This article has a narrow definition of passive income, limiting it to these low-barrier-to-entry schemes. Other parts of the FIRE world have emphasized being a landlord or flipping houses, for example.
I personally made it happen by working a FAANG SWE job for 13 years, not getting sidetracked by the startup cult, saving and investing 70% of my after tax income, etc. And no I didn't get into crypto, but I still managed to make it with conventional investments.
In fact, I chose to pursue a career in the tech industry in order to pursue financial independence in the first place. Because I knew back then (circa 2005) all the tech Kool aid was BS. That "don't be evil" was just a facade. And time has proven me right and my haters wrong, those who thought it was unethical for me to place wealth building ahead of career building.
It's been four years since I've been out of a job. Now I'm creating more passion oriented content. I'm never bored.
"Passive Income trap" wantrepreneurs haven't really gone away, they have just shifted to crypto rug pull culture and now prediction markets and app-based gambling.
They'll keep existing as long as the root cause that creates them (massive wealth inequality in general and the growing delta between productivity and wages) exists, so probably until our financial systems fully collapse in about 2032.
Met a guy that ran some dropshipping thing in a bar once, once he found out i was a programmer he kept on trying to get me to fix his website for free because it was easy, would not take no for an answer. I just kept upping how much money i would charge him till i got sick of it and left.
I knew a few guys like that in crypto too, before crypto came along and they got into that, this guy told me he’d written a twitter app, it was a bot that pumped gold at some influencers command. Spurred me to write an app though.
Tangential, but in my previous apartment one of my neighbors really wanted me to build him a website after he found out I work with computers.
I told him that I don't really build websites, and what I mostly do is write things that move information from one computer to another and that I haven't really enjoyed web development so it's not something that I do in my free time so I'm not good at it, and he should check out SquareSpace or Wix something.
He kept assuring me that it would "be easy". To shut him up, I gave him a quote of my daily rate for contract work (which honestly wasn't even that high by software engineering standards), and he backed off because he didn't realize how expensive software engineering is.
Everything I'd want to do on a "side gig to iron out the kinks and then eventual business" basis is regulated to the point where that path is economically impossible and the only way to be in the black is to take out a big f-ing loan, quit your job and go all in on your new business. And it's not just me, all my buddies have this gripe. We've all got skills and experience and equipment outside our immediate careers and we'd like to use those to provide value to people but there's just no way to do that inside the rules and none of us our interested in risking our retirements operating outside them.
I just upped my retirement contribution and decided that the big evil BigCos can do all the value creating and the finance middle men can have their take.
I guess that's the reason everyone does the slumlord or VRBO thing.
Quite the opposite for me. I'd like to have freedom to work on things I want to work on without "paying rent", "paying medical bills", or "short term profitability" being a constraint.
When the Internet was a quite new a guy who knew I was a programmer met with me to pitch an Internet business and it took me a while to figure out he was literally pitching Amway online.
Isn't passive income a cornerstone of of the Rich Dad Poor Dad Books? This long predates 2020. I would say selling masks and only being $800 in the hole is a lot better than starting a "regular business" and down $80k-800k.
this is unquestionably the best thing I've read on hackernews this week, perhaps all this month. should be required reading in high school, for the mental lens it provides.
"Passive income" as your only financial salvation is one of those memes that broke off from the MLM "tool scam" industry, that is, selling courses, seminars, and other training materials to people in MLMs on the pretext of teaching them sales, marketing, and business, but it's really just brainwash material designed to keep them from leaving. The other big one is positive thinking/the law of attraction/"The Secret". If MLM is the kaiju, these are the spider-things that fell off the Cloverfield Monster's body and started killing people in the subway tunnels. But like how Robert Smith performed with Siouxsie Sioux as "The Glove" while still fronting The Cure, these memes have built plenty of side scams while still enjoying friendly partnership with MLM itself.
I appreciated when "passive income" was the flavor of the week because it was a good signpost for people you could ignore. In particular anybody who didn't understand that you could assign a present value to future income, or that infinite series can sum to finite values. Seriously, the prototypical example of being an author is not particularly passive income lol! A book being print-on-demand indefinitely != infinite income. 99% of copies will almost certainly be sold within a few years, not least due to active marketing on your part. It's very likely to be a worse deal than getting paid a quite modest and disappointing sounding amount up front.
> I appreciated when "passive income" was the flavor of the week because it was a good signpost for people you could ignore.
