Well, it's not a trope that's Omnipresent enough to get averted, so it would just not be a trope that applies.
RJ Savoy
My impression is that this trope, rather like "Friends" Rent Control, is more usually implied than clearly shown to the audience, when a character has far more free time than they would with any normal job, but at the same time with a regular income and not treated as a NEET. So it's about offscreen more than on-screen happenings.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
The character has to be acknowledged as both having a job and needing money. Then they seem to have adventures that take up days at a time or they are overwise available for an adventure at a moments notice. If there is a constant acknowledgement that they are coming from or going to work, the trope doesn't apply because it is saying all adventures are being worked in around their job schedule. But it's when the character seems to spend most of the time at the Local Hangout or dabbling in time intensive get rich quick schemes that the trope comes into play.
Do you not know that in the service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils!
How exactly does offscreen work factor into this trope? Do the character need to be shown working to avert this trope, or would having a realistic amount of free time be enough?