LOL, everyone on this planet has a different opinion than I do, I came to terms with that a long time ago friend.
Sorry I hurt your feelings.
Question About Corporate SEO Salary
- Thread starter ComitSteve
- Start date
56% of businesses fail in the first four years according to the SBA.
Less than 56% of people get fired within their first four years.
I'd say a 9-5 is more secure.
Less than 56% of people get fired within their first four years.
I'd say a 9-5 is more secure.
Yesterday I told a potential client that good SEOs tend to work for themselves.
I guess it would make sense for someone who's very good at SEO to take a SEO job when they're in a bad financial situation.
Yet with a job... you are always building something for someone else, instead of building it for yourself. Of course if you're gaining some incredible skills by working with a great company that may be worth it. But if you are in your standard job I see no point. Better to hustle for yourself so you can build something big.
IMO correct reasons for getting a job-
-You don't have much money to build your own business so you work to get some capital.
-You need money to survive.
-The job allows you to learn the tricks of the trade and get some insight that can help you with your business.
Wrong reasons-
-Stability. Security is claimed to be a upside of a 9-5. That's not true, if your job gets cut down you are screwed. What if the industry changes very quickly and your current job doesn't exist anymore? If you hustle for yourself you have to learn to be adaptable and you can think on your feet. Someone who has run his own business, has a solid network, and knows how to deal with clients will have the confidence to break into new industries or change his whole way of doing things.
I guess it would make sense for someone who's very good at SEO to take a SEO job when they're in a bad financial situation.
Yet with a job... you are always building something for someone else, instead of building it for yourself. Of course if you're gaining some incredible skills by working with a great company that may be worth it. But if you are in your standard job I see no point. Better to hustle for yourself so you can build something big.
IMO correct reasons for getting a job-
-You don't have much money to build your own business so you work to get some capital.
-You need money to survive.
-The job allows you to learn the tricks of the trade and get some insight that can help you with your business.
Wrong reasons-
-Stability. Security is claimed to be a upside of a 9-5. That's not true, if your job gets cut down you are screwed. What if the industry changes very quickly and your current job doesn't exist anymore? If you hustle for yourself you have to learn to be adaptable and you can think on your feet. Someone who has run his own business, has a solid network, and knows how to deal with clients will have the confidence to break into new industries or change his whole way of doing things.
Get out of here with your stats and logic. We're too emotional to deal with this right now.
Not everyone in this line of work is willing to hustle 24/7. I know I certainly am not. For those of you that are willing and able to do so, I commend your work ethic. That shit would burn me out before I could sustain any kind of model where I had mailbox money rolling in.
I've got a wife and kids that I willingly allow to consume a lot of my time, which is very structured.
Going rogue, and working for numerous clients (or even a handful of high paying ones) can become a headache just as easily as dealing with any corporate swine.
I've got a wife and kids that I willingly allow to consume a lot of my time, which is very structured.
Going rogue, and working for numerous clients (or even a handful of high paying ones) can become a headache just as easily as dealing with any corporate swine.
Oh, 56% of businesses fail in their first 4 years? geez, what happens to those employees that didn't run out and change jobs in the first 3 of that business, did they die? Thanks for further proving my point Alex.
Might be true, but then again getting a secure paycheck has nothing to do with being fired. You've not mentioned anything of layoffs, reduction of benefits, etc and so forth which would take away from the feeling of "security".
Coming from someone that just graduated school a few years ago and doesn't list a 9-5 job on their LinkedIn, I would doubt that you would be the most accurate person to make this argument.
Anand -
Someone who lacks social skills could barely "hurt" my feelings.
Maybe a dose of your own medicine would help you cope when you begin to judge others on this forum. I believe a few days/weeks ago you posted this:
"Maybe you should consider that you don't always see things correctly and your experiences aren't the experiences of everyone else."
If you go back and read what I posted, I don't think I judged you.
This is what I wrote which seems to have upset you so much
~~
Not sure how that is relevant to what I quoted above at all.