This is why I still do random sampling of Reddit, Twitter, Threads, and a few other social media sites: It’s a good way to keep up with some of the discussion trends that start spreading in online discussions.
I can pick up quickly when someone is parroting the latest info memes from Reddit or Twitter now. It’s very helpful for identifying who isn’t really thinking for themselves and will latch on to the first opinion they see on a topic.
I can’t bring myself to watch TikTok or other video shorts, though.
As someone who had actual passive income (small amount, a few hundred USD/mo) prior to my life being ruined by a medical accident: I agree (I killed my site because it was the right thing to do, I could not generate content for it because I couldn't function, so I did not want to waste the time/money of my users).
One thing the author does NOT see, however, is that the local folks doing all the hard work like mowing lawns, building furniture, etc. are in absolute panic over "AI" because their niche little lawn mowing/car washing/house cleaning business has been determined to be irrelevant by ChatGPT, etc. Oh and before you ask, there are folks claiming they can solve that exact thing, and those hard working folks are buying those products, hoping it will solve their downtrend in internet leads.
> One thing the author does NOT see, however, is that the local folks doing all the hard work like mowing lawns, building furniture, etc. are in absolute panic over "AI" because their niche little lawn mowing/car washing/house cleaning business has been determined to be irrelevant by ChatGPT, etc.
How does what ChatGPT thinks about lawnmowing matter? Like, specifically, who's going to be mowing the lawns if it's not the people who are currently doing it?
One thing in the article struck me as way too optimistic:
> What actually makes money hasn't changed. You find something people need. You get good at providing it. You charge a fair price and you keep showing up even when it's tedious and even when you don't want to. You build relationships over years. You build reputation over years.
You can make money doing this, yes--but most people who are really rich don't. There are lots of ways to game the system that don't involve the kinds of wacky things the article talks about.
Apple makes devices people like and use. Many people loved their Teslas. Netflix makes shows people enjoy. Facebook really did help people stay in touch with friends and family before replacing it with the Feed of Rage. Google was far better than anyone else at finding things on the early web.
I would say really successful companies at least go through a stage of Building Something People Want. Even if they stray from that as they become more successful.
This article really felt like a misdiagnosis to me.
Sure, a lot of these people were just buying hype from these "get rich from drop shipping!" influencers, just like a million other suckers who got dollar signs in their eyes with real estate schemes, pyramid sale schemes, yada yada, a tale as old as time. I don't think this "passive income" trap is really anything new, and I don't think it was some unique thing that "ate a generation of entrepreneurs", as if that trap didn't exist then instead we'd see all these successful people.
Instead, what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money. Just look at all the posts on HN asking about how much people make on their side gigs. You rarely see anything more than a couple hundred bucks a month. There are notable exceptions, but unfortunately a lot of those notable exceptions are scammy, spammy business models. It's just simply much harder as a small/smaller business to make money and compete with the big boys. Wealth inequality doesn't just apply to people, but also companies. For example, in the past many entrepreneurial types may have started retail stores, while now it's incredibly difficult to compete with the likes of Amazon et al. I read an article recently that the number of public companies has halved compared to a few decades ago. The Wilshire 5000 stock index, for example, actually only includes about 3400-3700 companies now.
We started a trophy and award business because my spouse was already making shirts and stuff so we had most of the equipment. The overhead is really low thanks to quick shipping from a large employee owned national supplier (seriously, JDS industries is fucking awesome).
It's enough to pay for itself easily and pay for a vacation or two a year, for about 4 hours of work a week. If we really put effort in, it could replace our day jobs.
Where most people go wrong is their expectation. We expected this to fund a vacation and maybe car payments. That it's doing that is exactly right and we don't want to take it any further. If people had that view, instead of feeling like they have to make a billion dollars, I think side gigs would be a different beast entirely.
The article's example is a person can't even be bothered to understand what the product he's selling is for, and doesn't appear to fully grasp they're losing money. Even in much better circumstances, success would presumably remain elusive.
Some people just lack the capacity for this sort of thing, and unfortunately fraudsters target them by trying to convince them otherwise.
There was always lots of "normal" entrepreneurship, where people opened a small shop and sold something. You didn't need to do a 0.1% job to succeed, success was mostly normal-distributed.
Internet businesses by contrast have a power law distribution. Meaning if you perform average you will end up with just $100 per month. The potential upside is infitite though.
