3 ms·
I think a lot depends on the situation. There are a lot of companies who would pay a lot of money to have a technical person on their team who follows best prac
by ollerac 9y ago
I think a lot depends on the situation. There are a lot of companies who would pay a lot of money to have a technical person on their team who follows best practices, doesn't slack off, and is reliable. This is a low bar, but many engineers don't live up to this and end up causing as many problems as they solve, including being hard to manage.
If, as a contractor, you are professional, easy to get a hold of, and treat your work seriously you'd be invaluable to any company who could hold onto you and a lot of hiring managers secretly know this.
- JamesBarney 9y agoThey also know they're paying a lot of devs 80-150/hr who are hard working, don't slack off, are reliable, and follow best practices. And they have an HR/Invoices department who would constantly harass them about paying that much for a dev, if they even approve it in the first place.
- ollerac 9y agoOk, but in this case the contractor should make at least 2x as much the in-house staff, considering they're bringing all their own tools, paying for their own health insurance, paying their own taxes, and having a more flexible schedule. And then there's the question of why hire a contractor in the first place if you already have a strong team of devs — why not just hire another full-timer? Most likely you're having trouble filling out your team or filling a crucial role. That would probably be worth a little extra to you. Plus, there are tons of companies out there who don't need a full dev team of a dozen people, but know they could benefit a lot from hiring contractors for 3 months at a time for one-off projects. These companies are more than willing to pay a little extra to get a job done well on short notice.
- tomsthumb 9y agoThey’re payin the devs that much. That’s not how much they’re paying for the devs.