Again, sorry I hurt your feelings. Wasn't my intention.
I think it's more secure because it's got very little risk. You may get fired, but you almost always get paid for what you worked.
The guy who risks his capital in the start up phase, and then later pays employees before himself (as the business owner) is the one who is in a risky position. Legally, financially etc.
^^ This tends to be very true. I have said for years that good SEO's don't have an employer. Maybe I should have said instead "Good business men that are great at SEO dont have an employer"
^^ Could be 1 reason, but it could also be that the SEO doesn't want to take on clients ( another option for financial improvement ) and the headaches that brings, along with chasing down invoice payments and also dealing with outside variables beyond their control with clients as well. There are a few other reasons, but prob far and few for being good candidates here. I agree financial issues would be 1 issue for an SEO to face.
^^ True to a point. Why make someone else rich ( I agree ), however you could be a great SEO but a horrible business man and a horrible web site builder. Just like a great plumber could be a horrible carpenter ( if building his own construction company ). Some of the skills I think an SEO could learn though from working a job are soft skills they might not develop on their own. Also, being an great SEO doesn't gar. that you can build something "big" as you say.. so look at the risks.
How about looking at it this way. Is a 9-5 much different then doing client work owning your own agency? Sure there are some difference you can point out, but in the end having an agency ( I know you can do more then just having an agency on your own, but I am taking 1 side here ) someone else is paying you, someone else is ALWAYS paying you and you are always reliant on that person(s) to pay you on time and in full wither its a 9-5, clients, Adsense, BSTs, etc.
Keeping that in mind, if your not a great salesman and choose not to be.. then your up shit creek unless you contract out or hire someone to do it for you, then your at the mercy that person can pull it off and your new clients will always pay on time in full.
Seems like to me, if you could land a job where you did SEO remotely ( from home ) for a company located elsewhere where you had the flexibility of making your own hours ( lots of jobs let you do this in a remote setting ) then its not much different then having a client, right? About the only huge difference is maybe your pay. Agencies typically charge per project in the $5k+ range or per hour in the $130 range from what I have seen and dealt with, so it would be the difference in having 1 client that pays you a shit ton of money ( if you can close that deal and collect ) and an employer that might pay you $80k a year but sends you paycheck every 2 week on time. I negotiated a contract for over $500k for an agency to build an ecom site for someone I know as I helped him read thru it and sign it. It took the agency a full year to deliver. That $500k was split up amongst 30 people ( salary ) with most of it going to the owners prob and expenses for the agency like bills, rent, etc. As 1 employee for a company, its unlikely you will make $500k in a year.
At any time though, your client ( or your boss/employer ) could bounce on you, fire you, or lay you off. God forbid you live in a "at will" employment state on top of that.
Landing a job is easier in some case, landing a job somewhat gar. that you will collect "some amount" of money every X days, but it is in no way secure.
Now if you think back to that employment setup I just described where you get less pay then if you had a client but you worked your own hours and from where ever you wanted, you pretty set yourself for something like the 4 hour work week ( not promoting this, but I know a lot of you have read it ). What in the world would stop you from taking on 4-5 "jobs" like this then and/or do your own "thing" on the side and maybe having VAs or employees of your own helping you do it.
Why leave anything on the table?
Neither one of them are secure. It all comes down to the "hustler" in every sense of the word.
Most people are employed by businesses that have already survived their first 4 years. If you make it past your first 4 years your success rate is actually very high, but most people don't get to skip those first 4 years when they are starting a business.
I was including all of that.
I didn't make my career decisions based on what was more secure. Others may disagree, but I see that as boring and unfulfilling.
The whole "secure vs not secure" argument is kind of pointless, in my opinion. It all depends on the person.
For 95% of the worker bees out there, a 9-to-5 is more secure. For the other 5% who actually have the grit, intelligence, and determination to forge their own trail, an independent career can offer much higher upsides.
It also depends on your personality. Some people don't like not knowing how much they'll make that month. Others thrive on it, making it their motivation to keep pushing forward.