The outcome of the average business person is very different between physical and online business.
> Instead, what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money.
Hard disagree.
As the article notes, I think if you concentrate on a real business, not a scam-y 'get rich quick scheme' business then, especially with the internet, its never been easier to run a solo business at scale.
For myself, I wrote an app as a side hobby, which then took off, so I started working on it part-time, then moved to full-time when the revenue justified.
It's now growing to where it exceeds what I would have made working for someone else.
Note this took 7+ years of constant work, improvements and care.
It's the type of dedication that makes you competitive with even larger organisations.
And the time required to be a 'success' ensures that you won't have any competitors who just want to make a quick buck or get to "passive income" within a year or two.
> Instead, what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money.
Part of that was accurately diagnosed by the article in the bit about the dog walking business vs dog walking platform.
My partner bootstrapped a successful full-time cleaning business that she ran for a few years and the limiting factor was basically her ability to hire and retain good employees. A physical cleaning business has no path to scale like a tech company though.
>You rarely see anything more than a couple hundred bucks a month. There are notable exceptions, but unfortunately a lot of those notable exceptions are scammy, spammy business models.
I suspect this is largely sampling bias.
I host meetups for indie founders, and several attendees earn their living through solo businesses. When I go to conferences like Microconf, I meet lots more.
The problem with measuring financial success by who posts about it on HN is:
* The more someone is making at their solo business, the less they want to blab about it and attract competitors.
* The people earning at the low end are more desperate for people to see what they're doing so they can pick up new customers, so they're more likely to talk about their work.
* The more successful founders are busier and spend less time posting on HN.
Didn't feel like a misdiagnosis to me. My spouse around 2017 was one of those that got sucked into a course to earn income with an Amazon store. As I read the article basically every point resonated with my experience.
The dog walking business example was also appropriate in my mind. My spouse fortunately broke even, minus time, on her attempt with drop shipping garbage nobody really needs. Now she makes decent money with her oil paintings. Not "passive income" but real money and profit. Not enough to retire (that's what I am for!) but actual money nonetheless.
Yeah, it feels like the author is blaming his personal bugbear but entrepreneurship and independent businesses are facing systemic issues of massive concentration of market power and zero antritrust enforcement.
When I was in high school 25 years ago, unless you got lucky with an IPO, tech didn't pay all that well. (I worked in software while I was in high school, so I know some of this first hand).
It was office space. It didn't matter how smart you were, if you didn't go into management, or join Apple/Microsoft at just the right time, you weren't going to live a rich lifestyle.
Not only that, you'd probably be reporting to some MBA type biz guy who has no idea how software works, you'd not be well respected, and your perks were drip coffee and occasional donuts on friday.
Of course brilliant, hard working, talented engineers said "fuck that" and go build something awesome themselves. Things have changed drastically. Now, brilliant hard working people can literally make millions at dozens of companies .
You will report to another engineer who has slightly optimized for soft skills, you get lavish perks (except amazon, but at least you get paid well there), and real equity.
There's a whole spectrum of options for ambitious software folk that didn't texist ~25 years ago.
My current read of the situation is similar. If you go to other countries, there are slews of small shops, even in run down areas. On top of that, in places within Asia, the malls are also open and full of regional chains. It also feels like there's such a wider variety of certain goods available, because the little bakeries are doing their own thing, while in the U.S. seemingly everybody is eating Costco danishes.
"Passive income brain" people are not the only one's trying to "build revenue engines," that same sort of talk exists in corporate America. There are already people that that own companies which are there "to generate passive income for me," right now--there's a whole class of millionaires and billionaires that don't have to work. Passive income people didn't ruin the "content quality of the entire internet" and are far from the only ones doing so. Many of these folks are likely the ones that would have owned a hardware store if America didn't ignore it's regulatory duties while preaching about how "important" small business is.
In the U.S. situation really seems to have fossilized into a few big players/platforms, and they continue to freeze up through the process of things like private equity roll-ups. There's a thread on the front page right now about Amazon's alleged price-fixing tactics, which hurt customers and small businesses. Further: Real-estate is an investment, so for most being able to pay commercial rents is a pipe dream. Healthcare is tied to employment, so people are less free to try and start something other than "on the side."
American's choose "convenience" when shopping and to put people in power that serve these large companies or their owners, not small businesses or communities. Dropshipping, creating a "sweaty startup," etc... it's all just people trying to make do within the system they're trapped in.
