Slashdot Mirror


The Rise Of The Contract Workforce (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A new NPR/Marist poll finds that 1 in 5 jobs in America is held by a worker under contract. Within a decade, contractors and freelancers could make up half of the American workforce. Workers across all industries and at all professional levels will be touched by the movement toward independent work -- one without the constraints, or benefits, of full-time employment. Policymakers are just starting to talk about the implications.

[...] It's not just business driving the trend. Surveys show a large majority of freelancers are free agents by choice. John Vensel is a contract attorney at Orrick who grew up a few miles from Wheeling, on the other side of the Pennsylvania state line. In his 20s, he was a freelance paralegal by day and a gig musician by night. "I actually wanted to be a rock star," he says. But these days there are no edgy vestiges of a former rocker, only a 47-year-old family man cooing over cellphone photos of his children, Grace and Gabe. In the two decades in between, Vensel worked full-time corporate jobs. But he was laid off in 2010, on the eve of his graduation from his night-school law program. He graduated with huge piles of debt, into one of the worst job markets. For a time, Vensel commuted three hours round-trip to a full-time job in Pittsburgh. But more recently, he quit and took up contracting to stay near home in Wheeling.

34 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Glad I'm retiring soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've worked hard, lived below my means, and saved ferociously for two decades now and I'm getting ready to retire with a 7 digit investment portfolio in a year or two before I'm 50. I feel sorry for the young people just entering the workforce, what a different scenario they will be facing with the Republican destruction of the social contract and delivering all power to corporate America. It's a much more lopsided equation than it used to be. As my late dad used to say, BOHICA. Bend Over Here It Comes Again.

    1. Re:Glad I'm retiring soon by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The social contract has been deteriorating for a long time, and it was not only republicans doing it. Loyalty from both sides (employers/employees) has faded to almost nothing now. A friend and I were working the same job in 2000. He is still there and has more vacation then he is allowed to take, and good money. But I have time off whenever I want and also good money. Contracting works for me!

    2. Re:Glad I'm retiring soon by youngone · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Your link to the John Birch Society is informative, but pretty much agrees with the A/C above.

      Founder Robert W. Welch Jr., Fred C. Koch

      Who funds the Tea Party side of the GOP? Koch Industries.
      Just a bunch of self interested billionaires spewing endless propaganda.

    3. Re:Glad I'm retiring soon by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Loyalty from both sides (employers/employees) has faded to almost nothing now.

      This has been going on for a LOOOONG time.

      At least a couple of decades ago, I realized that there was no loyalty of the employer to the employee.

      The W2 employee is JUST as readily fired/let go as the 1099 contractor.

      I figured, hey, if you have the job security of a contractor, you might as well get the bill rate of a contractor.

      Just make sure to incorporate yourself...makes life easier.

      I went the S-Corp route, never looked back.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Glad I'm retiring soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How cute. He actually believes unions care about him beyond his dues and adding a head to the collective threat of a strike...

    5. Re:Glad I'm retiring soon by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      no, the unions are dying because the powerful hate competition and want us to return to the turn of the century (100+ yrs ago) where we were LITERALLY wage *slaves*.

      unbalanced power is what they crave and enjoy. unions help balance that power. normies like you and I don't 'deserve' to be able to bargain equally. cops, sure, they're allowed to have unions (why?? why do they deserve them but normies don't? that right there shows you its not ALL bad, with unions; but that they don't want US to have equal bargain power).

      its just that simple.

      corruption is EQUAL at corp and union, but that's the point! I'd rather have 2 gorillas fight than one of them fighting ME.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re: Glad I'm retiring soon by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Neither do the vast majority of unions. Every single one of the large unions has been caught red handed in some kind of corruption scheme -- AFL-CIO, CWA, UAW, Teamsters -- you name it. That last one also felt a sense of accomplishment for holding their ground when they forced hostess into bankruptcy, and the union boss talked it up as a victory even though all of the workers lost their jobs while he went home still having a fatter paycheck than those workers ever dreamed of.

