The Side Hustle Economy: We Just Forgot What Security Actually Costs

[slapper]

For the majority of human history, people did not have "one job". Peasants worked on a farm AND engaged in craft work AND trade. Merchants had numerous trade routes. Even nobles controlled several estates and political offices. The concept of where you work for ONE entity that provides ALL your security: maybe 150 years old. It's a historical blip

We used to refer to it as "the social contract" when it was still around: you provide loyalty, the institution provides security. Pensions. Healthcare. Stability. That arrangement fractured about 2008, and we are continuing to act as though it exists. Risk was transferred down the ladder by institutions. Pensions were changed to 401ks (you manage it). Full-time turned into contract work (you take care of taxes, healthcare). Lifetime employment now consisted of quarterly performance reviews (you're always disposable)

Each transfer passed the risk onto the individual. So individuals adapted. They began to create several sources of income. Not that they are entrepreneurial heroes. Because they're all rational actors reacting to changed incentives

The side hustle is just personal risk diversification. Same reason why you do not put all your net worth in a single asset. Same reason why countries have foreign currency reserves. Well, same reason why Bitcoin is there

As soon as you lose faith in one system, you develop parallel systems. The interesting thing is the speed. It perhaps required 15 (or even less) years to turn the one-fits-all career into the many sources of income. That is quicker than most historical institution changes

And the institutions are confused. They desire loyalty yet they do not provide it. They desire attention but offer no safety. They are working under a social contract which no longer exists and asking themselves why people are not keeping it. In believing that one institution will provide you lifelong care was the weird thing of it. That was always the anomaly

[abhiseshakana]

The social contract was once the cornerstone of post-war government legitimacy, with citizens pledging loyalty and the state guaranteeing economic security and basic services. Since the late 20th century, a systemic shift has begun, intensifying after the 2008 banking crisis, when financial, employment, and health risks were increasingly shifted from institutions to individuals.

This issue is not simply economic; it is about institutional design and political priorities. Repairing the social contract involves more than simply restoring old programs; it involves designing protective mechanisms suited to a modern economy: fair taxes, basic universal protection, new labor market regulations, and strict financial oversight. Without these, a fractured social contract will magnify inequality, undermine social cohesion, and foster political insecurity.

State affairs are indeed complex. They require not only strong and honest leaders, but also leaders of strong character, respect, and true technocrats to manage the interests of millions of citizens across diverse classes and sectors. Given this complexity, a definition of justice is difficult to achieve. For example, high taxes can suppress investment if not balanced by productivity reforms. Excessive job protection can reduce economic flexibility. Reform, privatization, and competition increase access and efficiency; problems arise when regulations don't balance the risks. Technology is eroding traditional jobs, but also opening up new opportunities, but the politics of adjustment determine whether the impact is inclusive or exclusionary.

The paradox of 2008 was when state policy chose to bail out large banks (bail out creditors and financial institutions) but then adopted a fiscal policy that actually cut social assistance. This demonstrates that the priority of protection shifts to market players, not ordinary citizens. Ultimately, everyone learned from the crisis that welfare guarantees that rely on high economic growth and progressive taxation are vulnerable when state revenues are under pressure.

[Apocollapse]

That's a good explanation, real life reality.

The institution is happy with that, they can demand more without need to give equal reward, when the employees are asking their right, the institution can just give excuse if the employees are lack of something or not loyal enough.

In the next few decades, we won't see a permanent job or seasonal job anymore, but all of them will turn to be a seasonal job.

[viljy]

A true observation. This is a consequence of the fact that the former social classes are being destroyed. First, the proletariat disappeared, and the trade unions weakened accordingly. Instead of the labor of the proletariat, low-paid sweatshop labor was used by the population of those countries where production was transferred from Europe or the United States (and no trade unions, of course).

This created the Precariat, a hybrid of former blue-collar workers, skilled workers, and even white-collar workers who were thrown out the door by corporations because they were replaced by AI. Now this situation is mirrored on the corporation - there will be no commitment to the corporation as a family from the Precariat. And if so, then continuity is destroyed and the transfer of experience to new specialists suffers. And then the technological lag behind competitors or other countries begins.

[Alpha Marine]

Another contribution to this was inflation. The cost of things is constantly getting expensive, and the incomes people make are no longer able to cover what they used to. Then the companies and businesses are not ready to increase the salaries of employees to reflect the rising inflation, and this pushes the employee to look for more money elsewhere.

In the next few decades, we won't see a permanent job or seasonal job anymore, but all of them will turn to be a seasonal job.

I doubt that. There will always be permanent jobs, even though the rate of seasonal jobs will be very high. There are so many jobs that are required to remain permanent jobs. Although the level of loyalty will drop more than it already has, companies that it is in their interest to have permanent employees will always act right.