A common theme of the most successful people that come through a mentoring group that I'm part of is that they don't have side projects or side hustles. They focus their time and energy on doing one thing very well, whether it's education, their internship, or their job.
Somewhere along the line, tech students got the idea that the key to success is to have many side projects and side hustles going at once. While it is true that in very narrow, specific cases something like a GitHub project could fill in gaps in a resume, it's rare that companies even look at GitHub work as the deciding factor in a hiring decision. It's too easy to let your energy, attention, and motivation get diluted across too many side projects. The problem is amplified when people start entering relationships and eventually having kids, further diluting their limited time and energy.
Some of the worst offenders are things that don't necessarily feel like a side hustle but nevertheless drain inordinate amounts of time. Daytrading stocks and cryptocurrencies commonly traps people into constantly checking their phone, Twitter, and portfolio to avoid losing money or missing out on breaking news. The pocket change most people make (or lose) on day trading is lost in the noise relative to a successful tech career.
The best advice I have for career success is to pick one thing at a time and focus intently on it. Use your off time to do anything else: Social activities, physical activities, or even simply relax and recharge for the next day.
It's better to do one thing well (usually your job) rather accumulate a lot of half-finished side projects or side hustles that are constantly stealing attention.
To follow this advice, you have to:
A) Be the type of person who can focus on only one thing
B) Love not learning or doing other fun things because a career trumps all things in life
C) Like putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping your career or skill is always relevant
D) Love being the best you can be for the benefit of your boss
E) Want to work in a career for the rest of your life
Of course the most successful people you mentor are the ones who are only doing what you are guiding them to do and aren't distracted by life, it doesn't mean they are better.
This sounds like propaganda given by the CEO to have more effective employees. There is no doubt that focus can help you improve and get there faster, but at what cost and with what life goals?
Side hustles can be fun, profitable and life changing. We've got at least 3 that has allowed my partner to reduce her work hours to 4 days a week and generates half of her salary. We can buy fun stuff and business expense it and if we continue to improve we can gain more control and freedom.
Original post was about having hobbies and not feeling guilty about not turning them into side businesses. It would be better if our culture was set as a default to say "that's awesome, it's so good you could sell it if you were so inclined, but feel no pressure to do so, I just want you to know it's that good", instead of saying "you should make a store/service to sell your hobby" and make people feel bad, even though it's just a compliment.
> To follow this advice, you have to: A) Be the type of person who can focus on only one thing B) Love not learning or doing other fun things because a career trumps all things in life C) Like putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping your career or skill is always relevant D) Love being the best you can be for the benefit of your boss E) Want to work in a career for the rest of your life
Or, work toward finding a job and career that you enjoy.
Doing occasional side projects for fun is fine. Doing side coding projects as a form of escapism because your job isn't aligned with what you actually want to be doing all day is a fool's errand. The time is better spent searching for a job that comes closer to what you want to do.
> Side hustles can be fun, profitable and life changing. We've got at least 3 that has allowed my partner to reduce her work hours to 4 days a week and generates half of her salary. We can buy fun stuff and business expense it and if we continue to improve we can gain more control and freedom.
Of course - If you're starting a small business then that's something else entirely.
The vast majority of side projects that I see aren't profitable small businesses, though.
I think it really depends on how idealistic you are. I don't think I'll ever find a job that satisfies me completely. I just have too many creative ideas that don't fit neatly into a regular dev job. I've also found that "devoting" myself to my job itself can lead to burn out. There's only so much you can control within a job. Even trying to find a better job takes work and does not guarantee you'll be happier in the new role. There's always something that you won't like in it.
In my opinion, it's better for your mental health to treat your job as a job and get as much as you can out of it in terms of money and improving your skills. I think with enough time in the industry, you eventually figure this out.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing side projects as a form as escapism if your job isn't aligned to what you want to do. Life is what you make it. There's no "correct" way to live.
> B) Love not learning or doing other fun things because a career trumps all things in life
I think that this dismisses the joy of learning things that are unrelated to your day job or any hustle. I enjoy woodworking, turning it into a side hustle where I need to justify expenses would suck the joy out of it. I do something that is not work, recharge, and it is intellectually stimulating even if it is nothing like my day job in software.
I think there's always inherent tradeoffs to specialization vs. generalization, and side projects/side hustles are more of a generalization technique. It feels rather akin to the "exploration vs exploitation" tradeoff in AI; do you search the space for better opportunities, or maximally refine the opportunity you have?
Specialization is great, if the specialty you choose ends up being important or highly in-demand. For example, everyone wants to be the Geoffrey Hinton of the 21st century, a luminary in deep learning. Not too many people want to be the Geoffrey Hinton of 1986, publishing back-propagation into an AI winter and subsequent decades-long disinterest. It's hard to know which one you'll be (or in the above, both!)
Side projects and hustles allow you to broaden your toolbox and see potentially interesting crossovers. "It's like [X] for [Y]!" is a cliche startup pitch at this point, but it's true that a lot of cool ideas arise from applying principles of one field in a widely disparate area.
I don't think that it's particularly wrong to choose one route or the other--I admire the specialists I know, even as I know that's not something I can replicate. I'm too enamored of the possibilities, and cognizant of the brevity of my lifespan, to be able to commit like that.
> I think there's always inherent tradeoffs to specialization vs. generalization, and side projects/side hustles are more of a generalization technique.
That's the theory behind side projects, but it's a false dichotomy.
Side projects are, by definition, something you do on the side. Your primary day job requires attention whether or not you do any side projects. Side projects are additive on top of the work of your day job, but subtractive out of your pool of free time and energy.
Side projects always start with good intentions of broadening horizons, but people generally realize that they only have so many intensely productive hours in a day. Do you allocate your most productive hours to your job? Or to a side project? It's tempting to say "both" but in practice that will spread someone's finite energy too thin across both domains.
Students tend to go wrong when they think that side projects are the key to unlocking their next big job opportunity. When they start to burn out in their dayjob, they think they're just a couple of side projects away from qualifying for an opportunity that will make them happy. The trap is that being burned out at a dayjob and adding the additional work of side projects only worsens the burnout. They get stuck thinking they need to finish the side projects before they change jobs, but they can't complete the side projects because they're too burned out from jobs and a side project. In these cases, I encourage people to drop the side projects and just apply to jobs. It works better than most people expect.
