Jobs where you can earn up to £104k for just one day a week with no qualifications
EASY EARNINGS Jobs where you can earn up to £104k for just one day a week with no qualifications
FORGET the daily grind – a new trend of "micro-jobs" could see you rake in up to £104,000 a year for just one day of work a week.
We reveal the roles where you can do minimal work and still earn a good living - and there's no need to fork out for a degree.
Advertisement
2
You might be surprised by the variety of high-paying, low-commitment gigs out there
2
You could earn up to £2,000 a day
The average annual salary is £37,430, according to the Office for National Statistics.
That's based on working 38 hours a week, 46 weeks a year.
But the highest paying micro-job that requires no qualifications would pay £104,000 a year based on working just one day a week - a stonking £66,570 more.
Advertisement
Job platform Adzuna has crunched the data to see which micro-jobs which require no qualifications pay the most.
See the full list of roles here, based on advertised salaries from June 2025.
Top-paying jobs for fewer days at work
First on the list are voice over artists.
They use their voice for adverts, films, audiobooks, and animations, helping to tell stories, deliver messages, or bring characters to life.
You could earn up to £2,000 for just 15 minutes of work a week.
Advertisement
So if you land a 15-minute job every week for a year, you could make up to £104,000.
I earn up to £2,000 for just 15 minutes of work
JAMES Bartlett is living proof that you don't need a string of degrees to land an enviable career.
James, 37, from Birmingham, left his A-levels unfinished to chase an acting dream, landing a BBC role in "Afternoon Plays".
Now, he's a master of many lucrative trades, but it's his work as a voice artist that offers a truly astonishing income for minimal hours.
Some projects he works on pay £1,000 to £2,000, or even more, for just a few minutes of recording.
Before the pandemic hit, James was already dabbling in voiceover work.
When the TV and creative industries shut down, he saw an opportunity.
Armed with a basic USB microphone, he transformed his home into a recording studio.
He now voices everything from intense crime dramas like "Line of Duty", where he records lines for scenes filmed in Ireland, to TV and radio adverts and corporate explainers.
He also records e-learning content, and even the familiar voices you hear on telephone hold menus and in-store announcements for supermarkets like Asda and Tesco.
While the pay varies, the basic studio fee is typically £200 to £300 per hour. But the real money comes from "usage fees".
If your voice is used in a major TV campaign, for instance, you can receive a loyalty payment – a significant sum for just a couple of minutes of your time.
From a business perspective, voice acting offers incredible advantages. "The outgoings are incredibly low," James said.
"Once you have your mic and kit, your voice is your tool – and it's free. It's not like a plumber who has to go buy other bits."
If you're eager to start a career as a voiceover artist, James suggests checking out Gravy for the Brain's online training courses.
Next on the list are domestic gas engineers, earning an impressive £960 a week for working just one day a week - or £50,000 a year.
These aren't your average DIY enthusiasts - they're skilled professionals installing and repairing gas systems.
You don't need a university degree to become a domestic gas engineer in the UK.
Instead, you can train through a paid apprenticeship or a fast-track course at a private training centre.
Advertisement
The high salary makes sense when you consider the specialised training, certifications, and vital safety regulations involved in working with gas.
Many gas engineers are self-employed, giving them the freedom to choose their working hours.
Meanwhile, delivery drivers can earn between £240 and £272 a day, depending on the job's demands.
You don't need qualifications, but you'll need a driving licence.
HGV Class 1 drivers typically make £22.69 an hour, earning £272 for a 12-hour shift or £14,160 a year if they work one shift a week.
Advertisement
Regular lorry drivers, earning £20 an hour, would make £240 per 12-hour shift or £12,480 a year for the same schedule.
To become a lorry driver in the UK, you need to be 18 or older and have a full car driving licence.
You'll take a medical exam, get a provisional HGV licence, and pass the Driver CPC test, which includes theory, case studies, and practical tests.
To stay qualified, you must complete 35 hours of training every five years.
What is the national minimum wage?
AT the moment, there are two different minimum rates all workers are supposed to get across the UK - the national minimum wage (NMW) and the national living wage (NLW).
The NMW is the minimum hourly rate for workers who have finished school.
For those under 18 and apprentices, the rate is at least £7.55 an hour.
Workers aged 18 to 20 must earn a minimum of £10 an hour.
The NLW applies to workers aged 21 and over and is slightly higher.
