I thought this was going to be a story about finding new workers, but instead it's a story about the latest media topic: subcontracting versus hiring employees.

I thought this was going to be a story about finding new workers, but instead it's a story about the latest media topic: subcontracting versus hiring employees. The author looks to be coming down fairly heavily on the side of hiring people instead of using subcontractors. In the article's defense, it does present some of the other side of the argument -- later on in the piece. I think this is all going to shake out over the next five years or so, with these markets bifurcating into a more expensive model using employees, and a less expensive model using contractors. Each will have benefits and drawbacks. I couldn't help but think of a recent interview with one of the LinkedIn founders I read recently. As you know, LinkedIn facilitates a lot of recruiting -- and poaching -- across many industries. The writer asked the founder how, since he saw the massive churn in IT, did he go about hiring people? His response was golden: as part of their hiring and employee management process, it's made clear that any full-time job is probably temporary. So there are clear goals that both the company and employee have for growth in order to reach their next level. The employee might want to work in several new technologies and gather up some skills they are missing. The company may want to enter a high-risk, high-stress market to see if there's a business model there. Everybody gets something they want and the relationship is understood to both be temporary and mutually-beneficial. I like this. This is the model I use when assembling and managing technology teams, and it's the model I've seen work over and over again. Quite frankly it's the only model I can see working in a rapidly-changing economy. The real question is how you apply this model to more mundane service-oriented industries like Uber.