"Your primary day job requires attention whether or not you do any side projects. Side projects are additive on top of the work of your day job, but subtractive out of your pool of free time and energy."
For most people doing the side-hustle thing (and basically all of them doing it successfully), the calculus is "Put in the minimum amount of effort in my day job, get my R&R in the remaining time at work, and spend my mornings/nights/weekends working on the side hustle" vs. "Remain fully engaged mentally for the 8 hours I'm at work, relax when I come home, don't do the side hustle." That's why many employers hate side hustles.
I can't say which one is a better strategy, because it depends on the circumstances. Certainly the bulk of my lifetime income & assets comes from giving my all to my projects at Google, delivering successfully on them, and getting promoted a couple times. But before then I worked at a couple of startups and there was basically zero opportunity for a raise or promotion, because the company wasn't growing and there was no money to be had. And I got the Google job in part because of side projects (non-monetizable, but they showed I knew my CS and could work with a modern tech stack) done after work.
> For most people doing the side-hustle thing (and basically all of them doing it successfully), the calculus is "Put in the minimum amount of effort in my day job, get my R&R in the remaining time at work, and spend my mornings/nights/weekends working on the side hustle"
Yes, this is the real problem.
Side projects for fun and learning is fine. Nothing wrong with exploring new ideas as long as you're having fun.
But somehow side projects have become synonymous with compensating for misaligned careers. I see too many people working all day (or avoiding work all day) then coming home to work all evening and weekend. Then they wonder why they're burned out and not getting promotions at work.
Side projects can be a springboard to career advancement if executed carefully, but for every 1 side project success story I probably see 10 other people with side projects that never do anything other than drain their free time and add more mental work to their TODO list every day.
I know it’s all hypothetical, but do you think the startups would have grown if you had focused solely on growing them rather than the side projects? I know that the median case has bigcorp earnings outpacing startups but in my startup experience (main source of my assets) the early engineers who were super plugged in made an outsized impact on our outcomes that turned into a good financial outcome for them.
Maybe the principle is different though (not startup can bigco)... I did a bunch of side projects in school and at bigco before concentrating focus, so in a way we both went broad then had success going deep.
> do you think the startups would have grown if you had focused solely on growing them rather than the side projects?
Nope. I actually developed two products for the second of the startups, which was the time period I was working on the side projects. The CEO (my boss) and I are still on good terms, and he knew about the side projects while I was working on them.
Startups usually fail because nobody wants what they're building, i.e. the startup should never have been founded in the first place. Certainly this was the case for this one: we were doing a platform for hedge fund algorithmic trading, but hedge funds are usually very resistant to running their code on someone else's platform, both because of lock-in/competitive reasons and because their code & algorithms are their crown jewels and they're very sensitive about running that on other people's infrastructure.
I agree with you 100% that "side projects as an antidote for burning out on your primary job" is a dangerous place to be, and I've been there several times in my career with deleterious effects. I agree with your recommendation to take that as a warning flag and instead change your job, that is the right call in that situation.
On the other hand, I do find a lot of enjoyment in fields that, today, are dominated by "winner takes all" dynamics and extremely low probabilities of (financial) success (e.g. most creative fields). I don't mind diversifying my time between a primary job that, while not burnout-land, is also a bit boring and reliable, and a secondary that, while incredibly unlikely to "strike gold", is rejuvenating of my creative energies. I do have to be careful that it does not drift into the maladaption that you note though.
And sometimes you want to actually write code every once in a while instead of scribing another three-hour quarterly planning meeting during mandatory training week. Being able to work on your own projects at your own pace and make something out of it is incredibly enjoyable, even if it takes some of your productive hours away from work.
I guess what I'm saying is: hobbies are good, too.
It depends on the nature of the side project (vs. side hustle), its relationship to your day job, and your employer's rules (and attitude). In my case I've done a number of tech-related books. My employer knew about (and encouraged) them. And we've had a tacit understanding that I wouldn't be doing these purely on my own time and I'd continue to work on my "day job." It was never a problem and worked out for both of us.
I certainly know people who do similar things around open source projects.
Yup +1, I agree with you and the OP. If you work for a huge company your skill set may be extremely narrow. Buy having lots of side project will at the very least give you a talking point if you want to change to another company that might not have the exact position you were working at your current company
>> If you work for a huge company your skill set may be extremely narrow.
In my experience working for a huge company makes it very easy to broaden your skills. You can change teams, take on mentorship and recruiting, lead teams, lead initiatives, switch from front- to backend at different times, and learn from a large number of people - all from the "comfort" of the company you are already in.
Well thirty years later we can see that it worked out really well for him. The most rewarding things in life take time. Like building up interest on stocks. Time preferences are strongly associated with lifetime outcomes. All the best opportunities exist in identifying truths that exist outside the realm of social consensus. You can build your specialization in an environment free of competition. Waiting for the social consensus to change takes decades. Once it does you're in a good position to reap the economic benefits that follow.
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) has this concept of a talent stack. The idea is you want to develop talents that are synergystic. So for example, web development might be one talent, which can get you in the door. But if you add database development, backend technologies, etc., now you can be a full stack developer. But if you go further afield and start developing public speaking skills, or people skills, now you're moving into a lot more possibilities. Point being, if all you did was focus on being really good at web development you plateau at "valuable employee". So I would say that developing talents outside of your core competencies is absolutely critical.
I would say intense focus on one thing reaches a point of diminishing returns. The key is to recognize when you have mostly tapped that vein and develop something else. That doesn't have to be a github project, often you want something far afield, especially to avoid burnout. it can be speaking classes, or improv classes, or even fitness, or electronics, or whatever, anything that helps your stack.
It seems mixing cause and effects in many cases. It could also be that most successful people focus on only one thing because they are successful they can just afford to do only thing and reap exponential rewards. For people like me in mediocre career / jobs in mature industries, doing best at job just means writing even more half-assed CRUD micro services.
The best possible thing that could happen by totally dedicated to job would at best be one more promotion to keep working on same mediocre stuff or manage a team doing that for few thousand dollars more. And it is not even blaming management as there are only limited opportunities in saturated industry and far more folks are chasing them.
Even those half finished projects have given me more knowledge and experience than mind numbing "next generation technology" training that corporate got a great deal on by some discount instructors.