      Uh, bullshit. Hostess union accepted cut after cut after cut jackass, to keep the union afloat. Because unlike corporate executives, the long term welfare of the union is dependent on the company's well being. As opposed to the corporate executives who DGAF if they run the company into the ground, if they make millions in bonuses in the process, secure millions in golden parachutes, and make millions more selling off the companies assets when it goes belly up.

      It's no contest whatsoever. If you are concerned about the long-term health of a company, trust the union over the executives and board of directors.

  2. This is me... by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

    For the last 15 years, I have been contract with short "real jobs" in the middle. But after 6 months to a year I have fixed the issues and it is maintenance. I do not like it, and they do not like paying my salary for it, so on to the next. Feeds my ADD. :)

  3. try before you buy by js290 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Contract workers is effectively "try before you buy" on an employee. It's getting increasingly difficult to fire poor performing employees. Contract is a good bet for employers.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:try before you buy by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's getting increasingly difficult to fire poor performing employees. C

      With the proliferation of "Right to Work" laws and states it has gotten much easier to get rid of any employee for practically any non-discriminatory reason, including their politics.

      Non-union employees have essentially zero job protections and with the death of unions we have fewer and fewer union employees.

  4. What do you want us to say? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The situation sucks. Not only in the present but it was make the future suck as well because everyone caught in it are going to feel a crunch come retirement, if they ever do get to retire. There's no guarantees with the mighty 401(k) and IRA that are tied to market forces which we have no command or control over.

    There are structural problems with our society that allow this to happen. It's not only coded in our employment laws but also in the anti-union bent of corporate profit imperatives. We want people to take responsibility for their own success but remove every single tool that might be used for that through black-letter law or through making it so expensive in seeking redress of wrongs it become untenable, even in principle, to see it done. We allow for unilateral NDAs to be upheld. We allow for so much to be hidden away that even if I were to invest the time (as if I had the time to invest) looking into a potential employer, I wouldn't find be able to find the problems they have.

    So what do you want us to talk about here? We know about it. We work as well as we can within it. There's public outcry but no political will to do anything. This is the endpoint of 40 years of corporate political influence. What's there to be surprised about it?

    1. Re:What do you want us to say? by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      The way the current law is heavily favors the 9-5 employee over contracting. Which I would venture distorts the number of jobs that could and should be contracting gigs out there.

      Someone choosing to contract over being a W-2 truly is disadvantaged in many ways. This includes taxation (pays the full FICA tax), benefits (no individual health insurance market worth a damn), worker protection, vacation/sick/parental leave and retirement savings (401k's way superior to IRA's).

      Even if the hourly rate is 2x, it still isn't quite enough to close that gap.

      This is why I favor things like UBI and UHC. It takes the burden of providing that kind of baseline stuff away from companies so they don't have to be required by law to provide things like minimum wage, health coverage, etc. while providing said benefits to a much broader range of people.

    2. Re:What do you want us to say? by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are structural problems with our society that allow this to happen.

      What the.... Seriously?

      You DO remember from history class that Social Security, Medicare, 401ks and pension plans didn't exist for the bulk of the USA's history. Seems to me that prior to the great depression folks lived pretty well and dealt with retirement just fine, caring for their own families, not just letting government do it.

      The ISSUE in society is the "I have to have it now" bent we generally all have and a total lack of discipline in financial planning for rainy days. It used to be that being in debt was a bad thing, but now, having tens of thousands of unsecured debt is a way of life, where the struggle to make ends meet incudes being able to make the minimum payments on your credit cards and student loans.

      I get that it's not always possible to control income and expenses, that unforeseen circumstances happen from time to time. But dang it folks, we need to plan ahead a whole lot better and start saving money. It's called delayed satisfaction and some of us where not taught that as children and now need to learn it as adults. Most of us will make more than a million dollars in our first decade of work but we pitter it away on junk and end up 10 years in with nothing but debt. That's just wrong...

