4 ms·
Compared to what? Either you're on contract and they could simply not renew it when the 1/3/6 month timeline is up, or you're an employee and they could simply
by Phlarp 4y ago
Compared to what? Either you're on contract and they could simply not renew it when the 1/3/6 month timeline is up, or you're an employee and they could simply lay you off without warning on a completely unpredictable and arbitrary timeline.
Everything is tenuous compared to living off the safe withdrawal rate of a $10 million diversified investment portfolio.
- sbarre 4y agoI think the idea here is that when you're on contract, you are much more aware that your employment is time-limited and transactional. So you live your life, financially and otherwise, with this in mind. I have no doubt that this sounds (and would be) more stressful for some people, when compared to full-time employment, particularly in the US where your job is typically tied to health care and other benefits. But most folks I know who have been laid off from long-term employment were shocked by (and ill-prepared for) the event.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoOf course they both have risk categorically, but they differ greatly in magnitude and scheduling. With Contracting you know that there is say a 50% chance the contract will expire on a given date and can plan accordingly. As a direct employee there is say a one percent chance you'll be laid off and it could come at random times.
- jsimzeroone 4y agoThere's an old cliche that when you go from being an employee to being a contractor you trade the illusion of security for the illusion of freedom.