Now it could all have been different if I joined a hyper-growth industry at right time. I might have gone far by just knowing one thing. At that point I could be proselytizing younger people that "you've got to focus on just one thing and you will make it big"
I saw exact example of this by listening to a SVP in my office who apparently rose through ranks by "sheer hard work, grit and focus". However to me it was pretty clear he joined company just at the time when industry as a whole about to enter massive growth. Of course he isn't gonna say how stars were aligned and he just got massively lucky. It is for others to see what it really was.
I am the polar opposite of this and I am going rather well with it. Which means: I am happy with what I am doing, I am happy with the money it produces, I am happy with the way customers interact with me.
And quite frankly it would very likely bore me to focus one one thing only. I am not on this planet to get bored with my life or hunt for some mythical sunlit uplands by betting all my time and energy onto one thing, unable to keep a healthy distance riding it into a ditch because I want it to suceed too much. I want the things I create to be objectively good. For this I have to be able to keep a distance to them. Making them the sole center of my life would prevent me from that.
Apart from that I am easily the most productive person in my social environment, parts of which are of the "only focusing on one thing"-crowd. However I don't think my approach works for everyone. There are types who need these context switches and there are types who need that focus.
You are facing the right direction, but went off onto the wrong track with the day-trading stuff. The first part of your argument can be a true distraction, as it is avoidance. It’s the same as spending hours making a checklist of tasks, instead of doing the actual tasks.
The second part of your argument is not the same. Trading stocks has nothing to do with programming, so much so that you can’t even use it to lie to yourself that ‘yes indeed, today I have chipped away at being a better programmer by trading these stocks’. It certainly can steal your attention, but it can never ever be used as a form of self manipulation (therefore, not a problem if you do it in moderation, like everything else in life).
It’s the first type of distraction that can destroy your soul if you indulge in it.
I did my job very well for more than a handful of companies - all was great until it came to promotions and pay raises. It is possible that I suck at negotiating, but there is only so much of those that companies can/will give.
I don’t know if side hustles are the answer, but I know from experience however hard you work, there is a limit to awards at your job. Plus, employers do not care about their employees in general. Anyone who believes they care is just delusional.
Focusing on one thing is good, the trick is picking the right thing to focus on.
I remember reading the book The Goal in business school. What impressed me the most, was that the most efficient path to achieving a goal, is often non-intuitive, and sometimes even involves making destructive choices - choices that outside observers would find absurd and distasteful.
It's not only about choosing a singular goal, it's also about meticulously calculating your path there.
Don't follow the herd. The pack is FULL of jack-of-all-trades that have a smattering of random skills they picked up. Make literally every life choice with directionality and planning.
You’re last sentence is totally accurate, but I think there’s a balance with diversification and focus.
Failure is likely, success can be huge, that means my emphasis is on learning and have as many at bats as possible. How I imagine the best strategy is:
Try a lot of things learning as much as you can > prune what isn’t working and focus on what is (more and more of your fixed pie of time dedicated to the best opportunity) > continue until you pass your goal of success > then diversify again to maintain that level of success
You don’t focus on something too much until it’s proven itself, otherwise you’re far more likely to waste too much time on failures. Once you “really have something validated” (this is its own conversation), then you focus more and more on it driving it to its potential.
Diversification finds the potential winners and learns the fastest, focus makes that winner reach its potential.
I am not sure many people don't want to focus. Some of us simply can't because they need to feed their families. Thus, the question for me at least, is not if I want to focus, but when. When can my side hustle generate enough income so that I can stop having a day job? The other option is to get external funding, which has its own set of problems.
By the way, many businesses have been built like that. Take Nike, for example. Phil Knight, the founder, worked as an accountant during the day for many years while building his shoe empire.
When I'm interviewing, I love to hear about someone's homebrewing or swing dancing, or bread baking, or homeassistant setup, or whatever. Not because it's a "hustle" but just because it's a sign that they a) are an interesting person who gets into interesting stuff, and b) are someone capable of following through. Putting this stuff on your CV invites that conversation in the interview.
My personality seem not to allow me to just do one thing. Even today, I have a couple of jobs and I enjoy the variety of challenges. It's also risk management - basically any of my jobs could fail and it would not really affect me, which allows me to have a certain distance to each of the activities as well.
> It's also risk management - basically any of my jobs could fail and it would not really affect me, which allows me to have a certain distance to each of the activities as well.
Yep, this is huge for me.
My "real job" is as a software developer, like most of us here. My side hustles are many and varied: portrait photography, vinyl decals, custom garments, metalworking, leather working, drone stuff (photography, photogrammetry, volumetric, even FPV and racing), etc.
I've had a few instances where I've found myself suddenly without employment for one reason or another. It's stressful, but it's not the emergency that it would be if not for all of my hobbies/hustles. I can spend a couple of days refreshing contacts and easily expect to be making enough money doing drone stuff alone to pay my bills and put food on my family's table.
I always understood the side project thing as a way to develop skills that you don't develop at work. I'm never really going to improve writing simple python stuffor crud. I have no reason to get better once I'm at the point completing my job satisfactorily or even have opportunities to get out of my comfort zone as far as programing goes. I have no way of knowing what I don't know.
When I was working on side stuff all the time, I was getting better rapidly, finding new ideas, solving problems in better ways and just always out of my comfort zone. I stopped because I did get burned out a bit. The focus was never resume filler though.
This is Key, coming from someone who is guilty from this myself, but also are in a relationship with someone who us completely opposite and has a 100% focus on their work and academic field. For most of us, being really good at a job simply requires 100% focus. If that is your aim, then make sure the other things you do in life help you relativt and be ready for a new day.
For me, I've realized that I dont have it in me to be 100% focused on one thing, which is great - then I can manage my expectations and goal, however I still try to be mindfull and not try to do to much.
I'll definitely agree with you in some ways. Two or three years into a career, no one is looking at your GitHub. But when you're just in college, a quick look through your GitHub can be a decent filtering function that I frequently use when I visited colleges on recruiting trips. A follow up conversation about some of your favorite projects and what's something interesting you've learned or done recently helps me catch those who don't have a GitHub or have lots of projects that aren't really theirs.
