> At $100-$150/hour $20k/month ranges from doable to dependable.

Err... math is off.

100 (rate) * 7 (full work day, don't get paid for lunch) * 5 (number of days in a week) * 4.3 (number of weeks in a month) = 15,050

That's 15K. And that's assuming you have a 100% full schedule and spend 0 time on invoicing/marketing/non-billable activities. Realistically, you're probably looking at a 10K rate per month with a 100/hour rate.

The only way you'll see 20K is if you're the middle man hiring the help or you're not billing hourly/daily/whatever. Assuming you're not in the business of managing other engineers, not billing on time increments means fixed price jobs.

Unfortunately, there is only a sliver of work that will fit well into that model. Where the job is very well defined, simple enough to do in a few hours, but complex enough that it can't just be handed off to any random joe. Not too many clients with that kind of work on a consistent basis.

So the OP is right, the only way you'll see that kind of money is once in a blue moon, if you specialize in something niche and can charge 250/hour, or if you're managing other people.

150/hr * 2080 hours is an annual gross of 312k. Divide by two to estimate an equivalent annual salary of 156k. A good salary, yes, but not out of reach for someone who builds websites front to back. 150/hr is probably too low to account for downtime and the added risks of going on your own.

It's entirely unreasonable to assume a completely full book. Also remember that the tax burden as a 1099 is higher and more complicated. Also you have to pay all of your own benefits, if you can get them (for example, disability insurance is difficult to get and expensive when you do).

You're wrong. It's not only reasonable, it's common.

My point was that making the assumption that you'll be able to book 2080 hours in a year is bad for business. I've had full months, sure, but I've also had months with about four days of work total. The numbers have to work in either case or you're running a hobby, not a business.

Also, I can't speak to how common it is, but in my (albeit limited) experience, a full book is just a bad idea in general. When I have a full book I end up working on the business (invoicing, lead gen, client relationships, bookkeeping, taxes, etc) in the slices of time that I would rather be spending time with my family.

Well maybe I am working too hard. :-)

But really, how many startup founders on HN are putting in 35 hour weeks? At $100/hr I don't think $20/mo is easy, but I'd say you could hit it once or twice a year. That's what I mean by "doable."

Your whole argument has collapsed, so :( The original quote was that it was more than $20k a month. For a decade. You're missing $5k a month and again, that's without having any time to market, bill, do your taxes, etc.

I was replying to this: "my best months have been ~$18K". Sorry for trying to encourage someone. You're right that $20k minimum is a lot harder, at $100/hr probably impossible. But as a peak?

Last year January, July, October, and December all had 23 weekdays. $100/hr * 9 hr/day * 23 days/mo = $20700/mo. If you have no commute and maybe do a Saturday or two that's pretty doable. I wouldn't make it routine, but I've occasionally had months that busy.

Yes, not all hours are billable, but the non-billable stuff isn't that time consuming:

Marketing: Aren't most freelancers turning away work right now?

Billing: I push the "invoice" button and it's done. 1-2 hours a month.

Taxes: If you're working for yourself you shouldn't do your own taxes.

Anyway, I hope this is helpful to someone. Best of luck to you all.

> $100/hr * 9 hr/day * 23 days/mo = $20700/mo.

I know you mention a Saturday, but if you can bill 9 productive hours a day, I take my hat off to you. I could in my early-mid 20's, I can't any longer.

> Marketing: Aren't most freelancers turning away work right now?

Not here in the UK, not the ones I know of (that is, the ones who don't have part-time speaking careers or get featured in magazines).

Do the maths at $150 (a rate he nominated) and then tell him again that his whole argument has collapsed.

..perhaps he isn't at $100/hour?

Right, but there are more fixed price jobs than there seem - it's just a matter of marketing & structuring the gig. An example from my industry: the top recruiters won't touch a job if it resulted in less than $500 - $750/hour net.

Doesn't it also depend whether you bill by the hour or by the day/week?

There was a discussion on freelancing a year or two back on HN where it came out that at a certain level of experience, you're better off bidding by the week, e.g. $5K/week or $10K/week because clients often prefer to think in terms of total project costs rather than hourly contractor costs.

I have definitely noticed happier clients after offering a day rate. Not just for budget, but it can help some clients feel better about knowing "when".