      So yes, the issue is our culture, the problem is within ourselves and inside the individual is where the solution is. We need to become responsible adults, live within our means and save for retirement ourselves, because it's apparent to me that there is zero chance the government or anybody else has enough resources to do it for me, you and everybody else too. You want to retire comfortably? It's up to you to make that happen. It doesn't matter if you work as a contractor, for yourself, or as an employee, YOU are responsible for you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:What do you want us to say? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone choosing to contract over being a W-2 truly is disadvantaged in many ways. This includes taxation (pays the full FICA tax), benefits (no individual health insurance market worth a damn), worker protection, vacation/sick/parental leave and retirement savings (401k's way superior to IRA's).

      Even if the hourly rate is 2x, it still isn't quite enough to close that gap.

      I'll agree that independent contracting is NOT for everyone, but if you want the freedom and wish to put in the extra work, it can be quite lucrative and satisfying.

      First, with regard to the FICA (and medicare, the "employment taxes"). Yep, you have to pay both sides of this, HOWEVER there is a way around this somewhat.

      You can form a S-Corp. With this you pay yourself (as sole employee) a "reasonable"salary, and you only have to pay the employment taxes on that "reasonable salary".

      Example: Say you bill out $100K annually.

      You pay yourself a "salary" of $40K. Throughout the year, you pay fed and state taxes and both halves of the FICA/Medicare taxes ONLY on that $40K.

      At the end of the year, the remaining $60K, you deduct your business expenses, etc....and then the remainder falls through on your personal taxes, and you only pay federal and state taxes on that. That is your "disbursement".

      Yep, takes some paperwork shuffling, but can be done.

      For vacation/sick and health and retirement, well, you have to know what your bill rate is to negotiate.

      And it is likely quite a bit more that double as you'd mentioned.

      Over the years, I've been quite happy with my insurance I buy..I get a "high deductible" policy, usually with like $1300 deductible. With this I can open a HSA (Health Savings Account) that I fund fully each year Pre-tax. I pay my routine medical costs with this and the insurance policy is there for emergency care. Actually, after Obama care, the insurance part got MUCH more $$...due to the requirements to have stupid coverage I don't need (I don't ever need prenatal or maternity coverage, I'm a guy and not having kids)....but even so, you do your bill rate to cover that. It's not that difficult, and the coverage MORE than serves me well with my medical needs. And I am a bit older now, some pre-existing stuff, but still...is not that much a strain.

      I have investment accounts set up and I put money way pre-tax to the max, and some that is post tax. I have in my bill rate enough to cover me to take off about 3 weeks a year sick/vacation.

      Yes, it takes more of my time, but I get the benefits of making my own hours, taking off when needed. I'm fortunately enough to work remotely, so I can really set up shop wherever I want..I can be working from a bar in Key West if I wish....

      :)

      But no, it isn't for everyone....but it can be a nice and rewarding way to work. You bring in a LOT of $$, but you have to be disciplined enough to save for taxes, retirement and expenses....but even after that, you can make enough to have a good bit of disposable fun money too, depending on the field you are in.

      It helps if you have people skills too...to get and KEEP longer term gigs.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:What do you want us to say? by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes it's the same old 'sock your money away until you die' philosophy. People don't know when they will die. My wife has been seriously ill twice, should we be living an ultra-frugal life now and basically making our lives miserable and never doing anything fun together as a family so I can have a big pile of money once everyone has gone their own separate way? I understand that there are over spenders, but what I am saying is that there are under spenders too.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:What do you want us to say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except prior to the Great Depression, half of all Americans lived in poverty, and 80% of seniors did too. Let's not go back to the Gilded Age.

    6. Re:What do you want us to say? by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a whole lot more over spenders than under spenders.

      My wife almost died a couple of times too when my kids where very young. Once from pancreatitis when a retained gall stone blocked her bile duct even though her gall bladder had been removed 2 years before and the second time when she came down with sarcoidosis stumping her doctors for almost a week. My kids where both in grade school at the time. So I know what you are talking about.