Unrelated: How does one find a mentor/mentoring group? I've been thinking about it a lot lately, how for the first time in my career I'm without someone I would call a "mentor" and how that's probably not great for personal growth. It seems artificial to look for someone to call a mentor, as opposed to happening upon a person that you look up to and makes you feel inspired to grow. Can you shed some info on how a mentoring group works?
I make electronic music. Last year I invested in learning promotion. I spent about $1500 and now I have about a thousand followers on Spotify. Every time I release a song, I get a couple hundred listens. I don't do it for the money. The return on a it is a meager. My 'day job' makes me pretty good money.
But it got me thinking: what does it mean to me to have listeners? It's great when people 'like' my music, but in a lot of ways, it's just numbers on a screen. What difference would it make if I had 10,000 or 100,000 listeners instead of 1000? Maybe it would be cool if I were in a store and hear a song of mine playing on the radio or watching a movie and it was playing as a sound track. The validation I've felt from similar successes is great but it is fleeting. Ultimately, the most joy I get out of it is being able to sit down and create music that I myself enjoy and respect.
I think you nailed it in your last sentence. Hobbies are our chance to create without the baggage of external requirements or external validation.
Being in that creative flow state is the best feeling. If someone else appreciates what you made, that's just the icing on an already tasty cake.
I post my silly art projects on Instagram for 30 or 40 likes. Would I love more? Well, yeah. Endorphins and all that. But I can't stop making this stuff because I just really, really enjoy the moments of making it.
I'm in the same boat, making electronic music as a hobby. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting fans of your music, even if you have a day job and have no desire to make it a career. As fun as the creative process is, if you're making (good) music there will probably be things about it that you don't enjoy, whether that's sound design, tweaking effects chains to get something to sound right, banging your head trying to figure out why your track doesn't sound like your reference, mixing, mastering, etc. If you're putting in that effort, it is nice to see some validation, even if it's just in the form of "likes."
Promotion is a different story, though... I don't think it makes sense to throw real money (aka more than like $20 on Submithub/Labelradar, which I consider more paid feedback than promotion) for a release unless you're planning to get an actual return on investment there. At which point it crosses the line into "hustle," for me.
What about creating music so that the people who enjoy it will enjoy it? I don't create music but I appreciate the bands and songwriters that make the stuff I really like. That's not about self-validation for you, the author, that's about making someone else's life a little better.
I’ve “beat” most platforms. Most recently instagram.
Once you actually know how to get followers, engagement, and likes, the value of that currency decreases. Sure the dopamine is the same and you still have the chance to gauge how one piece of media performs against another. But there is no difference or point unless you are aiming to sell the profile (which is a decently sized market if you werent aware).
okay that's not it. forget everything you think you know about instagram, especially anything about vanity, anything that bothers you about the pursuit of vanity or your assumptions about it. you'll also be re-assigning what you think you know about instagram follower growth systems.
buying an instagram profile is more similar to a merger and acquisition deal, in the sense that you are actually buying all the direct messages (DMs) - the customer rolls. A popular profile does business through DMs (you also are buying the "og email account" to pass security measures, so if anyone emailed you get that too). They've done business with people that want to do promotions on their profile, business with entire networks of profile buyers and sellers. Buying a profile buys you that whole customer list. The customers are even the innocuous empty private accounts with 0 followers that are the point of contact for heavy traders. Things you may not have known existing. This is your way into a steady stream of unlisted accounts that are for sale. You can repeatedly just ask them what else they have.
when you choose an account for rebranding, you are looking for something similar to what you will rebrand to with certain levels of engagement and reach, and ideally with similar demographics although it will already be heavily correlated. wealth and motivation can be rebranded to some playboy guy, women's fashion can be rebranded to baby stuff, rinse repeat.
the general profile is targeting the whole world, so none of the "lets normalize this super progressive thing" matters at all. traditional gender roles are in vogue.
congratulations you've skipped the rat race of growing a profile. all the apps and systems to grow a profile are more expensive and time consuming than just owning an already grown profile.
you break even by doing promotions. promotions are people paying to be tagged in one of your posts for a few hours. then you delete or archive the post. or you do it on the story.
now lets go back to the apps and systems that are targeted to people trying to "grow" instagram accounts. you can use them, but its only to offset the attrition. when you rebrand you lose followers when they notice they are following something they don't remember following and don't want to. your goal is to just slow down the unfollowers, the banned, the deactivated, by having new followers replace them. But not to actually "make numba go up".
Now back to gen pop. the general population likes popular shiny things. I was just at a party yesterday where an adult woman was fawning over this "famous" person who "is really famous" and "has, like, 25k followers on instagram". This is a nearly perfect currency that doesn't actually get spent. "Oh my god, someone has an advantage with women I hate this let me find something wrong with it, aha! fraud!" nope. Notice that these are real followers, real engagement, real views, less or different work. Brands, companies, anyone wanting promotion or attention actually do offer things for free or pay. Worry about the people that are doing less effective things. But if you must be bothered, selling an account is against Instagram/Facebook's terms of service, so you have that going for you. The terms of service.
I've been aware of this, from sporadic participation, for half a decade now. Brand accounts, influencer accounts, you name it, just when you think its oversaturated and nobody will give them time of day, another year goes by and it still is interesting to people and the trading networks are more refined.
With multiple profiles you can also more easily grow your other profiles. Basically giving yourself free promos, or anyone you like. They are real human followers, after all.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I'd define buying already-popular profiles as "beating the platform." Not to knock the hustle but I think you're being pretty generous with believing there's any unique insight here.
I think part of it is being part of a community. You know there are people out there who are like you. In the sense that they like your music, and this connects everyone into some sort of asynchronous musical happening. You communicate something to them with your music (and lyrics).
I've been making music on and off for about 25 years. Have worked with different vocalists and other musicians. Now I do most of the songwriting myself but have another songwriter I sometimes collaborate with. I do most of the production myself as well but I typically hire a session vocalist or other additional musicians such as a guitarist through soundbetter.com or airgigs.com. I'll also hire professional mixing/mastering for each song.
It is amazing that now you can hire people online to do almost everything a professional record label can do--or do it yourself. Of course, paying a few hundred dollars for services like I do typically doesn't yield the same results as a record label investing $100,000 for it. But unlike decades past, there is no longer a wall out there preventing me from getting worldwide distribution and hiring professionals to assist in every way.
The key risk when turning hobbies into a business is that the core focus area of the hobbyist's expertise will likely have to shift dramatically, and it's often that shift that may cause a loss in enjoyment and fulfillment.
