[Phlarp]

Compared to what? Either you're on contract and they could simply not renew it when the 1/3/6 month timeline is up, or you're an employee and they could simply lay you off without warning on a completely unpredictable and arbitrary timeline.

Everything is tenuous compared to living off the safe withdrawal rate of a $10 million diversified investment portfolio.

[jsimzeroone]

There's an old cliche that when you go from being an employee to being a contractor you trade the illusion of security for the illusion of freedom.

[sbarre]

I think the idea here is that when you're on contract, you are much more aware that your employment is time-limited and transactional.

So you live your life, financially and otherwise, with this in mind.

I have no doubt that this sounds (and would be) more stressful for some people, when compared to full-time employment, particularly in the US where your job is typically tied to health care and other benefits.

But most folks I know who have been laid off from long-term employment were shocked by (and ill-prepared for) the event.

[s1artibartfast]

Of course they both have risk categorically, but they differ greatly in magnitude and scheduling.

With Contracting you know that there is say a 50% chance the contract will expire on a given date and can plan accordingly. As a direct employee there is say a one percent chance you'll be laid off and it could come at random times.