At present, everyone over the age of 21 must be paid at least £12.21 an hour.
You are eligible to receive the applicable minimum rate if you work full-time, part-time or as a casual labourer.
Those who are self-employed, voluntary workers, company directors, and family members who live in the home of the employer and do household chores do not qualify for the minimum wage.
Other flexible jobs paying more than the minimum wage
There are other jobs which don't require you to have any qualifications - but they don't pay as much.
Advertisement
Some baristas can earn £16.02 an hour, especially in busy, high-end coffee shops where great service and speed matter.
Waiters in fancy restaurants can also make £16 an hour, with good service often leading to big tips.
Working 12 hours a week at this rate could earn you £192 a week or nearly £10,000 a year, excluding tips.
If you wanted to work five days a week, the pay would be £49,920 a year.
Meanwhile, skilled roles like telescopic forklift drivers earn £15.50 an hour.
Advertisement
These forklifts have an extendable telescopic boom that allows them to lift and move heavy loads to higher or hard-to-reach places, making them ideal for construction, agriculture, and warehouse work.
Their pay reflects the training required, the hazards of the job, and necessary safety certifications.
Drivers typically need training and certification to use these machines safely and efficiently.
Working one 12-hour shift a week for a year would earn you £9,672.
If you worked five 12-hour shifts a week, you'd make £48,360 a year.
Advertisement
Plus, groundskeepers earn £14.61 an hour, maintaining large outdoor spaces with specialised equipment and a solid understanding of horticulture.
One day a week for a year would be £9,116.64, but if you wanted to work five days a week, you'd earn £45,583 a year.
In the cleaning sector, end-of-tenancy cleaners can earn £14 an hour.
This involves thorough and meticulous cleaning for property handovers, often requiring specialised tools and high standards of work.
One day a week for a year would be £8,736, but for five days a week, you'd earn £43,680 a year.
Advertisement
Casual kitchen porters also earn £14 an hour, handling washing and basic food prep in fast-paced kitchens, making it an appealing option for flexible work.
That's £8,736 for a year, or £43,680 for five days a week.
Home care aides earn £13.95 an hour, providing essential personal care and support, often with irregular hours and significant responsibility for a client's well-being.
For one day a week for a year, you'd earn £8,704.8, but £43,524 for five days a year.
If you're looking into micro-jobs, James Neave suggests checking things like your employment rights, the type of contract, and tax rules.
Advertisement
These jobs are often part-time, zero-hour, or freelance.
James said: "With zero-hour contracts, your employer doesn't have to give you work, and you don't have to accept it if they do.
"It's all about finding what works best for your skills and lifestyle."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
BBC director-general Tim Davie is on 'last strike' after series of scandals - but corporation wants to save him
BBC director-general Tim Davie is on his 'last strike' after a series of scandals has plunged the BBC into chaos but the Corporation is determined to save him, sources have claimed. The Corporation is facing serious questions after it came under attack on three fronts this week. And while there is widespread feeling Davie is one scandal away from losing his high-profile role, a former executive told The Sunday Times that the BBC has deployed 'Operation Save Tim'. On Monday, the BBC was forced to admit that its documentary about children in Gaza had breached editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the narrator was the son of a senior Hamas official. Hours later, a damning probe into Gregg Wallace 's behaviour on MasterChef was published, with 45 out of 83 complaints, including one count of 'unwanted physical contact', upheld. The report also upheld two out of 10 complaints - relating to swearing and racist language - made into other individuals, who were not identified. That was until the BBC was thrown into another crisis when Wallace's co-host John Torode publicly declared that he was the individual who had used racist language. Torode, 59, was sacked on Tuesday in a move he claims the BBC had not made him aware of. He said he was 'seeing and reading' he had been dropped from the show and had 'no recollection' of making a racist comment. In the following days, it was reported that he had used the N-word at a filming wrap part in 2019 while singing along to Gold Digger by Kanye West. But the investigation is understood to have upheld a separate complaint made the year prior when he used the same racist word on the MasterChef set. A BBC News report claims the racial slur was directed towards a MasterChef staff member. The Gaza documentary and MasterChef scandals add to a tumultuous period for the BBC, who also came under fire for their handling of the live streaming of Bob Vylan's Glastonbury set last month. The band sparked a backlash after leading chants of 'death, death to the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] during a live broadcast on the BBC. The BBC also said it will no longer broadcast live performances deemed 'high risk' – as Bob Vylan had been assessed – and its director of music, Lorna Clarke, also reportedly stepped back from her day-to-day duties. The corporation issued an apology after the Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury, saying: 'We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on the BBC and want to apologise to our viewers and listeners and in particular the Jewish community. 