> This is a silly false dichotomy. Um, who's really creating the silly false dichotomy here? I'm based on the east coast (US), I run a (very) small development

> This is a silly false dichotomy. Um, who's really creating the silly false dichotomy here? I'm based on the east coast (US), I run a (very) small development shop, and I work with contractors all over the world, including some locally. I prefer to work with contractors rather than hire employees for the same reasons the author prefers to hire remotely instead of locally: employees have much higher maintenance costs. However, I hire based on experience in relevant Open Source communities, not on hourly rates. I have never, ever negotiated with anyone over their rate. I ask them how much they want to make, and that's how much I pay them as their base. I love paying my contractors higher rates and bonuses. > However, it's fallacious to state that they couldn't have built their business otherwise. This is complete guesswork at best. You have no idea what this person's situation is. Further, one could probably infer from this comment that you've never had kids or a mortgage. > You, the business owner, have all the upside. That's how you justify it. This is exactly as it should be! As a business owner, I also have all the risk. Whether or not a client decides to pay me (on time or at all), I'm bound by the terms I agreed to with my contractors to make sure their cheques show up, no matter what. This risk/reward balance exists in every employer/employee relationship. I fail to see how it's a problem.