an allusion created for another's profits.


Probably some interesting intersection about employment and dating. Safe vs Abundance; depends on the reaction to fear.