A hobbyists can focus on extremely uneconomical aspects of a thing, precisely because they don't need to think economically about it - a business person doing so will likely fail at both their business, and tragically, their hobby...
For anyone interested in a deeper exploration of this theme, I will shamelessly plug my podcast on deep, obsessive hobbies, "When The Work is Done":
https://www.whentheworkisdone.com/
Only managed to put up one episode yet (an interview with a very successful neuroscientists who spends almost all his spare time tailoring...), but am hoping to have many more episodes in the works soon.
Looks really cool! I'm listening to the neuroscience tailor one now. I've been itching for the past couple of years now (ever since having a kid) to dive back into some old hobbies that I haven't been able to make time for. Things like this are really inspiring. Looking forward to more episodes!
Basically the problem with turning hobbies into hustles is the addition of uninteresting (and sometimes frustrating) additional work that comes with managing time and caring about customer satisfaction. The extra work can take all the fun out of it.
Feeling the need to be constantly "productive" is, I think, really a separate issue.
I also differentiate between wanting to do something vs wanting to have done something. It's easy to want to have written a novel, to have learned to play piano, or to have painted something. But if you don't enjoy the process (the actual writing, the practicing, etc), then you may just be torturing yourself for the sake of self-image. Find something enjoyable in the actual process and you won't need to force yourself so much, you'll gravitate toward it naturally for its own sake, and you won't feel guilty if you decide to just watch TV or phone scroll instead. (Plenty of books and articles out there on forming new habits.)
Hustle:
INFORMAL/NORTH AMERICAN
a fraud or swindle.
"the hustles being used to avoid the draft"
'obtain by forceful action or persuasion'.
"the brothers headed to New York to try and hustle a record deal"
Why is the word hustle suddenly used all the time to describe work? I blame Gary Vaynerchuk, the born wealthy marketing hustler who was a big influence back in the days when 'social media' was cute and new. It just sounds shady and seedy to me, and not something I'd want anywhere near any of my interests or hobbies
> I blame Gary Vaynerchuk, the born wealthy marketing hustler
I’m not one to defend GV, but I don’t think I would call being born in Soviet Belarus in 1975 and coming to the US in 1978 at the age of 3 as being “born wealthy”.
Maybe their family had some connections. Maybe his family turned those connections into a healthy (upper?) middle class life ($3m of sales at a discount liquor store in NJ is not “wealthy”).
Anyway, regardless of how one views GV, seeing what his family did and what he did ($3m to $60m annual sales in 5 years) is impressive.
I get used car salesman vibe from him, and him inheriting a wine business gave him a more solid footing starting out than most. He made a lot of $ from vc too. Does not take a genius to sink a couple k into Facebook and Uber and get rich. I would have too if the opptunity presented itself to me.
You used an antiquated nearly obsolete definition. The current - also informal - use is derived from the fraud one but only in the clever nature involved, and isnt about fraud. Its closer to the sports meaning of perseverance.
> Its closer to the sports meaning of perseverance.
Which is itself a hustle per the definitions GP quoted! Probably one of the oldest-going ones. That is, promoting the image of some lofty qualities of a perfect athlete, to give additional meaning and allure to what's otherwise an exercise in competitive showmanship, an entertainment business.
The nature of the swindle becomes visible when one considers that: 1) the role-model athletes, whether today or in ancient past, are people entering large championships - i.e. professional athletes; 2) every player in professional sports is driven to get better, but there's a silent, implicit "but not too much, lest the game becomes too easy, too boring for the audience, and we the spectator money" attached to this.
I feel that we need to acknowledge that "work" is not something we need to aspire towards, but we often need "success" and "activity", and just have a hard time separating these concepts. All members of our society that need income compete with one another with how much work they're willing to put in, and we really need to figure out how we can stop competing against one another, as we're driving down the value of work.
I have a bit of a different view. I enjoy it when other people use the programs I create, I enjoy it even more when they make money using them.
Writing a program just for personal seems like just work. Those programs tend to be shoddy and barely function.
I enjoyed a lot that Boeing made money off of the 757. I enjoy watching them fly, it's my favorite airplane to fly on. The newspaper once ran a photo of one being cut up for scrap, and it was like someone was cutting me up for scrap.
I hate it when my employer would cancel a project I was working on, I didn't work on it just for the paycheck. When I work for myself, nobody cancels my project but me.
If anyone else popped these slides out, they would be asked to go back to elementary school, while any designers in the room would pour acid in their eyes to unsee those.
What I am saying is, some people are not particularly brilliant (and IMO, Masa is not), and even the analysts at SoftBank saw the WeWork pyramid con from 100 miles out. Masa is a special kind of nuts, however, deciding to come up with one implementable idea every day, when he was at UC Berkley. He is a breed of hustler with a nuclear motor up his butt that never stops running, throwing shit at the wall until something sticks.
But again, very few people have the perseverance and the energy, so know yourself.
I've embraced having a hobby for its own sake, and it does add joy to your life. I'm trying to get a photo of all the different bird species I see. The photos are not high quality. The web site where I post them is nothing special - just the freebie portfolio site you get when you subscribe to lightroom. I'm not even an expert birder, but learning more is part of the fun. But I really enjoy going out, finding new locations to explore, and posting my photos, even the ones so bad that I'd delete them if they were not my first shot of a species.
And when I spend a Saturday morning out doing what I enjoy, it truly does energize me for everything else going on in life. I doubt I'd get that energy if I started trying to figure out how to make this return monetary value.
I tend to think this is only true for activities where the enjoyment/experiential part of the activity is separated from the "meta business game" of the activity to a large enough degree. While this may be true for a lot of hobbies, I don't think it's always the case. If you love to play a sport, the meta game of being a pro athlete is very close to the part that a player loves, which is playing the actual sport. The sport itself is the main focus, everything else like coaching and contracts is window dressing compared to actual playing skills. If you love to cook elaborate dishes for your family from various world cuisines, you should probably consider the meta game before you try to become a chef or open your own diner or restaurant. Do you like thinking about ingredient prices versus dish prices? Marginal efficiency of how a dish is cooked and constructed? Seating layouts and service rotations? How to design, implement, maintain, and update a profitable menu, etc.
