The key to getting paid is having a valuable skill.
Once you do, you can sell it and use it to earn big online.
I chose writing, which I think is the most profitable skill on the internet.
How I Became a 6-Figure Solopreneur
In this thread, I'll briefly explain:
1. The steps I took
2. How I kept my costs low
3. How you might be able to do the same
Keep reading…
The key to getting paid is having a valuable skill.
Once you do, you can sell it and use it to earn big online.
I chose writing, which I think is the most profitable skill on the internet.
There's no one book or course that'll make you an expert.
Instead, it's a slow (but worth it) process of learning and practicing daily.
It took me about 3 months to become a writer that could charge the prices I wanted.
When I started, I had just $800 in my bank account.
With no money to invest, most businesses weren’t an option.
I decided to freelance on job boards as a quick and low-cost way to earn.
In the beginning, I got paid very little for my work.
Then, I started contacting big businesses with LinkedIn and cold email.
When I combined my skill with effective client outreach, my rate rose to $100 per hour.
Next, I wanted to separate time and money.
I chose selling eBooks because it was low-cost and low-risk.
Then, I settled on Twitter as my primary social media platform.
I got my first 1000 Twitter followers by networking.
From there, it was all about creating the best possible content.
After struggling for 6 months, I started gaining 100+ followers a day.
I made $0 on Twitter until I had 5000 followers.
Then, I…
1. Created a few products
2. Started offering some services
3. Grew my income to $10,000 per month
First, selling services gave me a comfortable income.
Then, I doubled that income by building on social media.
Now, I’m a top 10% earner, and my profits continue to grow.
Then you'll love my...
1. Daily content
2. Weekly newsletter
3. Free 10-day email course
So, follow me if you aren't already, then click below 👇
https://t.co/Xpg2S4sJ16
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x