It's enough to pay for itself easily and pay for a vacation or two a year, for about 4 hours of work a week. If we really put effort in, it could replace our day jobs.
Where most people go wrong is their expectation. We expected this to fund a vacation and maybe car payments. That it's doing that is exactly right and we don't want to take it any further. If people had that view, instead of feeling like they have to make a billion dollars, I think side gigs would be a different beast entirely.
You can be comfortable on not very much money with realistic expectations while not working yourself to the bone was kind of my point.
In fairness though, given inflation is the average, housing costs outpacing means something else underpaced.
Hard disagree.
As the article notes, I think if you concentrate on a real business, not a scam-y 'get rich quick scheme' business then, especially with the internet, its never been easier to run a solo business at scale.
For myself, I wrote an app as a side hobby, which then took off, so I started working on it part-time, then moved to full-time when the revenue justified.
It's now growing to where it exceeds what I would have made working for someone else.
Note this took 7+ years of constant work, improvements and care.
It's the type of dedication that makes you competitive with even larger organisations.
And the time required to be a 'success' ensures that you won't have any competitors who just want to make a quick buck or get to "passive income" within a year or two.
Just because you took 7+ years to develop a business does not mean that all businesses require that or that it is the only way.
HN is one of the few places left where low effort snark is thankfully below the noise floor, please don't destroy that.
Part of that was accurately diagnosed by the article in the bit about the dog walking business vs dog walking platform.
My partner bootstrapped a successful full-time cleaning business that she ran for a few years and the limiting factor was basically her ability to hire and retain good employees. A physical cleaning business has no path to scale like a tech company though.
Some people just lack the capacity for this sort of thing, and unfortunately fraudsters target them by trying to convince them otherwise.
We remember the success stories, we don't remember the bankruptcies.
Internet businesses by contrast have a power law distribution. Meaning if you perform average you will end up with just $100 per month. The potential upside is infitite though.
The outcome of the average business person is very different between physical and online business.
I suspect this is largely sampling bias.
I host meetups for indie founders, and several attendees earn their living through solo businesses. When I go to conferences like Microconf, I meet lots more.
The problem with measuring financial success by who posts about it on HN is:
* The more someone is making at their solo business, the less they want to blab about it and attract competitors.
* The people earning at the low end are more desperate for people to see what they're doing so they can pick up new customers, so they're more likely to talk about their work.
* The more successful founders are busier and spend less time posting on HN.
Isn't this also sampling bias?
To refute assertion you need to claim negation of that assertion, which is assertion in itself, as every negation can be rewritten to become affirmation, and vice versa.
> All cats are white.
> All the cats I see are black.
The second statement doesn't actually imply that all cats are black but it does refute that all cats are white. It doesn't make it's own claim about all cats, it just adds an anecdote that doesn't conform to the first statement.
However, the original argument regarding smoking bias is correct of course.
While you can certainly argue that such a counter example entails the negation of the original assertion, that is not the same thing as claiming the negation of the assertion.
Putting forth an argument or demonstrating a counterexample is not the same as asserting all of the logical consequences of that argument.
Exactly! And this is why every time I see someone selling a course while bragging about making a lot of money, I know for sure they are _not_ making money.
Well, yeah, they’ve got a system. Their system is selling hope to schmucks like you. Their seminars, their self-help books, their crazy diets and exercise plans? That stuff doesn’t help you. It helps them.
This text can currently be found in the blurb for a shirt at https://shirt.woot.com/offers/steamworks-operatica .
It's possible that's where I found it originally, but my memory suggests to me that I found it somewhere else, on a blog, and that the continuation was different.
Victor Niederhoffer, The Education of a Speculator
But yeah I'm guessing the guy selling the course makes more off that than his fba business
No indy hedgefund algotrader gives away their golden goose, that would crowed out the trade.
I thought it was supposed to be "passive".
> I suspect this is largely sampling bias.
FTFY.
Speaking of sampling bias, isn't this like asking a shovel vendor about the success rate of gold prospectors? :)
I don't stand to gain anything by exaggerating the results of the meetup attendees. Unless you think I'm trying to recruit people on HN to come to my meetups and meet successful founders?
The dog walking business example was also appropriate in my mind. My spouse fortunately broke even, minus time, on her attempt with drop shipping garbage nobody really needs. Now she makes decent money with her oil paintings. Not "passive income" but real money and profit. Not enough to retire (that's what I am for!) but actual money nonetheless.
Years before your spouse enrolled in that Amazon course, people were spending tens of thousands of dollars on Trump University. Many years before that I had a friend that got sucked into the Equinox International MLM scam. Point being those types of promises of easy money after paying for a course, or outright scams, are not something new or unique.
