5 ms·
If one compares the amount of money that most sweepers have made to the time invested in the activity, then probably any minimum-wage job would have been more w
by Mediterraneo10 7y ago
If one compares the amount of money that most sweepers have made to the time invested in the activity, then probably any minimum-wage job would have been more worthwhile financially.
For the small amount of exceptionally successful sweepers, I still suspect that the time lost, along with the additional burden of tax accounting, makes this a pretty inefficient strategy financially. The exceptional ones are showing effort and strategies that they could have instead applied to traditional business and investment paths with a greater return.
- redorb 7y agoold boss told me once - 'some people will work harder at not having a job than they would at a job'
- Retric 7y agoOn average, Coke enters around 300 online contests per month (about 10 hours’ worth of work) and wins £1k in prizes. That's £100 per hour which is much better than most jobs. That's most likely a statistical aberration, but if you assume the people they go back are also the people that won in the first place it probably seems to be a winning strategy. That's assuming people that go long streaks without winning then stop.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago£1k in prizes is not £1k cash in hand. If it is merchandise, now the winner has to do all the work involved in reselling it. If it is non-tangible earnings like travel, it cannot be resold at all.
- chaostheory 7y agoIn the US, I believe there's also a 40% tax on winnings. It's on retail value for goods.
- toast0 7y ago> In the US, I believe there's also a 40% tax on winnings. It's on retail value for goods. Contest winnings are income, and therefore subject to income taxes. Contest winnings above a certain amount are subject to withholding, but the winner may need to provide the cash for withholding if the prize is non-monetary and the prize doesn't include an adjustment for taxes.
- stordoff 7y agoWorth noting not in the UK, where Coke lives.
- wisty 7y agoIt also says she tuned it into a full time job, and talks about how it's really hard work. I suspect she's mistaken about how many hours she puts into it. Maybe not. Maybe she just worked hard perfecting her skills and can make 100 pounds / hour, but is picking the most profitable opportunities. Some side gigs are like that - you can make a huge hourly wage on something but only for a few paid hours a month.
- stordoff 7y agoI suspect the full-time job is actually her blog, rather than the contests per se: > The operator of a popular sweepstakes blog, she has made the hobby into a full-time job. So far in 2019, she's won prizes equivalent to £5,389, or about the same as working 110 hours/month at minimum wage[1]. Given that £2,000 worth (Majorca trip) is tagged as "Group win", and most of it appears to be stuff you couldn't sell at retail price, or just couldn't sell, I find it difficult to call that a full-time job. [1] (£5,389/6 months)/£8.21 an hour = 109 hours
- anonymous5133 7y agoThis is true. Reminds me of a somewhat popular youtuber who makes videos about "side hustles." One of his "main" side hustle is operating vending machines. He basically makes videos about how to operate your own vending machine business and so on. The irony to it of course is that 98% of his "profit" comes from youtube partner advertising. So he makes a few hundred bucks from the vending business but pulls 10k-15k profit per month from youtbe ads. So the real moral of the story here is don't waste your time doing a vending machine biz, focus on making entertaining youtube videos.
- jobigoud 7y agoI've also been convinced that this is how most the authors of "how to get rich" books make their money. Not by applying their own teachings but by selling them.
- 7y ago
- throwaway9980 7y agoWe call those people entrepreneurs.
- facerape 7y agoAnything to avoid the nightmare of having to deal with some piece of shit lording his retarded asshole over the banana republic of losers that gave up on themselves.
- WalterBright 7y agoI've seen people spend far more effort trying to cheat on tests than if they'd simply studied the material.
- anonymous5133 7y agoDefinitely guilty of this. The real irony of it is that the cheating on the exam was actually far more of a challenge and had an adrenaline rush to it. That's why I did it at least. I remember one method I would use is to simply memorize thousands of multiple choice questions from the test bank. That way when you took the exam, you would already be familiar with the question on the exam and how to solve it.
- WalterBright 7y agoI once asked my high school teachers why, on the multiple choice tests he gave, if one answer was "all of the above" or "none of the above" it was always the correct answer. He laughed and said because the students needed all the help they could get. Years later I realized he probably was trolling me.
- jobigoud 7y agoIf the right answer is "all of the above" do you loose points for also checking the above? What if you check all the answers but not the all inclusive one?
- distances 7y ago> I remember one method I would use is to simply memorize thousands of multiple choice questions from the test bank. That way when you took the exam, you would already be familiar with the question on the exam and how to solve it. That's not cheating per se, though, just studying with previous exam questions as practice material. I'd wager all students that can access old tests do that.
- setr 7y agoI used to do that with cheat sheets; I’d put so much effort into minimizing and formatting the content to stuff everything into the one-page limit, that by the time I took the test I had the whole thing memorized, and make no use of it during the exam
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- paulcole 7y ago> If one compares the amount of money that most sweepers have made to the time invested in the activity, then probably any minimum-wage job would have been more worthwhile financially. But why even make the comparison? You can’t work at McDonald’s from your kitchen table at 11 AM if you feel like it or while you’re watching TV at 2PM on a Saturday.
- northwest65 7y agoNo little endorphin hit from mopping up spew either. Financially it seems like a lame duck, but I can see why it would be attractive to some personality types.
- vinayan3 7y agoI have a family member who is really into winning contests. They have won tons of stuff similar to the people in the article. I have explained the time spent is not worth but they don't see it that way at all. For them winning is exciting because it's random and unexpected. They also, do this when there is nothing else to do so it's their form of leisure. It costs nothing to enter and if you don't value that time anyways, like doing this instead of working, then why not? Which is different from going to a casino or playing the lottery which require you to pay to play. The other issue I've explained to my family member is that their personal information is being handed out to tons of companies. I avoid handing out information so I don't get targeted for ads etc.. but I guess each to their own.
- astura 7y ago>their personal information is being handed out to tons of companies The sort of information you need to enter a sweepstakes is name and address, which is already public information anyways.
- blueboo 7y agoI've had teh same thought in regards to "extreme couponing". O, to be in the top 1% of tirelessly collecting and organizing coupons and tracking price changes, only to save maybe a few hundred dollars a month!