      Not knowing when you are going to die is only an excuse to spend for some. There is a balance in life as in anything, but MOST people spend too much, very few to little. The actuarial tables in the USA are a good place to start for retirement planning, they will tell you how old you will likely be when you die. I'd plan for something in the 90 percentile or so and work from there. Personally, I don't mind leaving a few bucks for the kids so over shooting isn't a problem.

      I have known one guy who was a confirmed under spender. He died, worth tens of millions, in his one room log cabin with one light bulb in the early 80's with no one to leave it to but a distant relative he never saw. That's sad... But it wasn't nearly as sad as my grandmother who died having lived on Social Security for multiple decades and the sweet old lady who I knew growing up in the same situation. Living where you have to choose between food or medication is a sad existence too. There is a middle road here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:What do you want us to say? by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if saving for retirement is beyond this balance for many people? There are a lot of people who don't make enough to both save for retirement and live a comfortable life. Just because they haven't socked money away doesn't mean they are financially irresponsible.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:What do you want us to say? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I'm calling BS on this for most people.. I dare say MOST people CAN and should save for retirement.

      If your earnings don't allow for saving for retirement, then you are living at the subsistence social security level for your whole life and won't be shocked when retirement happens. So if you think "comfortable" is something above what you could do on SS when you are old and your current income allows you to spend more than that, you are trading today's "comfort" for decades of uncomfortable poverty if you don't save part of that excess.

      I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of folks who think they just don't have enough to save and live "comfortably" are really living beyond their means to start with. If you have a job and make more than what welfare pays, you should be able to save some for retirement, maybe not a lot, but some.

      You see, what this "comfortably" thing usually means is I don't have everything I want and my credit cards are maxed out so I cannot make the minimum payments... In which case, you've been digging a deep hole of debt, which is HARD to get out of and takes a long time of being ultra disciplined. But, in reality, if you get into this debt cycle, your standard of living WILL decline below your income anyway. In those cases you are working to pay interest and not to live, so you end up at a lower standard of living.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:What do you want us to say? by swillden · · Score: 2

      Most people are not addicted to credit cards. Most people are just trying to make the bills from month to month.

      Living paycheck to paycheck has little to do with income and a lot to do with spending. I know people making $200K per year and living paycheck to paycheck. I know people making $30K per year who have healthy savings.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re: What do you want us to say? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      It was the farmers that were lazy. Contributing members of farming communities generally worked an average of 2 hours a day year-round. Imagine surviving on two hours a day today.

      I assume you are joking..

      I grew up on a farm... 2 hours a day on average? Seriously? It took 2 hours just to milk the cows in the morning... Then there was feeding them, cleaning the barn after the inevitable happens after you feed them AND then milking them in the evening which too another 2 hours. In between morning chores and the evening milking was all the seasonal stuff, including fence repair and putting up hay in the summer, breaking ice and feeding hay in the winter and a whole host of odd jobs related to staying warm, fed and dry year round. We got a bit more sleep in the winter, but in the summer it was pretty much up and down with the sun and work in the middle.

      I don't know where your 2 hour number came from, but I can assure you it wasn't possible on the farm I was raised on.

      In fact, this experience is what drove me into this technical field. Milking cows in a freezing barn on a cold winter morning wasn't my idea of a good time and neither was throwing bails of hay around all summer. Man I hated that stuff... (And green beans... I still hate green beans..)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:What do you want us to say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is a continual struggle to meet one's obligations month to month and you cannot save anything because of it, you need to reduce expenses.

      You need to get out of your bubble bobby. For many people, there are no more expenses to cut without choosing to be homeless. For a few, cutting expenses means dying to whatever ailment is sucking their 40k salary dry and then some, thus the credit cards.

    12. Re: What do you want us to say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I grew up on a farm... 2 hours a day on average? Seriously? It took 2 hours just to milk the cows...