If all you have is passion, and you're not able or willing to closely examine the step-by-step process for how your passion translates to cash, and how that cash makes its way to your bank account, then of course you won't enjoy a hobby as a career or business venture. You need to actually enjoy the business aspects directly if you want to be happy with a hobby-turned-career.
I agree with the general sentiment, although the author seems to miss the point that many people trying to monetize their hobby aren't trying to win more money, but simply to replace the time working in a pay-the-bill job with time spent working on their hobby. There is a catch, which is that monetizing will require dealing with business duties, which comes with the risk of alienating the hobby. It's not clear how it compares to wasting your lifetime on a career you don't really care about.
> Like many millennials I was encouraged to view any of my interests or talents as a possible career.
Fortunately for me, tax deductions are one of my favorite interests and talents.
Almost every kind of consumptive spending can be filed as a business expense, when every kind of your hobby is also rationalized as a potential business.
All the endorphins and dopamine of spending on things I like go to me, and none of the money goes to the government!
Eventually you have to shift hobbies or stop deducting if you arent making a profit, after like half a decade. Not hard.
So basically I write a review, and then tell the IRS that I'm a beer journalist, and that in order to do my job I need to deduct my beer costs? Brilliant!
Not so far off, keep searching for actual tax advice
In the mean time, understand that despite the popular understanding of taxes, the outcome is that the government is seeking to incentivize transactions.
So from their perspective, its not really about revenue collection and people pulling a fast one on them. They want you to spend in the economy. They want money flowing in the economy. The remainder of the hoarded money that isn’t spent is being subject to tax, so the government can figure out how to keep it moving instead. Its up to you to find transactions that reduce your tax burden, but they don't care if you choose the right or wrong transactions. They've set up a system to have a high velocity of funds flowing to all sectors of the economy without the state needing to steer it.
Understanding that can help you understand why it isn't hard to create these deductions.
People set up a business name and register it in a state and create a business bank account partially for separate accounting to make it simpler to pass an audit, and simpler to make it more convincing that an audit wasn't needed to begin with.
Well, more, I'm making the possibly unwarranted assumption that at least one of the founders, who were obviously into craft beer, may have homebrewed as well.
The big catch is that you basically have to earn money as a beer journalist--and, if you're at that level, you can probably get a lot of your beer paid for.
My greatest wish, now that I am retired and learned a few new things, is that my fellow Americans (I can't speak to other cultures) would stop putting the focus on money. Money and the things it can buy are not that important in the larger scheme of things. If Americans didn't make life a competitive sport, then more would realize this. Near the end, it's all about what you do with time and doing what it takes to remain healthy to live longer and enjoy this time.
Easy to say when you are retired and have $. Everything is getting more expensive. Healthcare especially. having more money and the peace of mind that comes with it is important. I would rather err on the side of earning too much than run out and be stuck.
So true. I don't see how anyone could feel financially secure with less than a few million in net worth. Everyone else is one accident away from drifting down into poverty.
I'm living below the poverty level in Silicon Valley on a fixed social security income and I've never been happier. California Covered takes care of health insurance for almost no out of pocket money. I am healthy. I'm having fun exploring the online world, finding interesting things I never had time for before. I'm also exploring the Bay Area by throwing my bike on Bart or the Caltrans Train and getting around that way cheaply. I have almost no material things and no money anymore, but don't miss either. I realize a lot of people would be unhappy with no money, but I'm here to say I'm not. That's all.
No, you're not, because you are getting all kinds of benefits from living in a rich area of a rich country (you name a number of them in your post) that don't appear explicitly in your income but have a huge positive impact on your quality of life. Try living on the same income in a much poorer area or a much poorer country where none of those benefits are available and see how you like it.
"Poverty level" is an official number used as a standard put out by the American federal govt. It's not based on quality of life, but only on income. I was referring to that.
I've lived in areas of grinding poverty and hated it, but I'm more interested now in how William Gibson's quote "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed." Silicon Valley is the future. Those other areas of deprivation are in the past. In the future, many of our needs will be taken care of, freeing us up to be creative.
You are right, I am lucky to live where I live.
I am astonishingly rich compared to what people had 40 years ago, within my own living memory. I have a supercomputer on my desk connected to the world's information. I have a device in my pocket that lets me communicate with anyone on the planet. Long-distance charges no longer apply. My local library has every magazine I'd ever want to read. I'm awash in free music from around the world. I can view University level courses, free of charge. Have an idea for a 3D design? Download Blender for free and 3D print it for very little cost. The device in my pocket is a phone, voice recorder, video camera, still camera, mapping system and much more.
I tend to agree with Louis C.K. - "Everything is amazing, and no one is happy"
> "Poverty level" is an official number used as a standard put out by the American federal govt.
I know that. I'm pointing out that it is often not a good indicator of the actual amount of wealth you have access to. As you acknowledge, you have access to a huge amount of wealth that does not appear in your nominal income or your nominal net worth. Your real net worth includes your share of that huge amount of wealth. And the post you responded to with your comment about "poverty level" was talking about net worth, i.e., the actual wealth you have access to, not nominal income.
> In the future, many of our needs will be taken care of
How? By magic? No: by other people creating the wealth you make use of. You have access to all those wonderful benefits in your area because other people built those things. What about their needs? Who is "taking care of" those? Answer: nobody except themselves.
In short, this vision you have, where you can just have all your needs taken care of, only works for some fraction of people. If everybody takes that approach, nobody's needs will be taken care of, because nobody will be creating any of the wealth required to do that.
Almost certainly not. A lot of people here seem to be convinced that, even if you can afford (admittedly expensive) health insurance, you're one slip on a banana peel away from bankruptcy. One can doubtless dredge up horror stories of one sort or another but they're circulating stories for a reason. (What is true is that people who can't work because of illness have an issue of income not coming in but that's somewhat separate from the healthcare costs themselves.)
> Money and the things it can buy are not that important in the larger scheme of things.
Some things that money can buy are important in the larger scheme of things. Money can buy you the ability to spend time in person with family and friends who live far away from you. Money can buy you the ability to change where you live if where you live now isn't working for you. Money can buy you the ability to make some problems just go away instead of having to constantly worry about them. All of those things (and many other things money can buy you) can be huge improvements in your quality of life.
