Plenty of shelf-stockers would do their job for free?  Really?
I suggest that if those 55% quit their jobs to fly-fish, fingerpaint or microstock, society would fall apart.

i certainly wouldn't do any of the above for free, least of all microstock.

i think people will go bonkers from boredom if they pursued any of these activities and go back to their well paying jobs they disliked so much. isn't this why people hate retirement?

I'll tell you this...  When you are on your own, not 'working for the man', you start to get real creative and self-reliant in order to keep the income flowing.  I much prefer to be self-employed, but you do what you have to in order to pay the bills and provide for your family.   And unfortunately, sometimes that means working for someone else.

Good points David.  I totally agree.

I am so lucky that my husband is willing to "work for the man", supporting us so I have the luxury to pursue photography. 

When he was an electrician he had some periods of up to 6 months of unemployment and had to get real creative, literally knocking on doors and passing out business cards to drum up side jobs - installing ceiling fans and/or fixing switches, outlets, etc.  He hated that and is MUCH happier having that steady paycheck every week.

 
While I agree with the "money isn't everything" ideal, it also makes a difference if you're raising a family.

$50K is not sufficient for raising a large family, at least in the US.  You might be able to 'get by' but you probably won't be saving for college or retirement.  

you're changing the goal posts - nobody claimed you could support a large family on $50K, but that's irrelevant - if you DECIDE to have a LARGE family, you've made certain lifedstyle decisions and choices.

s

I think with $200 a day you can give it a go - but this depends on a lot of "if"s.
If you do not have debts to pay, if you do not have mortgage, if you do not have big family, etc. etc.
Microstock seems to be working for you - but it does not work for everyone, and in truth this is a slave's work (considering the cut the microstock sites take). Of course you will hear different from couple of people who like it and who are sufficiently talented and working hard enough to place themselves among those couple of % who can support themselves from microstock.

It is not a business or a job - it is a competition. I am sure that someone will point out immediately that business IS competition - but I am afraid that we would be talking about different things. There are tens of thousands of athletes - but very few of them make living out of sport. Simply - there are many competitors, but winners are few. If you are happy with this - go for it.

My point is that if 100% of people currently submitting to microstock work hard, shoot a lot and produce sellable images - still only a small percentage will succeed. In my books this is not business - but a cross between competition and lottery.

A plumber runs a business - he does a job, he charges you, he collects his money, and moves to another job. He does not perform work at any place which may be in need of his services - in the hope that someone maybe will pay him.

There IS competition in ANY business.  Do you think plumbers don't have to compete to get a client? There are many plumbers out there.  The one with the best fees, service, speed, etc will get the client.  Like a photographer in the microstock industry: the one with the right image will get the sale.  Both have to compete.

I like what microbius and sharply_done have been saying, no pain, no gain. I jumped in and haven't looked back. the income comes, but you really have to fully commit to this, all aspects of it--learning, strategizing, networking etc. if you do, it generally pays off.

unless you can't take a good picture, lol

Quote from: dnavarrojr on May 12, 2010, 19:03

I'll tell you this...  When you are on your own, not 'working for the man', you start to get real creative and self-reliant in order to keep the income flowing.  I much prefer to be self-employed, but you do what you have to in order to pay the bills and provide for your family.   And unfortunately, sometimes that means working for someone else.

Good points David.  I totally agree.

I am so lucky that my husband is willing to "work for the man", supporting us so I have the luxury to pursue photography. 

When he was an electrician he had some periods of up to 6 months of unemployment and had to get real creative, literally knocking on doors and passing out business cards to drum up side jobs - installing ceiling fans and/or fixing switches, outlets, etc.  He hated that and is MUCH happier having that steady paycheck every week.

Yeah!  well he is a top model now!!  getting a day-rate of 250000 grand, pugh!  with a hubby like that I would retire in the south pacific!

Quote from: lagereek on May 12, 2010, 01:03

In Stockholm and London where Im active, a gallon of petrol is about 8 bucks, a pint of lager in a pub about 9 bucks!  need I say more?

??

