Americans are side hustling like we're in a recession
Does your friend with a second job know something you don't?
The share of working Americans holding down multiple jobs rose to between 5.3% and 5.5% during the first five months of the year. That's a range we haven't seen since the recession of the aughts, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Granted, almost anything—from Lady Gaga to men's underwear—can supposedly be a recession indicator. Leave the forecasting to influencers and economists. Whether an increase in second jobs portends a recession is only half the point. People are side hustling like we are already in one.
It's a testament to our collective unease and further evidence that careers will look very different than they used to.
Holding one job at a time is on the way to becoming antiquated, or a luxury, for emerging generations.
Roughly four in 10 millennials and Gen Zers have side jobs, according to new research by Deloitte. Elizabeth Faber, Deloitte's global chief people and purpose officer, says it's notable that the share of millennials working two jobs has been virtually unchanged for several years.
People typically have less need for side hustles as they advance in their careers. But it isn't playing out that way for a group already scarred by two recessions.
Marie Incontrera opened a cleaning business to diversify her income.
Those juggling more than one job say they are bracing for a potential downturn by padding their finances while they can. They are also ensuring they'll still have a source of income in the event of a layoff or diminished earnings.
'I just started thinking, 'Well, a recession might be coming. Maybe it's time to diversify,'" says Marie Incontrera, who launched a cleaning business six months ago to supplement her main job as owner of a small public-relations agency in New York.
She has grown her PR shop to two employees and several freelancers over a decade in business, and she earns enough to live comfortably in Manhattan. But Incontrera, 39 years old, knows her services could be one of the first things clients eliminate if they need to cut costs.
After researching businesses that seemed dull but reliable—laundromats, carwashes, vending machines—she settled on cleaning because of low startup costs. She and a business partner book commercial and residential cleaning assignments and deploy gig workers to do the scrubbing, occasionally filling in when someone no-shows.
What's most striking about Incontrera's choice of side hustle is that she had a cooler option. Before going into PR, she was a professional jazz musician. She could play the dive-bar circuit for extra cash but decided to be practical.
The story of second jobs in this moment isn't only about how many people are taking additional work, but also about what they are picking.
'In the past we saw that many side hustles were driven by passion, but right now they're very much driven by necessity," says Priya Rathod, a spokeswoman for job-search site Indeed.
In a recent Indeed survey, 52% of respondents said they have side hustles to make ends meet, much higher than the Labor Department's figure. Rathod says that could be because the poll includes people who don't have two steady jobs, but occasionally drive for DoorDash or pick up freelance projects on Fiverr.
Dyna Krigbaum works 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. as a development coordinator at a real-estate firm in Arizona. She started nannying on nights and weekends this year.
Dyna Krigbaum's second job allows her to bring her son to work.
She makes enough at her day job to pay her bills but isn't willing to risk living paycheck to paycheck in the current economy. The roughly $800 a month she earns as a nanny is a safety net.
Krigbaum, 30, used to babysit when she was a teenager. Now that she has a college degree, a white-collar career and a child of her own, watching other people's kids feels a bit like going backward. But it's a rare side hustle that checks three critical boxes: It pays well, fits around her primary job and allows her to bring her son to work.
'One minute I'm meeting with consultants and investors, the next I'm talking to a 2-year-old," she says. 'Sometimes you've just got to take a humble pill because you know it's the best thing for you."
On a sunny afternoon last month, students at the University of California, Irvine, pitched tents and business ideas on a campus green. It wasn't another 'Shark Tank"-style contest for founders trying to build billion-dollar startups. Instead the event was billed as a 'side-hustle challenge" and featured cookies, homemade sweatshirts and eyebrow threading.
Alexa Gaxiola also makes and sells rhinestone-studded clothing as a side hustle.
Maryam Garg, a venture consultant to UC Irvine's entrepreneurship center, says more colleges are preparing students for a world that may require them to work a second job.
'And it's often something completely different than what they're studying," she says.
Alexa Gaxiola's degree is in business marketing, which she uses in her day job as a sales assistant and social-media coordinator at an aerospace manufacturer in California. Her night job as a club DJ could hardly be further removed.
Gaxiola, 26, says practically everyone in her social circle works more than one job.
'And if I know someone that has only one job, they're working overtime," she says. 'It's a survival thing."
Her mix of a fun job and a staid one reminds me of how Hall of Fame baseball players once sold insurance or cars in the offseason. Recession or not, we may be headed back to a time when two jobs are the norm.
Write to Callum Borchers at callum.borchers@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
US raises security concerns over China's planned London embassy
The United States has voiced concern over China's plan to build a new embassy in London, saying it could give Beijing access to sensitive communications near one of Britain's key financial centres. The comments, reported by The Guardian, have stirred uncertainty over whether the embassy project will go ahead. The site in question, Royal Mint Court, lies close to the City of London and Canary Wharf areas connected by underground data cables. Security officials fear the location could pose a risk, and the UK government is now reviewing the plan. Campaigners who have opposed the embassy for years say the issue has become more political since Washington got involved. 'They seem to be struggling to make the right decision,' Dave Lake, a local resident and head of the campaign against the embassy, told The Guardian. 'It was a straightforward inquiry but because of this, that and the other, particularly the Americans getting involved, it's made it all up in the air.' The UK government rejected planning permission for the embassy two years ago due to security concerns. But it has since taken over the decision from local authorities and is expected to make a final call by September 9. China bought the 2-hectare site in 2018 for £255 million. Demonstrations against the plan have continued, with fears that a Chinese embassy in the area would increase surveillance and draw further protests. Lake added: 'We know there are cables running underground, and we know the capabilities of the Chinese. In the early conversations, it was just about our security.' Former British diplomat Charles Parton, who advised Parliament's foreign affairs committee, said the matter depends on what kind of data passes through those cables. Speaking to The Guardian, he said: 'There are two ways to look at it. One is to say you can't use the site; the other is to say reroute the cables. How difficult is it to reroute them? I don't know.' Parton said embassy upgrades are normal in diplomacy, but added that 'if the security issue is resolved satisfactorily, then why shouldn't both countries go ahead and build new embassies?' The White House raised its concerns shortly after the US and UK signed a trade deal during the G7 summit in Canada this week. A US official told The Sunday Times, as quoted by The Guardian, 'The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.' The Dutch parliament has also flagged worries over the site's location. Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, who lives in the UK, told The Guardian, 'It is really unbelievable when not only the US government but also the Dutch government express their concerns.' Simon Cheng, a former Hong Kong consulate worker now in the UK, said the site could increase surveillance risks for people in exile. 'The UK government needs to think twice,' Cheng said. 'It's not only the closest ally that has given a warning but also others. We have concerns about our security here.' The Chinese embassy defended its proposal, saying it had followed UK rules and listened to all stakeholders. A spokesperson told The Guardian the embassy would help China carry out its diplomatic duties and deepen cooperation. The spokesperson added, 'Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government's decision. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.'
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the profits. Banks are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the banks. The world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars more. Bloomberg Last year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil fuels. Live Events Banks saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their words. To meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right direction. Bloomberg Meanwhile, the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that time. You might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an emergency. But if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at risk. Given the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
Economic Times
5 hours ago
- Economic Times
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
Bloomberg Live Events Bloomberg (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future.A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
