[UPHPU] Freelance Opportunity Starting ASAP

[Mac Newbold]

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 
value.)

> 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

--
Mac Newbold		MNE - Mac Newbold Enterprises, LLC
mac at macnewbold.com	http://www.macnewbold.com/