4 ms·

Five years in advance? That's nuts. My time in five years will likely be twice as valuable as it is now. I also find "set by the market, with the seller's righ

Five years in advance? That's nuts. My time in five years will likely be twice as valuable as it is now. I also find "set by the market, with the seller's right to set a floor" dubious .. what market dictates this? Prices vary wildly from location to location, even for the same individual should they decide to move in the interval between the original order and its eventual fulfillment. Further, how responsive does the freelancer have to be to their client? Do they have to drop everything at a moment's notice or risk liability for the investment? You have a novel idea, but it is checkered with question marks.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Five years in advance? That's nuts. My time in five years will likely be twice as valuable as it is now. Right. So if your time is worth $75/hour now (you douched it up a couple days ago with that "narcissistic shit" comment, so I'm pricing you conservatively) then your 5-year $75-struck option is worth at least $75 (higher, actually, due to volatility) and you'd get to collect that now. You take the option premium, invest it in yourself now, and if you're called in, you get additional pay (the strike price of the option) for the work. I also find "set by the market, with the seller's right to set a floor" extremely dubious. What market dictates this? Well, that's the hard part. The reason we find "X-percent-of-future-income" deals to be tasteless and gimmicky is that there's still a stigma against publicly looking for work. It either means, to a lot of people, that you're either desperate, or sociopathic and looking for the highest bidder. That's why work and consulting especially often comes down to these medieval-era reputation economies. Building the market would be a non-trivial undertaking, but it would improve the freelancer's life (income stability) substantially. Further, how responsive does the freelancer have to be to their client? Do they have to drop everything at a moment's notice or risk liability for the investment? I would say that the contract should specify a minimum and maximum hours per week, and that the initial price is repaid if the person can't meet that commitment. This means that 5-year-window options might not be practical, because you're right that there's the priority problem. What if someone sells 2500 hours of time with a 5-year window and it's all called in in the last 4 months? I won't claim that these things are easy to structure, because they're not, but it can be done.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  (you douched it up a couple days ago with that "narcissistic shit" comment so I'm pricing you conservatively) You're way off-base, and you're crazy if you expect I read a single word after that. Any comment I made was in direct reply to something you wrote, and addressing it here is entirely off-topic.
- nissimk 13y ago
  There's a lot of risks here for the buyer. Mostly risks that the seller fails to meet his side of the terms for any number of reasons. As the term becomes shorter, these risks are reduced, but then this contract kind of reduces to a retainer as mentioned below. The retainer is much simpler and probably better for both sides.

michaelochurch 13y ago

Five years in advance? That's nuts. My time in five years will likely be twice as valuable as it is now. Right. So if your time is worth $75/hour now (you douched it up a couple days ago with that "narcissistic shit" comment, so I'm pricing you conservatively) then your 5-year $75-struck option is worth at least $75 (higher, actually, due to volatility) and you'd get to collect that now. You take the option premium, invest it in yourself now, and if you're called in, you get additional pay (the strike price of the option) for the work. I also find "set by the market, with the seller's right to set a floor" extremely dubious. What market dictates this? Well, that's the hard part. The reason we find "X-percent-of-future-income" deals to be tasteless and gimmicky is that there's still a stigma against publicly looking for work. It either means, to a lot of people, that you're either desperate, or sociopathic and looking for the highest bidder. That's why work and consulting especially often comes down to these medieval-era reputation economies. Building the market would be a non-trivial undertaking, but it would improve the freelancer's life (income stability) substantially. Further, how responsive does the freelancer have to be to their client? Do they have to drop everything at a moment's notice or risk liability for the investment? I would say that the contract should specify a minimum and maximum hours per week, and that the initial price is repaid if the person can't meet that commitment. This means that 5-year-window options might not be practical, because you're right that there's the priority problem. What if someone sells 2500 hours of time with a 5-year window and it's all called in in the last 4 months? I won't claim that these things are easy to structure, because they're not, but it can be done.

oinksoft 13y ago
(you douched it up a couple days ago with that "narcissistic shit" comment so I'm pricing you conservatively) You're way off-base, and you're crazy if you expect I read a single word after that. Any comment I made was in direct reply to something you wrote, and addressing it here is entirely off-topic.
nissimk 13y ago
There's a lot of risks here for the buyer. Mostly risks that the seller fails to meet his side of the terms for any number of reasons. As the term becomes shorter, these risks are reduced, but then this contract kind of reduces to a retainer as mentioned below. The retainer is much simpler and probably better for both sides.