Whoever charges more than me is fleecing the clients and whoever charges
less than me is desperate for work.
(It's been working so far with my wife. ;-) )
Sundar
PS. I really did not intend to mean anything.
Bob George wrote:
>"Derek Neighbors" <derek@gnue.org> wrote:
>
>>Again we can agree to disagree. I dont think a client should pay for ones
>>inability to find work (downtime) or training (after all if they need to
>>pay you to learn, why not pay one a staffer)
>>
>
>Nor do I. The point I was making is that a FULL TIME EMPLOYEE is paid for
>downtime and in periods of no work. Consultants are NOT. I'd like to turn
>the tables, and rather than ask how much a consultant "should" make, let's
>determine the true cost of headcount for FTEs. You calculation of base
>salary plus $10K plus 10% doesn't cover it. If we're looking at how much
>people are worth, let's compare based on the ACTUAL COSTS, and not just base
>salary.
>
>>Yeah that outfit need to make a profit off you as well as pay you etc
>>etc.. We call that gouging.
>>
>
>Doen't most for-profit organizations charge for goods and services? Isn't
>that amount above what operating costs are? How is that any different? Why
>isn't it gouging when you charge more for goods or services? You're just as
>much of a parasite, no?
>
>>[...]
>>I think employees that dont perform should be cut. But justifying cost
>>based on lazy employees is silly.
>>
>
>Screw just the lazy ones, most companies can realize savings by outsourcing
>quite a bit of their operations (or so the guys that push it say). Fire 'em
>all! (OK, that's not me but I know many with that attitude.)
>
>>[...]
>>Sure. Generally, I dont take discussions personally you seem to. I have
>>worked as an independent consultant as we well as a consultant for larger
>>consulting firms as well as a normal employee for both large and small
>>companies.
>>
>
>And they were profit oriented, no? Income exceeded expenditures? How was
>that done without "gouging"? Why should customers pay for rent? Phones?
>
>I'm not taking this personally, I'm just flabbergasted that anyone uses
>these arguments seriously. You put some heat on your toss, I'll put some on
>mine.
>
>>[...]
>>As they get educated and are able to hire currently starving programmers
>>(according to this list) they will. Just as people are leaving
>>proprietary software as they get educated.
>>
>
>Yes, but what if the actual work involved in getting a new system started
>taper off after implementation? Why pay yet another FTE when you really only
>need them for a limited engagement? An employee is a recurring cost, an
>engagement with a consultant isn't (although we do hope for follow-on work).
>I suppose a lot of companies would hire an FTE, then dump them when not
>needed anymore. Who's unethical then?
>
>>[...]
>>Ok so which is it? Should the companies factor in your cost your
>>'training'? or are you saving them money because they dont have to keep
>>your skills at a high leve? Im just curious?
>>
>
>We provide them value that exceeds their costs for engaging us. It's not
>about 'saving' or 'training' at all. They need something done that can save
>them $X yearly. If we can help them get it going for a fraction of $X on a
>one-time basis, and their recurring costs are a fraction of $X, they've
>realized significant value for whatever they charged. Obviously, some will
>have the means to do this internally, and more power to them. Many will not,
>and can't afford to pay for the talent required to do so.
>
>>[...]
>>I do apologize if I insulted, soap box sure, but it wasnt meant as a
>>direct slam on anyone.
>>
>
>Derek, when you say that anyone who charges over the amount required to
>equate to a full time employee's salary is "gouging", I don't know how NOT
>to take it as an insult! If the rewards didn't outweigh the risks, I
>wouldn't do this line of work.
>
>>[...]
>>Well I was a 'high paid' consultant at one time and stopped because I felt
>>it unethical. I developed proprietary software at one time and stopped
>>because I felt unethical. Now I consultant often for free to non-profits,
>>schools and small business and work as a salaried employee for which I
>>used to consult.
>>
>
>That's great! I too feel very good about the work I do. In the past, I've
>done a lot of work for public entities, the results of which have led to
>considerable saving to taxpayers, and real benefit to those organizations.
>I've also worked in the educational market, helping SEs keep school systems
>running often on my own time. Although I too help others out where I can (my
>free Cisco lab is an example) I do NOT feel guilty about being compensated
>by those with the means to do so.
>
>When you refer to those that you previously consulted for, do you mean
>schools? You realize the privatizers use many of your same tactics to
>justify eliminating public schools and running them as for-profit entities
>(performance based pay, measurable results, etc.), at "considerable savings"
>to the taxpayer, right? I've worked with some hard-core privatizers and
>outsourcers, and they're all to happy to get into the FTE versus
>outsourced/consultant discussion. You sure don't need a computer wonk at a
>school when it's all been centralized under an outsourcer. Just have the
>help desk schedule a visit with dispatch. The techs will fit it in with all
>the other service calls they do. Privatizing also eliminates the need to
>deal with all those nasty unions and HR issues.
>
>It's an ugly business when we reduce each other to dollars and cent
>comparisons, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.
>
>- Bob
>
>________________________________________________
>See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
(text/plain)