'We are also unequivocal that there can be no place for antisemitism at, or on, the BBC. After Glastonbury, which Davie attended, culture secretary Lisa Nandy told parliament there was a 'problem of leadership' at the BBC. But BBC chair Samir Shah has doubled down on his support for the director-general, insisting Davie 'has shown strength, confidence and decisive leadership in a very challenging environment'. Another insider claimed his position with some board members was 'more precarious than people realise' after the Glastonbury scandal, but this was disputed by a source close to the board who insisted they were backing him. While the scandals alone would not be enough to see Davie sacked, the revolving door of scandals has raised huge questions about the management of the BBC. It also comes at a time when Davie's salary jumped £20,000 to £547,000, while Deborah Turness, the BBC News chief executive, saw hers rise £17,000 to £431,000. Since Davie became director-general in September 2020, the BBC has shelled out almost £10million addressing scandals. Almost half of that - £4.5million - comes from the fallout from the Martin Bashir 1995 Panorama interview with Princess Diana. Although the original controversy came before Davie took on his role, the sum includes £539,000 of legal fees in fighting journalist Andy Webb's internal emails about the scandal. Another £3.3million was spent on an external investigation into its handling of complaints about Radio 1 presenter Tim Westwood. Allegations against Westwood were first made public in 2022 when several women accused him of sexual misconduct. He has strongly denied all allegations. A review, which was carried out by barrister Gemma White KC and included contributions from more than 120 people, found people were 'concerned that they would not be believed or might be blamed' for his alleged behaviour because he was so 'popular'. The BBC also faced a £1.3million bill from the Huw Edwards scandal, although the report's findings have never been published. The review into the Gaza documentary, carried out by the director of editorial complaints Peter Johnston, cost £98,500. The Sunday Times reports that there is widespread feeling at the BBC and the wider media that Davie cannot afford another crisis, but his allies remain supportive and warn 'nobody should underestimate his strong survival instincts'.
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How podcasters are taking over TV
When Gary Lineker's The Rest is Football unveiled a deal to broadcast Fifa Club World Cup highlights, it marked a watershed moment for podcasting. 'The Rest Is Football isn't just being listened to – it's being watched, shared, and talked about across Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, X and Instagram', said Tony Pastor, who co-founded the podcast production company Goalhanger alongside Lineker. In buying up licensed match footage, one of the most successful franchises in podcasting was acknowledging what many in the industry had long observed: podcasts are no longer merely an audio format, but are increasingly becoming the new TV. Popular shows including The Rest is Politics and The Rest is History are now accompanied by videos of their hosts chatting in the studio. Shows are broadcast not just on traditional audio platforms like Apple's podcast app, but on video-based services such as Instagram and TikTok. In a sign of just how significant this shift has been, YouTube is today the largest global podcast platform with over 1bn monthly views. Spotify, which has invested heavily in podcasts but has an audience just a tenth of YouTube's size, is now playing catch-up by showing videos of podcasts automatically when people listen. Traditional broadcasters are scrambling to keep up. In May, Channel 4 struck a deal to bring video programming to Spotify, building on an existing partnership with YouTube. Tim Davie, director general at the BBC, recently announced plans to make special news programming for YouTube and TikTok, while in a sign of the blurring lines between video and audio, the broadcaster has started to put podcasts such as Rylan's How To Be In Love on iPlayer, as well as on Sounds. In its regular programming, too, the influence of podcasting is clear to see. The latest series of the hit reality show, The Traitors, was accompanied by a 'companion series' dubbed Uncloaked, in which comedian and podcaster Ed Gamble interviewed contestants in a studio equipped with leather armchairs and microphones – set decoration that mimicked video podcasts. Episodes were also put out as podcasts – blurring the lines between formats. The growing importance of podcasting was also a key factor behind big pay raises handed to BBC journalists such as Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg, who are now regularly presenting them alongside TV and radio duties. In the US, meanwhile, Fox News has made similar moves by inking a licensing deal with Ruthless, a hit podcast hosted by Republican figures. Evolution from on-demand radio Podcasting is hardly a new player on the block. The format traces its origins back to the early Noughties with the emergence of the RSS feed, which allowed internet users to download an audio file