4 ms·

> I think the author of this article has no experience with consulting companies. Jason has extensive experience with consulting companies, as you would know h

by tdavis 16y ago

> I think the author of this article has no experience with consulting companies. Jason has extensive experience with consulting companies, as you would know had you taken the 20 seconds necessary to read his bio before starting your argument with ad hominem. Congratulations on following it up with a straw man argument that replaces 99% of companies with the 1% that he blatantly wasn't targeting. sigh

gaius 16y ago
sigh indeed. The article should really be titled "The unfortunate math behind freelancing" because that's what it is.
- thinkingeric 16y ago
  His breakdown is applicable to service work in general.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No it isn't. Different service organizations have wildly different $/headcount ratios with wildly different concentrations of clients and wildly different turnover rates. A gigantic slice of the economy is services work. This blog post is not that slice's Rosetta Stone.
- tdavis 16y ago
  So now your argument is that there are about a dozen "consulting companies" in the world and the rest are loose collections of "freelancers"? Banal use of semantics aside, you still haven't said anything that refutes the problems/solutions surrounding "consulting companies" (or "freelancer gaggles" if you prefer) as they were defined in the article.
  - gaius 16y ago
    His argument hinges on consulting not being worth it at $100/hr - that is true, but it's also irrelevant, since typical consulting firms actually charge much more. Secondly he asserts that consulting doesn't scale. Well, with one example (of many such firms) tipping the scales at 200k employees, that point is demolished too.
    - tdavis 16y ago
      > that is true, but it's also irrelevant, since typical consulting firms actually charge much more. Again, it's irrelevant if you redefine "typical consulting company" as one of a clearly atypical group of big-name firms with tens to hundreds of thousands of employees. > Secondly he asserts that consulting doesn't scale. He makes two assertions. First, that with all the details accounted for, your profit will likely be half of what a naive assumption would find. And second, that as a founder you'd end up doing a lot of stuff outside your core competency or interest. At no point does he say, "Given these facts, it's clear that consulting cannot scale." If he had, sure, you could take two seconds, point out a single point to the contrary, and feel good about "demolishing" an easily refuted argument. He didn't, so we're back where we started.
      - gaius 16y ago
        FTA: If you had five of these employees you’d be clearing $300,000 per year, which sounds more like it. Except not because scaling brings more time and expense: It was obviously worth it for the partners at the old Andersen Consulting, or VPs at Accenture or any other consulting firm. These were small companies once...
        wallflower 16y ago
        A decade ago, to be considered for partner at the old Andersen, you had to be bringing in $10-$15M a year in business.
gaius 16y ago
Also while I am here, since when was it a requirement to read an author's entire output before commenting on any of it?

by tdavis 16y ago

gaius 16y ago

sigh indeed. The article should really be titled "The unfortunate math behind freelancing" because that's what it is.

thinkingeric 16y ago
His breakdown is applicable to service work in general.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No it isn't. Different service organizations have wildly different $/headcount ratios with wildly different concentrations of clients and wildly different turnover rates. A gigantic slice of the economy is services work. This blog post is not that slice's Rosetta Stone.
tdavis 16y ago
So now your argument is that there are about a dozen "consulting companies" in the world and the rest are loose collections of "freelancers"? Banal use of semantics aside, you still haven't said anything that refutes the problems/solutions surrounding "consulting companies" (or "freelancer gaggles" if you prefer) as they were defined in the article.
- gaius 16y ago
  His argument hinges on consulting not being worth it at $100/hr - that is true, but it's also irrelevant, since typical consulting firms actually charge much more. Secondly he asserts that consulting doesn't scale. Well, with one example (of many such firms) tipping the scales at 200k employees, that point is demolished too.
  - tdavis 16y ago
    > that is true, but it's also irrelevant, since typical consulting firms actually charge much more. Again, it's irrelevant if you redefine "typical consulting company" as one of a clearly atypical group of big-name firms with tens to hundreds of thousands of employees. > Secondly he asserts that consulting doesn't scale. He makes two assertions. First, that with all the details accounted for, your profit will likely be half of what a naive assumption would find. And second, that as a founder you'd end up doing a lot of stuff outside your core competency or interest. At no point does he say, "Given these facts, it's clear that consulting cannot scale." If he had, sure, you could take two seconds, point out a single point to the contrary, and feel good about "demolishing" an easily refuted argument. He didn't, so we're back where we started.
    - gaius 16y ago
      FTA: If you had five of these employees you’d be clearing $300,000 per year, which sounds more like it. Except not because scaling brings more time and expense: It was obviously worth it for the partners at the old Andersen Consulting, or VPs at Accenture or any other consulting firm. These were small companies once...
      - wallflower 16y ago
        A decade ago, to be considered for partner at the old Andersen, you had to be bringing in $10-$15M a year in business.

gaius 16y ago

Also while I am here, since when was it a requirement to read an author's entire output before commenting on any of it?