I know the primary secondary job taken by interpreters is translation. But a few posts/videos I've seen recently delivered conflicting message on this practice. On one hand, there's this article written by Julia M. Böhm saying translation as a secondary job is not a very good idea:
On the another hand, in this related post, some seniors said that translation and interpreting is mutually beneficial and therefore a good idea.
And it seems to me that interpreting+translation is highly feasible (and maybe even more lucrative), at least that's what interpreters I met online or in real life testified for. But maybe it has to be translation then interpreting, instead of the other way around.
What's your opinion?
asked 20 Feb '16, 01:14
What Julia Böhm is saying is that you shouldn't settle for a low rate, but think of all the work you do outside the booth the whole year long, just to be able to perform at the expected level the day when you actually are in the booth. And that during those days, you need to stick to your preparation pattern - which needs to be financed by your CI income, not translation jobs.
It doesn't keep you from working as a translator (or really anything else that pays bills), provided there are enough days in one year for you to do both activities properly. And at the beginning, you'll probably have no other choice than to accept translations jobs, transcription jobs, etc. - just make sure you're qualified and that it's worth your while.
The Julia Böhm scenario of not being able to do two things properly won't kick in unless you take a full time day job or have more than a 100 days of CI work per year.