to listen on the go. For most of its early life, podcasting essentially served as on-demand radio. Over the years, however, it has developed into a major media format in its own right. Just over a fifth of UK adults listen to a podcast each week, according to Ofcom, up from 4pc in 2008. More recently, podcasting has undergone perhaps its biggest transformation to date – video. Put simply, people are increasingly watching podcasts as well as listening to them. Matt Deegan, a radio and podcast expert, says: 'If you're an audio podcaster and have done quite well out of that for a long time, you're in a bit of a quandary now because you've got to boot up the video side to reach that audience.' The reason for this explosion in video is partly a practical one: advancements in technology have made it much cheaper for creators to film their shows and far easier for audiences to view them. Many podcasts are also essentially talk shows, meaning viewers are familiar with the format. 'It's easier than it has ever been to film something along with recording it', says Scott Bryan, a TV critic and broadcaster. 'If you know what you're doing, you can have a setup with a video camera that's got great audio quality.' Whether or not there is a burning consumer demand to watch podcasters pontificate in a studio is difficult to determine. A recent survey conducted by Edison for Ofcom found that 40pc of people who listen to a podcast with video prefer to consume it in an audio-only format. This may reflect when people engage with podcasts. Unlike TV, which people watch when they get home from work, many may turn on a podcast while sitting on the train to work. However, podcasters want to make sure they can reach the widest possible audience, wherever – and however – they are consuming shows. Larger audiences naturally bring the promise of greater advertising revenues, too, as podcasters monetise their shows on multiple platforms. What's more, video provides more opportunities for sponsorship and product placement, such as Dragon's Den star Steven Bartlett, clutching a bottle of Huel in his Diary of a CEO podcast. 'As a creator, you're making a show, and your show is there to be distributed in lots of places, and it should work in all of those media,' says Deegan. 'Its evolution isn't about all audio podcasts becoming video, it's more that people are creating shows that you can get on lots of different platforms.' The consequence is that most consumers – particularly younger ones – no longer distinguish between audio and video. A podcast is therefore now defined by its style and content, rather than its format. Media battle The bleeding of podcasts into TV poses yet another threat to traditional broadcasters and publishers as they battle to retain attention in an increasingly crowded media market. This was perhaps best exemplified by Piers Morgan's decision last year to leave Rupert Murdoch's TalkTV and instead pursue his own show on YouTube. Tellingly, YouTube viewers watched more than 400m hours of podcasts on TV sets last year. Traditional media outlets face significant hurdles in harnessing the power of podcasting in all its forms. Perhaps the biggest risk is a race to the bottom, in which broadcasters shun big-budget hits in favour of cheap podcast-style programming that low-budget rivals can easily compete with. This threat is particularly acute as broadcasters and producers warn of a funding crisis for high-end British dramas. Regardless of how they respond, there is a sense that traditional media outlets are reluctantly starting to accept that viewing habits have fundamentally changed. If they want to stay relevant, broadcasters can no longer ignore the rise of the podcast as TV. 'After years of maybe being quite dismissive and letting it do its thing, I think traditional broadcasters are realising that now you have to invest, and if that means doing a similar setup to what YouTubers and podcasters are doing, then so be it,' says Bryan.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Again and again, we are shocked by the treatment of learning-disabled people. Yet we never learn from the past
BBC Radio 4 has just aired a short series about the writer Virginia Woolf, to celebrate the centenary of her novel Mrs Dalloway. According to the publicity blurb, the aim of Three Transformations of Virginia Woolf was to explore what she 'has to say to us today', and how she 'captured and critiqued a modern world that was transforming around her, treated mental health as a human experience rather than a medical condition, and challenged gender norms'. Because the three episodes immediately followed the Today programme, I distractedly caught two minutes of the first, before flinching, and turning it off. The reason? Only a few days before, I had read a diary entry Woolf wrote in 1915, presented alongside the acknowledgment that she was 'suffering deep trauma at the time', but still so shocking that it made me catch my breath. It was a recollection of encountering a group of learning-disabled people, who were probably residents of a famous institution called Normansfield hospital. 'We met and had to pass a long line of imbeciles,' Woolf wrote. 