That $8,000 has to be after taxes. Because after OnlyFans cut she should be taking home $13,500.

Does a 'fan' imply a subscriber? That could be the difference between a follower and a subscriber.

> Does a 'fan' imply a subscriber?

Yes. Generally there is no "free" tier.

Thanks. I'm not familiar. I know that Twitch, for instance, has a separate concepts for subscriber (pays money) and follower (wants updates on the person).

>She says her OnlyFans work is the only way she can support her family due to the pandemic, and fears many other content creators will struggle to make ends meet going forward.

Really? There's always working at Walmart, Target or even collecting an income from Patreon?

Can you really support a family working at Walmart? I can’t even imagine trying to do that. Rent in a modest apartment in my town would be like 2/3 of your income.

Yes, people do it.

It isn't an easy life. You get a tiny apartment and share bedrooms. Parents (more likely parent though) often sleep in the living room. Not all apartments will allow this but enough will that you can find a place. There is enough money for shelter and food, and the cheap cable TV, so that is your entertainment.

It isn't a bad life, but you are limited away from a lot of the things most of us enjoy.

I know people who have done it. I went to college and want my kids to do the same so they don't have to live that life. Unfortunately most in that life don't realize that it wouldn't be hard to get their kids out of it. They are eligible for a lot of programs that the rest of us can't get to take care of the costs, but if you don't realize that the effort of applying yourself is worth it they won't get you out and the cycle repeats.

If your only option available is a Walmart job, you definately should NOT be having kids. Society used to judge things like irresponsible pregnancies, and everybody were way better off because of that.

Fertility rate scales with poverty. Those earning middle-class wages or higher tend to have fewer kids, or none. Much is linked to education and access to contraceptives. People will have sex, period. Shaming people for having kids helps at nothing.

> Society used to judge things like irresponsible pregnancies, and everybody were way better off because of that.

Revisionist delusional fantasy. In Western society people had far more children a couple of generations ago, regardless of wealth. The Church pressured this as well.

Yes, people tended to have way more children. And pregnancies out of wedlock were way less prevalent too. Having two Walmart paychecks instead of one per household will make it way easier to raise a family. But nowadays single moms are heralded as heroes... so-much-progress. Such progressive times.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

People laud single moms not because there's a virtue in being single while raising kids, but because it's a hardship, particularly to do well.

This is such an awful and tone deaf comment. Reproduction is a fundamental biological need.

We should not be denying people who are exploited by our economy this biological right. What we should be doing is lifting up the worker to a baseline of dignified living.

I sincerely hope you will take a few minutes and reflect on your statement that poor people should not have kids, and that society should somehow punish them for doing so.

> Reproduction is a fundamental biological need

Do you need reproduction to survive? Well, lots of people are alive who haven't reproduced, and many are of old age. So, this doesn't quite check out.

Everybody except, you know, the families who were permanently destroyed.

I'm sure poor Bella would be fine, everybody else on the platform making less than that might want to reconsider their monthly spending.

Do you really think that everyone can work at Walmart, Target, etc? And I'm referring to the fact that those companies can hire only so many people in one location.

Yes you can. Walmart, Amazon and Target are doing just fine, when worst comes to the worst, there are options.

And also you can do both.

A grocery store doesn’t pay $8k a month (unless you’re a manager at that store)

Sure, I am all for creators not going to work at a grocery store, there are other options for them to make an income, and it doesn't even have to be forever.

Retail jobs introduce a higher risk of catching corona, pay terribly (likely close to minimum wage, which isn't enough), are terrible banal working environments, require travel to and from each day, have schedules that might not work for this person, etc.

There are tons of valid reasons why someone can't "just get a job at Walmart".

I see you missed the "only way" part.

She isn't doing this because it's the only way she can make a living. She's doing it because it's the easiest way to make money.

That sounds a lot like my job as a Paramedic, actually.

At least Walmart got hazard pay. We were specifically exempted from it.

I too lack sympathy that she's only making $8,000/mo on OnlyFans. Reality is that she may have to adjust her lifestyle like hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people have.

The good ole “get a job” reply. You hate to see it.

Who said "get a job?"

For everyone else on the platform, probably yes? If I was them I would consider options.

Those are closed, restricted or its employees furloughed due to the 'rona and won't pay nearly as much as selling pictures on the internet. Patreon has the same issues and a different model - less personalized, and you get paid per creation (or per month), instead of the individual sale model that Onlyfans seems to have (based on this article). Not as much space for personalized requests either.

> Patreon has the same issues?

But creators can still make money on this platform no? I see most creators there, what are these 'issues'?

Really? How well do they pay?

Well enough to make at least some additional income, really bad to put all your eggs in one platform.