The vast majority of people who fall for things like MLMs will continue to pursue similar scams and never graduate to "real entrepreneurship" even when there's obvious and not terribly difficult paths (most anyone can become a realtor and at least not lose terrible amounts of money, even if they never get to "full-time job" levels).
She also has a few art shows she applies to and goes presents at those. I think this is where most of her recurring customers come from honestly, and not Instagram. Though she has had a few commissions from Instagram.
A side note on those looking to buy art, you might refrain from asking for a custom piece. If you see something you like, there's a good chance you don't know why you like it even if you think you do. So when you give the artist a picture you want them to translate into something like oil, it'll probably disappoint. The frustrations I've seen my wife go through trying to get a commission right is tiring.
When I was in high school 25 years ago, unless you got lucky with an IPO, tech didn't pay all that well. (I worked in software while I was in high school, so I know some of this first hand).
It was office space. It didn't matter how smart you were, if you didn't go into management, or join Apple/Microsoft at just the right time, you weren't going to live a rich lifestyle.
Not only that, you'd probably be reporting to some MBA type biz guy who has no idea how software works, you'd not be well respected, and your perks were drip coffee and occasional donuts on friday.
Of course brilliant, hard working, talented engineers said "fuck that" and go build something awesome themselves. Things have changed drastically. Now, brilliant hard working people can literally make millions at dozens of companies .
You will report to another engineer who has slightly optimized for soft skills, you get lavish perks (except amazon, but at least you get paid well there), and real equity.
There's a whole spectrum of options for ambitious software folk that didn't texist ~25 years ago.
So, my view is skewed, but I got the impression software engineering was not a place people were retiring 'early' from, unless you made it in management. It seemed like a pretty standard office job, maybe with a little more perks due to the eccentric nature of the majority of workers.
Do I have the wrong impression?
"Passive income brain" people are not the only one's trying to "build revenue engines," that same sort of talk exists in corporate America. There are already people that that own companies which are there "to generate passive income for me," right now--there's a whole class of millionaires and billionaires that don't have to work. Passive income people didn't ruin the "content quality of the entire internet" and are far from the only ones doing so. Many of these folks are likely the ones that would have owned a hardware store if America didn't ignore it's regulatory duties while preaching about how "important" small business is.
In the U.S. situation really seems to have fossilized into a few big players/platforms, and they continue to freeze up through the process of things like private equity roll-ups. There's a thread on the front page right now about Amazon's alleged price-fixing tactics, which hurt customers and small businesses. Further: Real-estate is an investment, so for most being able to pay commercial rents is a pipe dream. Healthcare is tied to employment, so people are less free to try and start something other than "on the side."
American's choose "convenience" when shopping and to put people in power that serve these large companies or their owners, not small businesses or communities. Dropshipping, creating a "sweaty startup," etc... it's all just people trying to make do within the system they're trapped in.
It has long been easy for anyone to buy health insurance without an employer in the US. If you are self employed, you can even pay for it with pre tax income.
The problem is it costs $500 to $2,500 per month per person plus $10,000 out of pocket maximum per year, which means you need a high income to be able to afford it.
But, public hospitals with low or no cost care exist in some of these places, and from my observation, I do currently think it's a contributing factor to why small businesses are more likely to exist. But, it's only one knob to turn.
Maybe free health care would help, but i think its kind of minor compared to other factors.
If you were earning above six figures then your numbers may be correct but let’s be honest and not dissuade folks from doing their own research. Everyone’s goals are different.
What do you think happens when you get sick as a self employed person? Do you think a health insurance company pays claims? Self-employed health insurance = Orwell's 1984
At least when you work for a corporation you don't have to see the truly ugly side of health insurance claim denial. Many people don't see this until their 50s/60s when they lose employer health insurance.
> Do you think a health insurance company pays claims?
Yes, see exhibit 2:
https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2025/may/...
> At least when you work for a corporation you don't have to see the truly ugly side of health insurance claim denial.
I cannot tell if I am being trolled. The only logical conclusion to this statement is you think “corporations” instruct the managed care organizations they pay to pay all claims. To which…lol.
First-principles. ____
A Fortune 500 company has teams of lawyers, HR departments to ensure that a basic cholesterol blood test doesn't need to be approved or fought to be covered. When you are no longer "protected" by the corporation you are fighting on your own.
It doesn't seem like you have any real world experience dealing with health insurance companies.
No, they can’t. They don’t even own hospitals, where a good portion of the spending happens. Nor do they own the medicines that are the highest profit margin item in the whole healthcare chain.