>what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money. Just look at all the posts on HN asking about how much people make on their side gigs.
is someone making money on a side gig really a solopreneur? By definition a side gig is not something you expect to make significant amounts of money on. if a side gig starts generating significant amounts of money then you would probably make it your primary gig.
> You rarely see anything more than a couple hundred bucks a month
From my perspective, you have to take a lot of shots, I did around 20 side hustle ideas last year and 2 are making over $100/mo. The other 18 I dropped. The only note I will give is that the 2 that succeeded really played to my strengths.
About me: I once had a hustle that did around $6k/month but that was many years ago and I decided I would be happier as a hired gun coder. The rise of AI made me rethink this so I'm clawing my back to providing services.
> The Wilshire 5000 stock index, for example, actually only includes about 3400-3700 companies now.
That amazed me when I heard it recently. The number of tradeable things continues to increase, but most of them are two or three steps removed from real-world production.
> It's just simply much harder as a small/smaller business to make money and compete with the big boys.
You're conflating two different things. Thanks to software, it's easier today than it's ever been to make money as a small business / solopreneur. It's also harder to compete with the big boys, possibly for the same reason and due to economies of scale.
That's why I don't bother entering the same markets the big boys are in. There are plenty of niche markets which they don't bother touching where a small business can thrive.
Yes, passive income businesses didn't fail because operators stopped caring. They failed because the markets were structurally broken.
Dropshipping, affiliate SEO, print-on-demand... these face the same margin compression regardless of how engaged you are. Ad cost inflation, platform saturation, algorithmic displacement, etc... it doesn't matter whether the operator is engaged or not.
Caring's a moat only where differentiation is possible. In commoditized markets, it doesn't move the needle.
The US economy is in a death spiral. It’s where the UK was after WW2: lost an empire, didn’t want to admit it or address it. The foundational jobs of the economy - blue collar work - are gone. There simply aren’t enough people with jobs at each layer to support the businesses and jobs in the next layer up. The US will discover its total inadequacy if it gets into a war with China. We just can’t build weapons as fast as they can because we can’t build anything any more. Currently they are building solar and EVs while we can’t pave our roads. If they wanted to switch to pumping out destroyers, missiles and drones, we would be out gunned very quickly.
These desperate attempts at passive income are simply another symptom of the absence of a functioning economy.
Anyone making real money on their ‘side gigs’ is very unlikely to be on that thread, let along telling anyone in detail what they are doing. It invites unwelcome competition.
Yeah, I don't think I could do a pure 'passive income' thing with no 'soul' to it, but there is something to be said for building a business that runs and makes money even when you are asleep or on vacation. This is something that some 'passion businesses' where it's all about the founder and their skills, fail to do.
88 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 89.7 ms ] threadI started a business like this, but it wasn't passive. I shipped everything to my office before inspecting and shipping product out.
It lasted almost 10 years with 1 million annual revenue.
It was not passive.
I personally made it happen by working a FAANG SWE job for 13 years, not getting sidetracked by the startup cult, saving and investing 70% of my after tax income, etc. And no I didn't get into crypto, but I still managed to make it with conventional investments.
In fact, I chose to pursue a career in the tech industry in order to pursue financial independence in the first place. Because I knew back then (circa 2005) all the tech Kool aid was BS. That "don't be evil" was just a facade. And time has proven me right and my haters wrong, those who thought it was unethical for me to place wealth building ahead of career building.
It's been four years since I've been out of a job. Now I'm creating more passion oriented content. I'm never bored.
They'll keep existing as long as the root cause that creates them (massive wealth inequality in general and the growing delta between productivity and wages) exists, so probably until our financial systems fully collapse in about 2032.
I knew a few guys like that in crypto too, before crypto came along and they got into that, this guy told me he’d written a twitter app, it was a bot that pumped gold at some influencers command. Spurred me to write an app though.
I told him that I don't really build websites, and what I mostly do is write things that move information from one computer to another and that I haven't really enjoyed web development so it's not something that I do in my free time so I'm not good at it, and he should check out SquareSpace or Wix something.
He kept assuring me that it would "be easy". To shut him up, I gave him a quote of my daily rate for contract work (which honestly wasn't even that high by software engineering standards), and he backed off because he didn't realize how expensive software engineering is.
I just upped my retirement contribution and decided that the big evil BigCos can do all the value creating and the finance middle men can have their take.