In short, money is more choices, and more choices means more freedom. The fact that many people use the choices money gives them to do things you don't like does not mean all choices that money gives you are bad or unimportant. Nor does the fact that some very important things can't be bought with money detract from the value of many things that can.
I think this problem can be solved quite easily with the following mindset:
Do something that might make you happy. If it doesn't make you happy, try something else. If it does make you happy, keep doing it. If the thing that made you happy no longer makes you happy, try something else.
Oh, and, don't take advice on happiness from blog posts by strangers. Friends, maybe, given that they share a similar mindset to you, but not strangers. And yes I realize the irony of this.
I took advantage of the recent graduation season and hustled some photoshoots. It was a good experience where I met a lot of cool people and made enough to offset the cost of some new gear, but I probably wouldn't do it again unless I wasn't working a full-time schedule and could command a (much) higher rate.
I already feel this encroachment in my main hustle; engineering is both a career and passion [1], but doing it as a living drains the reserves of wanting to do it outside of work.
I recently watched an interview with Sofia Coppola right after Lost in Translation came out. She said that she made her living from her clothing company so that she could be artistically liberal in her filmmaking [2]. There's something about the truest "artist" being the one who can escape having to call themselves an "Artist."
The trap is the "business." If I love an activity and I love performing JUST that activity, as long as that's all I'm doing I'm happy. A business involves so much more -> financials, marketing, sales, employees, taxes, competition, strategy, etc. etc. etc. All these activities taking you farther and farther away from the hobby that you loved.
I've run into this a lot lately with woodworking. I started it as a hobby during the pandemic, and I'm clearly still a beginner (just got my 3rd instagram follower that I don't personally know, woo hoo). But any time I show somebody a piece they tell me I should sell them on Etsy.
I just finished my fourth project, a set of trays, and immediately I was told I should make them to sell. They're walnut, so just in lumber and resin a set of three trays cost $500. Then I probably spent 20 hours cutting, drilling, rabbeting, jointing, sanding, and finishing these things. I value my time at ~$100/hr. So who is going to spend $2500 on a set of trays when you can get something close enough for $150 at Ikea?
Now the argument I use to shut them down is that it's a hobby. "But you could make money with your hobby." But then I have to deliver. When it's a hobby and a project doesn't go well, or you just get tired of working on it, you can put it down and walk away. If I couldn't put it down because I'm beholden to someone, and I need to deliver it, then it isn't a hobby any more; it's a job.
This was a bit ironic to me: “it’s just to say that it’s okay to love a hobby the same way you’d love a pet; for its ability to enrich your life without any expectation that it will help you pay the rent.”
Because I feel like a portion of people who get pets today expect to subsidize some of the cost with Instagram pages.
I'm currently working towards doing my hobby (gamedev) as the only thing I do. But the way I do it is collect corporate checks while allocating as much of my mind as possible towards improving my gamedev. So far it's not a bad deal - the hardest part is keeping sane in the face of the hellscape that is my corporate employers' other engineers. I have literally spent hours on Zoom calls listening to literal principal engineers discuss naming minutia. That at least gives me hope - turns out you don't need to be smart to be a principal. Easy money if I play my cards right.
So while my goal is to do gamedev as my only income (pseudo-retiring in a sense) - it's fundamentally different.
As developers, the trap is that we overemphasize how much any real business depends on the creative/product stuff. So we daydream about CEO roles where we can design a business where the creative product builders have their ‘rightful’ place at the top of the pyramid. When the reality is that every business basically shakes down to the same functions, and that founding your own tech business ultimately results in a rebalancing of your role, where you end up doing mostly mid-management in sales, finance, operations, tech, design, etc leaving you almost no time for the creative stuff you spent your life becoming great at.
Interesting how she talks about this being a big pressure in creative fields. I'm in the UX space, and it seems like people always like to talk about their side hustle, or getting a side hustle. This is especially true for connections on LinkedIn. Meanwhile, I couldn't care less about having a side hustle, and don't really want to have one as it seems that the people with side hustles are working all the time.
This resonates well. I have a hobby software podcast (https://softwareatscale.dev/) and the most common question I get asked is around how I'm planning to monetize it. I've had unsolicited offers from acquaintances to partner up to set up merch deals (?) and even NFTs to sell episodes.
It's surprising to me how often I read articles giving life advice (or admonitions) that are written by people who live inside the warm, shiny, not-very-representative bubble of California. I play a game with myself whenever I read articles like this, trying to guess if the story (a) Relies mainly on California anecdotes or (b)is written by someone living in California.
The tech industry is brutal in this regard. If programming and working on side projects isn’t your main hobby, then you are falling behind in some regard. Everyone wants freedom to create things their own way, while making bank in the process
If you turn hobby into hustle, you can claim it as business expense and save on taxes.
I personally love to paint on exotic beaches in summer. My company is barely profitable, there are travel expenses, but I have some regular buyers for my paintings.
Edit: why downvotes? It is not a joke, that is how it works in real life. Author obviously does not understand business. If you love cooking, you do not have to open restaurant and loose money, but once month you can organize "promotion event". That is nothing illegal.
Generally businesses have to eventually make money. At least, that's how it works in most of the world. If you constantly claim business expenses and only ever see losses, eventually you'll run afoul of the "expectations of profit".
Most people's hobbies will never turn a profit -- that's why they are hobbies, after all.
Which is why you don't make losses; you just don't make much of a taxable profit after costs. (I am not an accountant.) I did this for a number of years with a little side software business. The business paid for the expenses associated directly with the business, but also computer/office stuff I might have bought anyway. The business turned a profit every year. Just not much of one.
But that's much, much easier said than done. What if your hobby is ceramics or 3d printing or painting or craft cocktails or homebrewing or repairing old cars or gardening...
Well, yes, you have to make enough money off your hobby that you have revenue to offset costs against. Which may be possible with art of various kinds but, then, you may not care enough about the money to bother going through the effort of selling at craft fairs or whatever.
3d printer is 10k. Out of pocket it would be $10k plus income tax $5k plus $1k VAT.
So you form "3d printing shop" company and put some money in (loan, services...). Company purchases 3d printer, but does not pay any taxes on printer, it is an expense. After a few years 3d printer is out of warranty but still functional, can be purchased from company for $1.
Difference $5999. Obviously this is not advice, consult your accountant first.
In reality it is bit more complex. But this is rough picture.