> It doesn't seem like you have any real world experience dealing with health insurance companies.
You would be wrong, but to avoid appeal to authority, you can explain why the managed care organizations are terrible investments if they deny claims willy nilly. It is one of the wonders of the modern world, all 7 publicly listed managed care organizations are simultaneously pilfering their customers and their shareholders. And they have the same insurance prices as the non profit insurers, who all have to get their prices approved by 50 different state insurance regulators.
https://totalrealreturns.com/s/CVS,ELV,UNH,MOH,VOO,CNC,HUM,C...
If the health insurance executives can pull off that kind of coordination to achieve that kind of theft, they deserve it.
> A Fortune 500 company has teams of lawyers, HR departments to ensure that a basic cholesterol blood test doesn't need to be approved or fought to be covered. When you are no longer "protected" by the corporation you are fighting on your own.
A fortune 500 company is likely self insuring. The managed care organizations wouldn’t even be affected by approving or denying the claims, the employer is the one paying. Smaller businesses are buying the same ACA compliant insurance as an individual would from healthcare.gov.
Optum Health: Delivers care directly to patients via local medical groups, urgent care centers, and surgical facilities. Optum Care: A major component of Optum Health, this network employs or partners with physicians across the country to provide value-based care. Optum Rx: Pharmacy care services. International: Owns and operates healthcare facilities in South America and Europe.
It's not difficult to see how a Health Insurance company with 4,000 subsidiaries could easily move money around and manipulate claim stats.
is someone making money on a side gig really a solopreneur? By definition a side gig is not something you expect to make significant amounts of money on. if a side gig starts generating significant amounts of money then you would probably make it your primary gig.
From my perspective, you have to take a lot of shots, I did around 20 side hustle ideas last year and 2 are making over $100/mo. The other 18 I dropped. The only note I will give is that the 2 that succeeded really played to my strengths.
About me: I once had a hustle that did around $6k/month but that was many years ago and I decided I would be happier as a hired gun coder. The rise of AI made me rethink this so I'm clawing my back to providing services.
That amazed me when I heard it recently. The number of tradeable things continues to increase, but most of them are two or three steps removed from real-world production.
You're conflating two different things. Thanks to software, it's easier today than it's ever been to make money as a small business / solopreneur. It's also harder to compete with the big boys, possibly for the same reason and due to economies of scale.
That's why I don't bother entering the same markets the big boys are in. There are plenty of niche markets which they don't bother touching where a small business can thrive.
Dropshipping, affiliate SEO, print-on-demand... these face the same margin compression regardless of how engaged you are. Ad cost inflation, platform saturation, algorithmic displacement, etc... it doesn't matter whether the operator is engaged or not.
Caring's a moat only where differentiation is possible. In commoditized markets, it doesn't move the needle.
> I read an article recently that the number of public companies has halved compared to a few decades ago.
That's not because there are fewer companies but rather because private markets have much more capital.
OpenAI is the extreme example. If it were public, it would be the ~tenth most valuable public company in the world.
These desperate attempts at passive income are simply another symptom of the absence of a functioning economy.
This is such a naive take. Nobody is coming to US to try to outgun you. The moment petrodollar wobbles, the moment US Dollar stops being the world reserve currency, the game will be over for you. You will discover what it really means to be competitive, once the world stops giving you goods essentially in exchange for glass beads.
Pretty sure the current administrations end game here is copying North Korea. The rich have enough oil in Texas to perpetuate their lifestyle, while violently suppressing all opposition.
Sure, a lot of these people were just buying hype from these "get rich from drop shipping!" influencers, just like a million other suckers who got dollar signs in their eyes with real estate schemes, pyramid sale schemes, yada yada, a tale as old as time. I don't think this "passive income" trap is really anything new, and I don't think it was some unique thing that "ate a generation of entrepreneurs", as if that trap didn't exist then instead we'd see all these successful people.
Instead, what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money. Just look at all the posts on HN asking about how much people make on their side gigs. You rarely see anything more than a couple hundred bucks a month. There are notable exceptions, but unfortunately a lot of those notable exceptions are scammy, spammy business models. It's just simply much harder as a small/smaller business to make money and compete with the big boys. Wealth inequality doesn't just apply to people, but also companies. For example, in the past many entrepreneurial types may have started retail stores, while now it's incredibly difficult to compete with the likes of Amazon et al. I read an article recently that the number of public companies has halved compared to a few decades ago. The Wilshire 5000 stock index, for example, actually only includes about 3400-3700 companies now.