@Invest It Wisely: I suppose it could be thought of as a form of slavery; you are selling off a part of yourself, effectively, But like I’ve said, in this particular case, I think that our seller is going to come out just fine. Problems might arise in future cases if (a) a higher percentage of future income is sold (say, 60% rather than 6%), (b) a much lower amount of capital is offered for that income (say, $60,000, or even only $6000, rather than the $600,000 Ms. Erickson is looking to get), or (c) the investors can control what she does with the money. That last one is particularly relevant; the deal that she’s currently arranging, according to every source I could find, basically gives her the money with no strings attached, other than the unusual pay back method. If the investors could insist that she, say, started a particular type of business or went into a certain job field, then it would seem much more like slavery to my eyes. As it stands, I still think that she’s got the much better end of this deal.

@Financial Samurai: That’s an interesting way to look at it. Here’s hoping that Ms. Erickson, and anyone else who agrees to this type of deal, turns out to be a rocket ship, both for themselves and for the investors!