      I'll stop you right there. Your problem was choosing to be a rancher instead of a farmer. Grow winter wheat, corn, soybeans. Then work 14 hour days every day for six weeks a year. The rest is lazing about, watching youtube, and shitposting on slashdot while raking in 120k per family member per year...or 90k if you don't have your own silos and equipment.

      7 * 14 * 6 / 365 = 1.61 hours on average per day. With random maintenance here and there, checking the market, yeah it's probably 2 hours a day of actual work on average.

  5. Re:The ugly truth: We're just whores by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

    So step up to independent escort and keep all the money. :) "Just be nice to the customer, Fancy, and they'll be nice to you!"

  6. Because Companies are mistreating their Employees by Quantus347 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The dirty little secret of this trend is that it's happening because the employers increasingly getting away with policies that in past times would have been called mistreatment of their workforce. The American workforce has increasingly moved out of the blue collar industries that had fought long and hard for Regulatory and Union protections, to the comparatively unregulated and unprotected world of white collar drudgery. Things like Union protections and Pension Programs are a things of the past, and loyalty (in either direction) has been entirely removed from the equation.

    The vast majority of people would not cast off the security of a large organization and take on all the risk of going freelance while there are alternative. But increasingly the Companies are asking for more and more from their employees and giving less and less in return, to the point where the Hassle&Restriction of a large organization out weights diminishing expectation of Job Security that is the whole point.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  7. I'd be cool with this... by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...if we had a basic floor by some mechanism, where someone couldn't fall below, leading to a semi-permanent drain on society, and a society that was unwilling to have people die for their own benefit.

    You know, something closer to the biblical ideal espoused in the 'new testament' part of the most consistently referenced book in this nation, but with the freedoms espoused in the other largely revered document, our constitution.

    A 'basic income' system would work, but some mix of unions/safety net if that wasn't possible could at least mitigate those falling through the cracks.

    Education also helps - but everyone can be suckered, or just have the bad luck to be taken advantage of for too long. Even the smartest folks can live most of their lives in abject circumstances for the sake of loved ones, or ideals where that intelligence doesn't help them.

    A more ideal case would be if everyone had some base line, could be sure that everyone they loved would at least survive in some level of comfort, and were free to help, not in the confines of a arbitrary-hour work week, but could use tools to be available whenever made sense, without fear of becoming bankrupt later in life for pursuing whatever they felt helped others the most.

    Money should still matter - what folks are willing to reward more or less can still matter... but it shouldn't be increasingly the ONLY thing that matters, above life, death, and everything else.

    Shared social value should matter for SOMETHING, shouldn't it?

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:I'd be cool with this... by DMJC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      heh you just described literally every other country in the western world.

    2. Re:I'd be cool with this... by RyanFenton · · Score: 2

      I know - and I agree - but most Americans are completely unaware of, or told vehemently wrong things about every other social system in the world.

      Asked about the same ideals that make those other industrialized nations work objectively better towards those ideals - like healthcare, social mobility, education, etc - they would agree wholeheartedly with the ideals and even mechanisms - but then turn away at the labels and identity politics.

      It's a silly, confused little pocket of perspectives we've built up in this nation.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:I'd be cool with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean every other country in the developed world?

      Yes, money is important, but there becomes a point where a country should decide to be more than a fiefdom, a place where a few people live off other people's labor, and the rest know nothing but "let them eat cake" replies and despair. This makes for a great sci-fi dystopia setting, but not a place where one wants to send their sons and daughters to live in. Capitalism needs some type of sanity checks, or else there will be nothing left but polluted air/water/soil.

      Tax-wise, it is simple. Business profits get taxed on a sliding scale. Then, there are sales and import taxes. You can play games with hiding money from income taxes, but it is a lot harder to sneak that Lear jet or Maybach past the border patrol without the law knowing. Drop the income tax, and add a category VAT. Similar with estate taxes, where having wealth taxed is important.