9 bucks in which currency? in London a pint is about �3 to �3.50 in a pub; maybe a little more in a club or in pubs in very touristic areas

I think they used stockholm as the example for the price of beer. 
http://www.pintprice.com/city.php?/Stockhlom/Sweden/usd.htm

I think most of you people need a reality check: 75% of working people in the USA earn less than $50k, and 88% earn less than $75k (USA Census Bureau, 2008). Referring to $50k as "residual income" or mentioning it in the same breath as a McDonald's or student wage is way, way, way, out of touch with reality, as is regarding it as an insufficient salary to provide a good quality of life. From his grammar, I'm guessing that the OP doesn't live in the USA, which may make $50k USD even more significant. As whitechild said, if he was making that much he'd "be awfully rich".

Well said indeed. Living in the UK, admittedly with the house, the car and a motorhome all paid for, I can very easily 'get by' on $200 a day.

Eight years ago, as an Engineering Manager, I used to earn twice what I do now but I wouldn't go back if they doubled my salary again. It all depends on what you really value __ the the status symbols of the biggest house and the flashiest car, etc you can afford __ or your time.

I simply had enough of having to go to the same office ... in the same factory ... on the same industrial estate ... even if the sun was shining ... everyday. As far as I'm concerned I am now rich beyond my wildest dreams in having all of my time to do with what I want, being able to go where I want and when I want. Of course I'd quite like to have a bigger house and a newer car but nothing like enough to give up my freedom and do what it would take to get them.

Along with "... sooner or later your possessions come to possess you" there were some memorable lines in the film 'Fight Club';

Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God * it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy sh!t we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very p!ssed off.

Yeah!  well he is a top model now!!  getting a day-rate of 250000 grand, pugh!  with a hubby like that I would retire in the south pacific!

ROFL!!!  Don't I wish!  

Actually, he is still working for musical instruments - just got him a gorgeous Gibson Les Paul for his birthday

BTW, if he ever decides to switch teams I will let him know of your offer

The problem is that $200/day can quickly become $150 then $100 or less. It doesn't take much. If you are on a good growth curve and see room for an increase in sales then it may be okay but if you're reaching a plateau then caution is advised.

Thus my advice on doubling (at least) what you think you need.

dahhhhhhh.. I just had my post ready and it got deleted daaaahhhh..

Anyhow my point was that I wanted to agree with what Sharpley_Done said here

I think most of you people need a reality check: 75% of working people in the USA earn less than $50k, and 88% earn less than $75k (USA Census Bureau, 2008). Referring to $50k as "residual income" or mentioning it in the same breath as a McDonald's or student wage is way, way, way, out of touch with reality, as is regarding it as an insufficient salary to provide a good quality of life. From his grammar, I'm guessing that the OP doesn't live in the USA, which may make $50k USD even more significant. As whitechild said, if he was making that much he'd "be awfully rich".

To answer the question, I started doing this full time in Jan 2007 - with zero images and zero microstock income - and haven't ever looked back or regretted it. I'm fortunate to live in Canada, where healthcare is taken care of. For what it's worth, I agree with Microbius:

Quote from: Microbius on May 12, 2010, 06:07

I would certainly go full time. Not because it is a lot of money-- what we are forgetting is that money isn't everything.
For me there is no better way to make a living, no boss, no awkward clients and flexible hours, need I say more

and what was said here

Quote from: Eyedesign on May 12, 2010, 11:59

Quote from: sharply_done on May 12, 2010, 10:55

I think most of you people need a reality check: 75% of working people in the USA earn less than $50k, and 88% earn less than $75k (USA Census Bureau, 2008). Referring to $50k as "residual income" or mentioning it in the same breath as a McDonald's or student wage is way, way, way, out of touch with reality, as is regarding it as an insufficient salary to provide a good quality of life.

The voice of reason, agree!

Actually the median income is $44,389, but with an added note: Today, 42% of all households have two income earners. Suddenly that $50,00 figure divided by two incomes, isn't so high?

That would mean there are a bunch of couples making $23,000 each to create a household income of $46,000. Average household appears  to be 2.35 people. Per capita money income, (1999) = $21,587

I'm not judging what level of lifestyle that may support, or anything else, just pointing out that $200 a day would be over $50,000 a year and above the average household income in the USA.