'The first was a very tall man, just queer enough to look at twice, but no more; the second shuffled, and looked aside; and then one realised that everyone in that long line was a miserable ineffective shuffling idiotic creature … It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed.' That passage arrives a third of the way through a brilliant new book titled Beautiful Lives, straplined How We Got Learning Disabilities So Wrong. Written by the playwright and drama director Stephen Unwin, its story goes from the Greeks and Romans to the 21st century. Much of it is a history of the misunderstanding, hatred and appalling mistreatment experienced by endless millions of people. But partly because Unwin has a learning-disabled son – 28-year-old Joey, who he says has 'challenged everything I was brought up to believe in and turned it on its head' – it is also a very topical demand for all of us 'to celebrate the fact that such people exist and have so much to offer'. A sign of the ignorance Unwin spends some of the book railing against is the fact that this superbly original work, published in early June, has not been reviewed in a single mainstream publication. In the context of the attitudes he writes about, that is probably not much of a surprise – but there again, the book is so timely that its passing-over still feels shocking. After all, it follows the same unquestionable logic as all those high-profile discussions and debates about institutional racism and empire, and demands a very similar process of reckoning. On this subject, there is a mountain of questions to ask. Some are about language that still endures: 'imbeciles', 'morons', 'cretins', 'idiots'. How many of us know about the first official Asylum for Idiots – later the Royal Earlswood Institution for Mental Defectives – founded in Surrey in 1847, and infamous for what Unwin describes as 'widespread cruelty … and soaring mortality rates'? However much young people study history, do their syllabuses ever cover the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, which formalised the idea that people categorised as 'idiots' and 'imbeciles' (and all disabled children and young people) should be institutionalised, let alone the fact that it granted local councils powers to remove such people from their families by force? Why is the US's record on institutional cruelty and cod-psychology even worse than the UK's? There is another part of the same story, centred on a slew of 20th-century politicians and cultural figures who believed that learning-disabled people – and disabled people in general – were not just pitiful and wretched, but a threat to humanity's future, an idea expressed in the absurd non-science of eugenics. They included that towering brute Winston Churchill, DH Lawrence (who had visions of herding disabled people into 'a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace'), and lots of people thought of as progressives: Bertrand Russell, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, the one-time Labour party chair Harold Laski, and the trailblazing intellectuals Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Their credo of pure and strong genes may have been discredited by the defeat of the Nazis, but we should not kid ourselves that everyday manifestations of loathing and condescension that underlay those ideas do not linger on. Ours is the age of such scandals as the one that erupted in 2011 at Winterbourne View, the 'assessment and treatment unit' in Gloucestershire, where people with learning disabilities were left out in freezing weather, had mouthwash poured into their eyes and were given cold showers as a punishment. The year 2013 saw the death in an NHS unit of Connor Sparrowhawk, the autistic and learning-disabled young man whose life was dramatised by Unwin in a profoundly political play titled Laughing Boy, based on a brilliantly powerful book written by Sparrowhawk's mother, Sara Ryan. As well as its principal character's life and death, it highlighted the fact that the health trust that ran the unit in question was eventually found to have not properly investigated the 'unexpected' deaths of more than 1,000 people with learning disabilities or mental-health issues. Right now, about 2,000 learning-disabled and autistic people are locked away in completely inappropriate and often inhumane facilities, usually under the terms of mental health legislation. Only 5% of learning-disabled people are reckoned to have a job. Six out of 10 currently die before the age of 65, compared with one out of 10 for people from the general population. But this is also a time of growing learning-disabled self-advocacy, which will hopefully begin to make change unavoidable. One small example: at this year's Glastonbury, I chaired a discussion about the cuts to disability benefits threatened by the political heirs of Laski and the Webbs. The speakers onstage included Ady Roy, a learning-disabled activist who is involved in My Life My Choice, a brilliant organisation that aims at a world 'where people with a learning disability are treated without prejudice and are able to have choice and control over their own lives'. He was inspirational, but it would be good to arrive at a point where what he did was completely unremarkable. It may sound a little melodramatic, but it is also true: such people, and allies like Unwin, are at the cutting-edge of human liberation. Far too many others may not have the same grim ideas as Woolf, Lawrence, Keynes and all the rest, but their unawareness and neglect sit somewhere on the same awful continuum. That only highlights an obvious political fact that all of us ought to appreciate as a matter of instinct: that the present and future will only be different if we finally understand the past. John Harris is a Guardian columnist