I guess that's the reason everyone does the slumlord or VRBO thing.
The cost of starting a new business has returned to the historical baseline.
Quite the opposite for me. I'd like to have freedom to work on things I want to work on without "paying rent", "paying medical bills", or "short term profitability" being a constraint.
Ah, the story of a generation
Were these the people who were really going to do anything substantive anyway? Or just the shortcut-taking types?
While that isn’t always true, honesty is a great defense against being enlisted in scams that promise easy money.
This is why I still do random sampling of Reddit, Twitter, Threads, and a few other social media sites: It’s a good way to keep up with some of the discussion trends that start spreading in online discussions.
I can pick up quickly when someone is parroting the latest info memes from Reddit or Twitter now. It’s very helpful for identifying who isn’t really thinking for themselves and will latch on to the first opinion they see on a topic.
I can’t bring myself to watch TikTok or other video shorts, though.
One thing the author does NOT see, however, is that the local folks doing all the hard work like mowing lawns, building furniture, etc. are in absolute panic over "AI" because their niche little lawn mowing/car washing/house cleaning business has been determined to be irrelevant by ChatGPT, etc. Oh and before you ask, there are folks claiming they can solve that exact thing, and those hard working folks are buying those products, hoping it will solve their downtrend in internet leads.
How does what ChatGPT thinks about lawnmowing matter? Like, specifically, who's going to be mowing the lawns if it's not the people who are currently doing it?
> What actually makes money hasn't changed. You find something people need. You get good at providing it. You charge a fair price and you keep showing up even when it's tedious and even when you don't want to. You build relationships over years. You build reputation over years.
You can make money doing this, yes--but most people who are really rich don't. There are lots of ways to game the system that don't involve the kinds of wacky things the article talks about.
I would say really successful companies at least go through a stage of Building Something People Want. Even if they stray from that as they become more successful.
Sure, a lot of these people were just buying hype from these "get rich from drop shipping!" influencers, just like a million other suckers who got dollar signs in their eyes with real estate schemes, pyramid sale schemes, yada yada, a tale as old as time. I don't think this "passive income" trap is really anything new, and I don't think it was some unique thing that "ate a generation of entrepreneurs", as if that trap didn't exist then instead we'd see all these successful people.
Instead, what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money. Just look at all the posts on HN asking about how much people make on their side gigs. You rarely see anything more than a couple hundred bucks a month. There are notable exceptions, but unfortunately a lot of those notable exceptions are scammy, spammy business models. It's just simply much harder as a small/smaller business to make money and compete with the big boys. Wealth inequality doesn't just apply to people, but also companies. For example, in the past many entrepreneurial types may have started retail stores, while now it's incredibly difficult to compete with the likes of Amazon et al. I read an article recently that the number of public companies has halved compared to a few decades ago. The Wilshire 5000 stock index, for example, actually only includes about 3400-3700 companies now.
It's enough to pay for itself easily and pay for a vacation or two a year, for about 4 hours of work a week. If we really put effort in, it could replace our day jobs.
Where most people go wrong is their expectation. We expected this to fund a vacation and maybe car payments. That it's doing that is exactly right and we don't want to take it any further. If people had that view, instead of feeling like they have to make a billion dollars, I think side gigs would be a different beast entirely.
Some people just lack the capacity for this sort of thing, and unfortunately fraudsters target them by trying to convince them otherwise.
We remember the success stories, we don't remember the bankruptcies.
Internet businesses by contrast have a power law distribution. Meaning if you perform average you will end up with just $100 per month. The potential upside is infitite though.
The outcome of the average business person is very different between physical and online business.
Hard disagree.
As the article notes, I think if you concentrate on a real business, not a scam-y 'get rich quick scheme' business then, especially with the internet, its never been easier to run a solo business at scale.
For myself, I wrote an app as a side hobby, which then took off, so I started working on it part-time, then moved to full-time when the revenue justified.
It's now growing to where it exceeds what I would have made working for someone else.
Note this took 7+ years of constant work, improvements and care.
It's the type of dedication that makes you competitive with even larger organisations.
And the time required to be a 'success' ensures that you won't have any competitors who just want to make a quick buck or get to "passive income" within a year or two.
Part of that was accurately diagnosed by the article in the bit about the dog walking business vs dog walking platform.