> So you form "3d printing shop" company and put some money in (loan, services...). Company purchases 3d printer, but does not pay any taxes on printer, it is an expense.
But you already paid the 5k in Income Tax, when you initially earned the 10k that you put in the company to buy the printer. How does that save 5k? I think the business needs revenue.
It depends on the structure of the business, etc. You're probably going to spend as much on accountants as the few hundred dollars you might save, assuming you don't get audited.
It only works if the 3d printing really brings in some revenue. Otherwise, buying a 3d printer in a business that is doing something else (say, software consulting) cannot be counted as a cost.
If you lose money for 3 years out of the last 5, the IRS will put the onus on you to prove that your business is an actual business and not a hobby. If you're operating at Amazon scale and have lawyers and accountants on staff, maybe being audited isn't a big deal. But if you're a one person operation I imagine it's a lot more stressful
For businesses that don't make money in their first 3 years, there's some more indepth criteria but they're less cut and dry than the "are you usually profitable" rule
For example do you put a substantial amount of your own time into the business, is it normal to have large startup costs before coming profitable in your field, is the business your primary livelihood or just a side project,etc
I wrote "barely profitable", it makes a few dolars a year. If company has no money, it can not pay for anything.
And it is outside USA, what IRS thinks is irrelevant. Some more paranoid people even start new company every year. It takes like $50 and 20 minutes.
Downvoting usually means people don't understand your comment or don't like it, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
I do the same with one caveat: my tax advisor always reminds me to document not only expenses, but also make sure there is some income, preferably each year, to avoid any problems from the IRS.
And it's probably not worth it to show losses as opposed to a small profit. In the latter case you can probably cruise under the radar so long as you're not trying to deduct anything unreasonable in the context of the business. (A computer or office chair for a small software business is probably reasonable; a car is not.)
It sounds like (based on this comment and several of your other replies) that you get joy out of running a business and using them to play games to minimize your taxes. That's great, you do you, but to me it all sounds exhausting. If I wanted to learn painting, or play with 3d printing, or whatever, then _that's_ what I want to put my time and effort into. I really don't care if I'm leaving a thousand dollars on the table in potential tax write-offs. That's a perfectly acceptable price to pay to just enjoy my hobby without having to spend any time thinking about managing a business or trying to optimize every single aspect of my life.
I think you're imagining the tax advantage here as a lot of work, when it's really not.
These sorts of tax avoidance strategies are only complicated the first time you do them, and then repeating the same thing each year is simple. ...as for selling enough of it to call it a company - again - it's easier than most people realize to register a company.
That's pretty awesome. I only know a few people who have managed to make any money at all on art, and very few who have regular buyers. Art these days has become so cheap and commodified. Even if you don't break even getting to travel on it and 'break even' is worth it.
The questions is how did you arrive where you did? Did you paint for years without any return and then found patrons who buy your works regularly? Did you market and advertise? Did someone you knew send buyers your way?
There are a trillion people on youtube trying to make money selling art, and feeding themselves on other things. There are a much smaller number regularly selling physical paintings.
At the high end you relentlessly self-promote until a gallery takes you on in expectation of profiting from your work. You can make a lot of money at the high end - five, six, or seven figures for each item - but it's insanely hard to get into.
Mid-end you need to find a niche and possibly a physical location. I know one artist who combined demo/live painting sessions for customers.
The work took minutes, but it was cheerful holiday art sold in a tourist location by someone with a good line in friendly and engaging self-promotion, and he could clear four figures a day during the tourist season.
If you're selling online - that's a much tougher sell, and you'll need to create some kind of social media scene for yourself that isn't just "Here's me and my brushes".
I think you misunderstood my post. I understand the idea of hustling/advertising/etc to get social media following or a gallery spot or whatever. I also understand the art class/demo scene. None of that is interesting and it's a harder hustle than being an engineer for less in return. 99% of the people doing those will not succeed at making a living doing them, and those activities need huge time investments to see any sales at all.
It also means you're trying to sell a particular kind of art. Galleries want a particular kind of art. Tourists want a particular kind of art. Art you can make in demo/classes is very limited.
I don't have any interest in hawking my wares to tourists (because it limits you greatly on what you can offer, and how long you can spend on a painting), running classes (of which there are a million more qualified artists doing the same, all with competitive social media already), or praying that some art gallery will find my paintings interesting.
This person said they have regular buyers (what I call patrons) for their choice of exotic beach landscapes, to the point that it subsidizes travel to exotic beaches. How did this person get patrons for their niche without the rest of it?
That's what I want to know. Not generic ways of selling art. Are they selling to rich buddies? Is their mom really wealthy and supporting their hobby?
I think its awesome they are doing what they love and it sort of pays for itself, I wish I could do the same, but there's a huge leap from 'I paint exotic beaches' to 'I have patrons for my exotic beach landscapes'.
Because not everything is about businesses or money. Nor should there be any expectation of monetizing our hobbies / personal time.
There is a modern obsession with monetizing -everything- that one does, turning -everything- into a "hustle". Why can't people just do things in their spare time for fun without being bombarded about monetizing them?
Are you just disagreeing to disagree here? If they like painting on beaches and have a way to make a few bucks to finance these trips why wouldn't they?
Maybe you have unlimited funds to finance your hobbies, but others sometimes need to be a bit creative to fund their passion.
Somewhere along the line, tech students got the idea that the key to success is to have many side projects and side hustles going at once. While it is true that in very narrow, specific cases something like a GitHub project could fill in gaps in a resume, it's rare that companies even look at GitHub work as the deciding factor in a hiring decision. It's too easy to let your energy, attention, and motivation get diluted across too many side projects. The problem is amplified when people start entering relationships and eventually having kids, further diluting their limited time and energy.
Some of the worst offenders are things that don't necessarily feel like a side hustle but nevertheless drain inordinate amounts of time. Daytrading stocks and cryptocurrencies commonly traps people into constantly checking their phone, Twitter, and portfolio to avoid losing money or missing out on breaking news. The pocket change most people make (or lose) on day trading is lost in the noise relative to a successful tech career.
The best advice I have for career success is to pick one thing at a time and focus intently on it. Use your off time to do anything else: Social activities, physical activities, or even simply relax and recharge for the next day.
It's better to do one thing well (usually your job) rather accumulate a lot of half-finished side projects or side hustles that are constantly stealing attention.