This is interesting, and I prefer the term "patchworker" to "freelancer" so kudos for that. I'd love to see employment in the U.S. either regress and become muc

This is interesting, and I prefer the term "patchworker" to "freelancer" so kudos for that. I'd love to see employment in the U.S. either regress and become much more static or move forward towards a more dynamic model like this. In the '50's and '60's, being an employee of a company carried a certain set of obligations. You were a "company man" and, in exchange for doing your time and climbing the ladder, you'd be taken care of with a pension, great health care and near-guaranteed employment. Now, the benefits are almost all gone and that makes long-term employment with one company a suckers' game barring extraneous circumstances. Some places hire long-term contractors, but I don't think this is what the article is talking about as long-term contracts generally carry the same demands on your time as a full-time job does, making it much more difficult to keep several irons in the fire, so to speak. This patchworking concept is, as I see it, the ideal circumstance for someone who knows their shit and can get things done. However, the link doesn't say very much about the obvious problem with the model it advocates. How do you convince companies that they can, in fact, get work from part-time patchworkers that is just as good as the work they get from full-time employees? I understand that there is a mentality that assumes you can't manage someone who isn't in the office, but I don't know how to disabuse someone of that notion and replace it with a results-based view of work. THAT, to me, is the lynchpin to breaking out of the 9-to-5 rut, and I'm not sure how to convince a business that the code I wrote at 3 am in my living room can do their work just as well as the code I'd be writing at 11 am in their offices. THAT's what I'd like to see in an article talking about breaking free of the 9-5 rut.