I'd say there's nothing wrong even if you're paid for 40 hours a week in each of these jobs. The reason for that is quite simple: I am not a slave and my lifespan is not infinite.

If you tell me "I will need you 40 hours a week" but then it turns out you actually need 20 hours of my time a week I am not going to waste these 20 hours because life is too short for this kind of foolishness. I could tell you that I'm done after these 20 hours, but if my 20 hour output already matches the average output for that position then why should I? What is in there for me? Most likely I am not going to be rewarded for picking more work anyway, I will just work harder and that's it. Why bother if there's no incentive to work harder? I might as well prioritize myself and my finances as opposed to provide above-average value to someone who will never reward me for doing so.

If I was running a business and I would manage to effectively double my income I would be praised and pointed to as an example of a successful person. Yet if I do the same as an employee all of the sudden there's tons of problems around it. Why should I let myself be worse-off than a random company? Why should I willingly choose to earn less if I can earn more?

I don't think it's morally wrong if you set and meet expectations. I do think it's morally wrong if there's deception involved. The question is posed in a similar manner to "is sexting cheating on your spouse?" Well, yeah, if you're not willing to inform them about it.

I've done it a few times and we usually cover the expectations for freelancing on the job. Usually this means a lower salary for this "show up in office and do whatever you want" block of time. Remote can be the exact opposite - "don't show up in office, but get more work done"

Besides this, there is no moral prohibition against working multiple jobs in most other fields. Would anybody question the ethics of me working a dev job but also picking up shifts at a local cafe or restaurant? What if I have a side project?

I knew plenty of kids whose parents worked multiple jobs growing up. The fact that those jobs were shitty, doesn't change the ethics of it. Unless you're violating a non-compete, it's not anybody's business what you do with your free time.

> I’ll go against the grain..

I think it is also because most of us never had to work two jobs out of necessity. So we just assume that one is supposed to have only one job.

Unfortunately, I have met many people who had to do multiple jobs in order to survive. Especially, when they had a family, and wanted to provide them better opportunities. It is pretty standard operating procedure below certain income levels.

I don't see anything wrong with 2 full-time jobs as long as one is actually performing and working 80 hours. I knew people who worked even longer hours out of necessity.

Nothing is wrong with this arrangement unless the two jobs conflict or require something that you can't provide. If they don't and you can deliver all that the job asks from you, you've found the perfect 2 remote jobs!

But really, don't go flaunting it because it's ridiculously easy for jobs to begin requiring things that disallow you to work 2 jobs, like a timesheet.