[UPHPU] Freelance Opportunity Starting ASAP
mac at macnewbold.com
Mon Dec 4 17:13:00 MST 2006
Today at 4:39pm, Robert Merrill said:
> I can agree to this in principle, but if you extend the equation further it
> doesn't work any longer.
> For example: If you work for a small company X and you are one of two
> programmers who develop software for them that they sell... and they
> generate, oh, $1M in profits from the sales of that software, how much do
> you deserve? According to your statement above, there are two of you and
> you obviously are worth $500K each. Meanwhile that leaves all the
> salespeople and marketing and finance, etc, out of the loop because they
> created the infrastructure of a company that really didn't do anything
> except simply "introduced" your software to the clients who bought it.
> (BTW, they also introduced you to all the clients who didn't buy it, too)
If you and your partner are the only two people in the company, and you
did equal work, then yes, if you managed to do $1M in profit, $500K each
sounds about right. But in your equation, there aren't just two people,
there are all the other people too, who are providing a service that has
some value. If I build a product that people are generally willing to pay
about $20 for, I would consider it worthwhile to pay someone to increase
the the number of copies I sold. Yes, I'd profit no matter how big their
cut was of the increased sales, but part of what they're bringing in is
because of my work in developing the product, which is worth something,
and probably a lot more than the work of selling it to someone. But that
is up to me and them to negotiate. If they don't like what I'm willing to
offer them as an incentive to sell it, they don't have to spend their time
trying to sell it. If I don't want to pay them as much as they want for
every copy they sell, I don't have to do business with them either.
> I can see some disdain to feeling like a fee is being "taken out" of your
> worth, but look at it the other way. If you want $50/hr, and you are
> getting paid $50/hr, and someone who connected you with the opportunity that
> you want, at the rate you want is getting some too--why is that bad?
That is a win for the employee (getting what they want), but not for the
employer, who is paying $55/hr (or whatever) for an employee who is only
worth $50/hour. The only time there is extra money in the equation to pay
someone else a cut is if one of the two parties values that service enough
to pay for it themselves, or if the employer values the employee more than
he values himself. (I.e. they disagree in a particular way on the market
> Now, if you WANT $50/hr and you're getting $45, then that's different.
> Likewise, if you want $55/hr or $100/hr, and someone can get it for you, is
> that worth them getting a piece of the pie as well?
The catch to that is if they can get me that much above market value, then
there's a possibility I could do it myself too, and might want to do that
instead of using their service, and that I might be happy with what I'm
getting, but the company might not be happy with what they're paying.
Except in the case where there's that favorable disagreement on market
value, or a case where I can provide more value to company X than I can to
any other company, in which case market value doesn't really apply. I
wouldn't be nearly as happy working for a company that paid my wage
begrudgingly as working for a company that is very happy with what they're
getting from me for their money.
I think a lot of that comes down to disclosure and acceptance of who will
bear the cost. If I'm seeking work and ask for help, then I want to know
exactly what I'll be getting, and what I'm paying to the person helping me
for their help. If I'm a company seeking a person, I'd likewise want to
know what I'm paying for the service of helping me find one, and what
they're getting paid (so I know I'm paying a fee I feel is fair, and that
the person is getting paid something I feel is fair).
One real big catch in all of this, which perhaps relates to the
observation about agency-contracted people seem to be generally of a
little lower quality, is that the agency has an incentive to make a deal
even if it isn't the best thing for the company contracting their
services. If company X is looking for someone for position Y, and I have a
contract with a person Y who could fill position Z to help them find work,
I have a great opportunity to match them up, and perhaps get paid from
both of them for the providing the same matchup. That may lead me to match
X with Y instead of actually doing some work (like company X expects) and
finding the best candidate for their position. It may also lead me to send
the person Y to company X, even though if I did some work for them I could
probably find them a better position with another company. The agency gets
the most money for the least effort when both employer and employee are
signed on with them, but that could easily tend toward poorer matches,
detrimental to both their clients. It sounds like a conflict of interest
to me. It would be kind of like having the same law firm representing both
the plaintiff and the defendant in a court case... they can't serve the
best interests of one without compromising their service to the other.
Mac Newbold MNE - Mac Newbold Enterprises, LLC
mac at macnewbold.com http://www.macnewbold.com/
More information about the UPHPU