One month. That's all it takes for your "stable job" to cease to exist. I found a new one quickly. But that doesn't change what I realized.
One client isn't stable. It's maximum dependency.
What Happened
The company terminated our cooperation with one month's notice. Everything is done by contract, peacefully, with no conflicts. I quickly found a new job. Seemed like — everything ended well.
But the fact remained: one call — and "stability" disappeared.
This was a wake-up call. Not because it was hard for me to find a new job — I'm a good specialist, there's demand in the market. But because I realized: "good specialist" isn't protection from systemic fragility.
Employment is one client. And they have every right to terminate cooperation at any time.
What Is a "Stable Job"
When we say "stable job," what do we mean? Steady income, predictability, confidence in tomorrow.
Now, let's look honestly: what is it really?
It's one client you depend on 100%.
You have one buyer of your services. One company that pays for your time and skills. And if they decide they no longer need your services, in just one month, your "stability" ceases to exist.
This doesn't mean employment is bad. This means employment isn't stable. It's a dependency pretending to be stability.
One Client = Maximum Dependency
Let's imagine two scenarios.
Scenario 1: You have one client who pays 100% of your income.
Scenario 2: You have five clients, each paying 20% of your income.
What happens if you lose one client?
In the first case, catastrophe. Income drops to zero. Need to urgently find a new client. Stress, panic, uncertainty.
In the second case, unpleasant, but not critical. Income drops by 20%. You stay on your feet. Have time to find a replacement without panic.
This isn't theory. This is basic risk mathematics. Concentration of dependency = fragility.
And employment is maximum concentration. One client. One income source. One call — and it's over.
Antifragility: Taleb's Framework
Nassim Taleb, in his book "Antifragile," describes three types of systems:
Fragile systems — break from stress. Glass fell — shattered. Lost a client — income zero.
Resilient systems — withstand stress without change. Rock in the rain — stays a rock. Lost a client, but you have savings for a year.
Antifragile systems — benefit from stress. Muscles after training become stronger. Losing one client makes you more diversified and experienced.
Employment is a fragile system. One client — one point of failure.
Freelancing and own projects are an antifragile system. Many clients — distributed risk.
Losing one client in the second case is unpleasant, but not critical. The system adapts and keeps working.
Why Freelancing and Own Projects
I'm not saying "quit and go freelance." That's also fragility, just from another side.
I'm saying: freelancing and own projects aren't a replacement for employment, but a complement.
Remember the barbell strategy . Stable income on one side + experiments on the other. Not "either-or." But "both."
Right now my distribution: 95% employment / 5% freelance and experiments. This isn't the final point — it's a transitional stage. But the key is that these 5% make the system antifragile.
Why does this work?
Keeps you relevant in the market. When you work only in one company, you know only its internal processes. Freelancing forces you to understand how others work. What technologies they use. What problems they solve. This makes you a more versatile specialist.
Develops skills absent in employment. The company has ready processes, team, and infrastructure. In freelancing, you're responsible for everything: from client communication to deployment and support. This is real ownership in the true sense.
The main company also benefits. I gain experience at my own expense. Test approaches, study new technologies, and work with different project types. The company gets a specialist who develops faster.
The key is that these 5% can't break me. If all freelance projects fail, I lose nothing. Job, money, and stability remain. But if something works, I get real alternatives. Losing the main job is no longer a catastrophe. It's just a change in proportions.
This Isn't About Money. It's About Fragility
One might object: "But I can just save a safety cushion — six months' salary, and I'm protected."
Yes, this makes the system more resilient. But not antifragile.
A safety cushion is time. Time to find a new client. But this doesn't solve the problem of dependency on one client.
Freelancing and own projects are different. This isn't the time. These are alternatives that already exist.
When you lose one client but have others, you don't start from zero. You just redistribute time. Instead of 95/5, it becomes 80/20 or even 50/50. But income doesn't drop to zero. The system adapts.
And more importantly — you don't lose skills, contacts, reputation. They've been working in parallel all along. This isn't a safety cushion. This is a parallel system ready to scale.
Conclusion
There's nothing wrong with employment. Employment provides a steady income, a team, large projects, opportunity to learn from stronger specialists.
The problem isn't employment as such. The problem is dependency on one client.
If you work at a company but also have freelance clients or own projects in parallel, this is no longer a fragile system. This is antifragile.
If you work only at a company, have no alternatives, don't keep your finger on the market pulse — this is fragility. And one call can change everything.
"True stability isn't one big client. It's the ability to have alternatives."