My partner bootstrapped a successful full-time cleaning business that she ran for a few years and the limiting factor was basically her ability to hire and retain good employees. A physical cleaning business has no path to scale like a tech company though.
I suspect this is largely sampling bias.
I host meetups for indie founders, and several attendees earn their living through solo businesses. When I go to conferences like Microconf, I meet lots more.
The problem with measuring financial success by who posts about it on HN is:
* The more someone is making at their solo business, the less they want to blab about it and attract competitors.
* The people earning at the low end are more desperate for people to see what they're doing so they can pick up new customers, so they're more likely to talk about their work.
* The more successful founders are busier and spend less time posting on HN.
The dog walking business example was also appropriate in my mind. My spouse fortunately broke even, minus time, on her attempt with drop shipping garbage nobody really needs. Now she makes decent money with her oil paintings. Not "passive income" but real money and profit. Not enough to retire (that's what I am for!) but actual money nonetheless.
When I was in high school 25 years ago, unless you got lucky with an IPO, tech didn't pay all that well. (I worked in software while I was in high school, so I know some of this first hand).
It was office space. It didn't matter how smart you were, if you didn't go into management, or join Apple/Microsoft at just the right time, you weren't going to live a rich lifestyle.
Not only that, you'd probably be reporting to some MBA type biz guy who has no idea how software works, you'd not be well respected, and your perks were drip coffee and occasional donuts on friday.
Of course brilliant, hard working, talented engineers said "fuck that" and go build something awesome themselves. Things have changed drastically. Now, brilliant hard working people can literally make millions at dozens of companies .
You will report to another engineer who has slightly optimized for soft skills, you get lavish perks (except amazon, but at least you get paid well there), and real equity.
There's a whole spectrum of options for ambitious software folk that didn't texist ~25 years ago.
"Passive income brain" people are not the only one's trying to "build revenue engines," that same sort of talk exists in corporate America. There are already people that that own companies which are there "to generate passive income for me," right now--there's a whole class of millionaires and billionaires that don't have to work. Passive income people didn't ruin the "content quality of the entire internet" and are far from the only ones doing so. Many of these folks are likely the ones that would have owned a hardware store if America didn't ignore it's regulatory duties while preaching about how "important" small business is.
In the U.S. situation really seems to have fossilized into a few big players/platforms, and they continue to freeze up through the process of things like private equity roll-ups. There's a thread on the front page right now about Amazon's alleged price-fixing tactics, which hurt customers and small businesses. Further: Real-estate is an investment, so for most being able to pay commercial rents is a pipe dream. Healthcare is tied to employment, so people are less free to try and start something other than "on the side."
American's choose "convenience" when shopping and to put people in power that serve these large companies or their owners, not small businesses or communities. Dropshipping, creating a "sweaty startup," etc... it's all just people trying to make do within the system they're trapped in.
is someone making money on a side gig really a solopreneur? By definition a side gig is not something you expect to make significant amounts of money on. if a side gig starts generating significant amounts of money then you would probably make it your primary gig.
From my perspective, you have to take a lot of shots, I did around 20 side hustle ideas last year and 2 are making over $100/mo. The other 18 I dropped. The only note I will give is that the 2 that succeeded really played to my strengths.
About me: I once had a hustle that did around $6k/month but that was many years ago and I decided I would be happier as a hired gun coder. The rise of AI made me rethink this so I'm clawing my back to providing services.
That amazed me when I heard it recently. The number of tradeable things continues to increase, but most of them are two or three steps removed from real-world production.
You're conflating two different things. Thanks to software, it's easier today than it's ever been to make money as a small business / solopreneur. It's also harder to compete with the big boys, possibly for the same reason and due to economies of scale.
That's why I don't bother entering the same markets the big boys are in. There are plenty of niche markets which they don't bother touching where a small business can thrive.
Dropshipping, affiliate SEO, print-on-demand... these face the same margin compression regardless of how engaged you are. Ad cost inflation, platform saturation, algorithmic displacement, etc... it doesn't matter whether the operator is engaged or not.
Caring's a moat only where differentiation is possible. In commoditized markets, it doesn't move the needle.
> I read an article recently that the number of public companies has halved compared to a few decades ago.
That's not because there are fewer companies but rather because private markets have much more capital.
OpenAI is the extreme example. If it were public, it would be the ~tenth most valuable public company in the world.
These desperate attempts at passive income are simply another symptom of the absence of a functioning economy.