Personally, I think true freedom means not being beholden to any company at any time, but that's just me.
For 95% of the worker bees out there, a 9-to-5 is more secure. For the other 5% who actually have the grit, intelligence, and determination to forge their own trail, an independent career can offer much higher upsides.
It also depends on your personality. Some people don't like not knowing how much they'll make that month. Others thrive on it, making it their motivation to keep pushing forward.
Personally, I think true freedom means not being beholden to any company at any time, but that's just me.
A 9 to 5 does provide more security, simply because our whole system is built around it.
You want a mortgage to buy a home? Banks are more than happy to lend you money if you have a 9 to 5, even if you make a measly 30k a year, because the bank sees your job situation as secure. If you were a solo entrepreneur, it'd be very difficult for you to get a dollar out of them, even if you cleared 100k last year. They see your future as very uncertain.
On a 9 to 5, if you get sick, you take sick days and you still get your full salary (or a good % of it).
On a 9 to 5, you lose your job, you get unemployment + all kinds of other financial help to get back on your feet... and find another 9 to 5. lol
You get nothing when you're hustling in your basement. You get sick for a couple weeks, you don't get paid. Your campaigns stop delivering or your clients disappear: you're on your own.
You want a mortgage to buy a home? Banks are more than happy to lend you money if you have a 9 to 5, even if you make a measly 30k a year, because the bank sees your job situation as secure. If you were a solo entrepreneur, it'd be very difficult for you to get a dollar out of them, even if you cleared 100k last year. They see your future as very uncertain.
On a 9 to 5, if you get sick, you take sick days and you still get your full salary (or a good % of it).
On a 9 to 5, you lose your job, you get unemployment + all kinds of other financial help to get back on your feet... and find another 9 to 5. lol
You get nothing when you're hustling in your basement. You get sick for a couple weeks, you don't get paid. Your campaigns stop delivering or your clients disappear: you're on your own.
You state that most people are only employed by those business's with more then 4 years in business. I'd need to see some concrete proof of this like you always tell me in our negative SEO talks ( be sure to minus the non employee businesses since we are talking jobs here ).
More then half of businesses fail in the first 4-5 years, we agree on that. However, roughly 1/3rd of all businesses fail within 10 years, so knowing that the concentration of employees per your word are with companies that have survived the 4-5 year mark, that's still a huge looming "security" issue most people would have. A 1 in 3 chance that even after year 4 my company could go belly up?
FYI, over half of the businesses in the USA are 7 years or older. Thats still a large share that hasn't hit that 10 year mark. The average employee size of that 7 year company is 22. With that said, there are still a considerable number of employees employed at those 4-5 year old companies you want to write off as the "minority" of employees.
Its flipping a coin. Roughly 50% of the companies are less then 7 years old. A fair share of that 50% will be business at the 4-5 year mark with 56% of them go belly up. That's roughly 25% you will work for a company that will not be secure.
On the other side, its roughly 50% that you will work for a company that is 7+ years in age, of which a large portion ( not sure the number here ) will be within the 7-10 year mark, of which 1/3rd will go out of business.
Sure, I know my math could be wrong, but I am not digging thru tons of data to prove the point. Im using rough estimated from here:
http://www.bls.gov/ers/choispletzer.pdf
If you want to clean up the data, go ahead.
No matter how you look at it, those odd are not even good for Vegas.
9-5 Secure? No.
I went by what you physically typed, which was fired. Security doesn't just deal with the only thing that you typed, which was being fired.
So what you saying is you don't have any real world experience to back up the claim that a 9-5 is secure. That is all I was getting at.
That would be like me making the statement that all Muslims are terrorists and when someone points out I have never spent time around anyone that was Muslim, me picking up and saying that I based my friendship decisions on people's color, religion, and ethnic background because of XYZ just so I wouldn't be beheaded at some point in the future. That statement plus yours shows lack of understanding based on not having real world experience.
