>> Salaried work is by far the most lenient way to make money. Any other venture: a small business, a startup, an executive position, etc is way harder and more demanding.

I've done both and I don't believe I'd agree with making it a generalization. At best, there may be some averages and medians, but it is not a universal statement that "all salaried work is more lenient than all small business / startup work".

I've done a successful small photography business. It was way way way less stressful, more satisfying than office work, and I can only imagine how much better than e.g. Amazon warehouse work.

If you replace salaried with hourly, a change that is purely administrative, you increase your risk because your income is not pooled.

Salary is mainly a way to pool lots of resources and insure them for sickness, rotation, leaves, etc. It is literally the risk-averse option.

You want to compare salaried with its not-salaried version, not any salaried position vs any other non-salaried position.

> I've done a successful small photography business. It was way way way less stressful, more satisfying than office work

Ok, but did it generate more income? How many hours did you tend to work?

Averages and medians are quite useful tools when you're analyzing something like a population.

I don't think saying that a salaried job tends to be "the most lenient way to make money" is that controversial.

Maybe you had a good run with your photography business, for many other people it is far more difficult to get a venture off the ground than to work a normal job.

Not to mention sick leave. Paid holidays.

Obviously you charge more to cover those, but the uncertainty/risk is on your side as a freelancer.