Personally? I'd take it because I'm single and living a frugal lifestyle right now. "normal" people would strive to make more.

Flipping burgers? You'll make $15,000 a year and an assistant manager will make $27,000 in the US. Which means someone pulling down $300 a week in micro is making more than someone working minimum wage, 40 hours a week, at something else. Not too shabby being your own boss, if that someone is motivated and a good self-starter.

To answer the original question? YES! And I'd quit the two jobs I work now.

So if you and your partner are working and you are making over $24,000 in the USA you are doing better than the average and certainly should be able to make a living.  It is all about priorities though.  If you want to have the mansion with room for 10 guests and 2 cars, boat, cabin etc.etc. then you probably can't live from microstock.  If you want to have a job you love and are willing to live somewhere you can afford you should be well off.

I set out as a full time microstock photographer a few years ago and haven't ever regretted it.  It would take a 'regular grind job' with a VERY high income to lure me back to any sort of 'employed' type of job.  Not because I am making so much, but because I enjoy being self employed and doing photography.  

My wife and I are living in a very expensive country (Norway) but are still managing to make it work.  Those who say they simply can't live on a total household income of less than 6 figures (USD) are living with their heads in the clouds.

That said, I KNOW for a fact that some people really do like working for someone and prefer the stability and security of a regular job - it is good we are different.  So microstock certainly isn't for everyone, no matter what wage you manage to pull in.  But if it IS what you want to be doing you should find a way to make it work.

I like the thoughts of this blog on living within your means and spending money on what you really want to spend it on.

Quote from: sharply_done on May 12, 2010, 15:53

You may not think so, but there would still be plenty of doctors, firefighters, clerks, and shelf-stockers to go around. Not *everyone* is trapped in a job they utterly dislike, you know.

Plenty of shelf-stockers would do their job for free?  Really?
The majority of us dislike our jobs, according to this study... http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=3820
QUOTE:
"Americans of all ages and income brackets continue to grow increasingly unhappy at work-a long-term trend that should be a red flag to employers, according to a report released today by The Conference Board. The report, based on a survey of 5,000 U.S. households conducted for The Conference Board by TNS, finds only 45 percent of those surveyed say they are satisfied with their jobs, down from 61.1 percent in 1987, the first year in which the survey was conducted."
I suggest that if those 55% quit their jobs to fly-fish, fingerpaint or microstock, society would fall apart.

Well, the world is bigger than USA. In Norway 70% are happy with their current jobs. http://www.karrierelink.no/al.php?ar_id=977 I've tried being a WAHM, but prefer being amongst the 80 % who love teaching. At least part time. It is a bit to much hassle sometimes, having to work 6 hours every day. I think I would like to reduce it to 4.

that question will vary based on everyones current income level. somebody working at McDonalds or going to school and only working part-time will say hell yeah !!!! others would look at $200 a day as an insult .. some just wouldn't care either way. a lot of lifestyle comes into play too .. how high-maintenance are you? $200 a day might not cut it.

depends who you are  "working at McDonald's"...   ha ha ha ha...    I passed $200  a day many many moons (years) ago, working at McDonald's.  So I assume you meant... the average crew employee... LOL
 Living in central NJ USA...  I couldn't live on that.  I'd lose the house in a matter of months..  taxes, insurance, utilities.. are outrageous around here.  Prime reason my entire family is looking to move out of the area.. so that maybe I could live on an income from Microstock.   The only thing that would stop me when I move... is health insurance...   I'm 61 and have to go to 66 to get any kind of decent bennies.

Beyond that... I agree with Sharply Done and a few others.   I love photography and think it is a hoot that I can make money hiking the wilderness with my wife... taking pictures. Wife & I and couple of my adult children are trying to build the business up to a point where it could support a couple of us in retirement..   I do 5 days a week at Mickey D's.... it sux...  I live for the weekends, going camping, off roading, hiking...whatever...  just out there with Mom Nature & taking pix. =tom