Your not going to get much of a mortgage on 30k. Not in this day and age after the boom. I will say its harder for someone self employed with 100k, but its not easy for the 30k a year person at their job for 2 years either.
tons of companies dont offer these benefits or have taken them away. Also most dont get them until 12 months in at a lot of places.
A while back this was true and good. However 99 weeks of unemployement has ran out so your only going to get it for a brief moment. Also, living on $300 a week doesnt sound too great to me even if I was single. Also, people are having a hard time finding a "secure" 9-5 going on 12 months now or more in some cases.
What do you think happens in a small business where the owner gets sick and dies, or lets say a 7 year ecom employing 22 people has an awful xmas sales period and has to lay off 9 employees? ( ive personally seen this btw ). Your on your own pretty much.
Even if there are as many small businesses they aren't employing as many people (that is why they are "small" businesses).
Only 4.65% of the workforce works at companies that are under 5 people and only 9.09% of the workforce works at companies that are under 10 people. That means that over 90% of people work at companies with more than 10 employees. (Source)
You are looking at how many small businesses there are, not where the average worker works. If there are 10 businesses that employ 1 person each and 1 business that employs 1,000 people, even if there are more small businesses, more people work at the bigger businesses.
^^ it doesnt matter what size or classification they are.
The stats show 1/3rd of all business ( no matter how big or small ) fail within 10 years
The stats show over 50% fail within 4-5 years ( no matter how big or small ).
50% of businesses are 7+ years old. no matter how you want to dice it up, when a company hires you you going to fall a into a sizable % of those companies that will fail.
I havent known anyone ever say, " I want to work for Google, just because they employ 50k people". Most people that work a job are lucky to have one, let alone get to pick the one they want based on X merit. At the bottom of that merit will surely be company size...
BTW the definition of a small business changes year to year, expert to expert. We wont gain any ground defining what is and is not a small business. We should just look at the word "businesses" in total. I only asked to exclude non employee ones since they don't "hire" anyone for jobs. Even with that said, there are businesses that can be large at the 7 year mark.
The stats show 1/3rd of all business ( no matter how big or small ) fail within 10 years
The stats show over 50% fail within 4-5 years ( no matter how big or small ).
50% of businesses are 7+ years old. no matter how you want to dice it up, when a company hires you you going to fall a into a sizable % of those companies that will fail.
I havent known anyone ever say, " I want to work for Google, just because they employ 50k people". Most people that work a job are lucky to have one, let alone get to pick the one they want based on X merit. At the bottom of that merit will surely be company size...
BTW the definition of a small business changes year to year, expert to expert. We wont gain any ground defining what is and is not a small business. We should just look at the word "businesses" in total. I only asked to exclude non employee ones since they don't "hire" anyone for jobs. Even with that said, there are businesses that can be large at the 7 year mark.
So much this. ^^
You sign a 3 year salary contract with someone like ExxonMobil, you're covered. You could go through a divorce, and regardless, those monthly deposits are still going to hit your bank account.
If you're self employed though, and end up going through something like a divorce, there's a decent chance your income is going to go down the shitter on you. There's no signed salary contract with a multi-billion dollar corporation to protect you.
On the flip side, going at it on your own, you could end up with a 1200% pay raise every month. Fun stuff!
The typical person in America is never in a position to sign a 3 year SALARY contract with any company, let alone any contract as a 9-5 employee with a company. This is a pretty out of the norm situation you bring up.
As you said yourself, it is much harder for the self-employed.
Any serious company offers benefits and sick days. This is pretty common to be honest.
Well isn't it better than... say... zero dollar a week?
He will be replaced by the next higher-up. Once the business machine is in motion, it no longer depends on a single individual. Oh and if you get laid off, you apply for unemployment. See above.
Sorry bro, but no matter how you look at it, there is more security with a corporate 9 to 5.
Keep in mind that I am being the devil's advocate here, I hate 9 to 5s, but I have to admit that they provide more stability and security than hustling on your own...