      Auto insurance would be replaced by no-fault, unlimited coverage, paid for by a fuel and energy usage tax. This way, there are no more issues with uninsured/underinsured coverage.

      Health insurance would be single payer, just like the rest of the world. The US spends twice as much than any other country per capita, and total than any other country on health care. Having sickness or injury not wipe your life's savings isn't a bad idea.

      Now for a minimum guaranteed income: If people have some security that they will be fed/clothed/housed, they can actually do stuff in the economy that will more than recoup the cash spent on this. Mazlow's Pyramid shows this out. If you have a population slaving to exist, the country tends to wind up being a footnote in the history books.

      Education?

      I went to college with classmates from other countries. Their education was paid for by their governments. All of them are doing well, with zero debt. They pay far more in taxes to their Fatherlands/Motherlands/Mainland than their education cost.

      If you plant seeds and till the soil, you get a FAR greater harvest than if you say it isn't worth buying the seeds, and wondering why you have nothing but weeds. Even the dumbest, most inbred hayseed of a farmer understands this. However, the US government, particularly one political party, fails to get this. So, our country fails in life and is the laughingstock of the world.

      Of course, the question of "how does one pay for it?" come about? Simple. If businesses paid their share of taxes like they did before 1980, there would be no deficit.

    4. Re:I'd be cool with this... by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What 'freedom' do you have in the US that you wouldn't have as a citizen of any other democratic wealthy nation? Freedom to go bankrupt if you get sick.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  8. Re:My bro did this for a few years by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

    it sucked. Very inconsistent pay. He'd be on 9 months and off 3. Which is fine if you're in your 20s but not so much when you've got kids to raise. You're always playing catch up. I forget why but you can't get for unemployment.

    You do not get it because you do not pay it. Unemployment insurance is taken out of your paycheck when you are full time, but not when you contract. One of those things you have to allow for when you negotiate the rate.
    As for the gaps... They come. Every time. You know they are coming. If you do not have 3-6 months of expenses to draw from, you are asking for pain. And if you do not make enough to save that, cut your expenses or raise your rate.

    The other problem was he could never get a raise because his contract agency had established how much he was willing to work for, so even if the job paid more the contract agency just pocketed the difference. He didn't have a degree so he needed a contract agency to get past the HR filters.

    Get a new pimp! I work with several IT firms, and pick up gigs directly as well. The firms I work with know that low pay means they only get time left after the high pay guys get the cream... :) I get raises.

    Right now it's dog eat dog here in the States. Whenever anyone suggests having the gov't step in and fix it they're shouted down as tax and spend liberals redistributing somebody else's wealth. We can't even get health care over here.

    That is because everything the government has "fixed" so far is worse then when they started! :)

  9. Re:Who woulda thought... by Junta · · Score: 2

    One amendment I'd make is for worker's comp. I'll agree one should not be *dependent* upon the employer, but on the other hand there does need to be an ever present knob to twist to have companies self-interest align with worker safety (hazardous environment in theory should translate to higher worker's comp premiums).

    The health insurance linked to employer is just bonkers.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  10. An Unfortunate Trend by The+Snazster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So far as IT goes, I can say this highlights a very unfortunate trend. There is now an expectation that highly skilled workers in a very specific discipline are available to come out of the woodwork when they are called, that they will be grateful for whatever they can get, and then will quietly slink away to try to find and compete for an opportunity to work somewhere else. We are not talking about salaried contractors hired through a contracting firm, or about the traditional contract jobs of yore, where a self-employed contractor could expect to get the big bucks and make more than enough to carry them through the gaps until their next gig, swapping the job security for financial remuneration. The expectation now is that they will take these jobs, many paying no more than what is comparable for full-time employees (and with no benefits), and like it. In general, unless the remuneration is high enough to offset many other factors (such as the uncertainties and income insecurity, lack of benefits, and the lack of employer provided training) these contract engagements should only be taken as last resort. They tend to be bad economic choices for the worker in the same way that "rent-to-own" is a bad way to furnish your home.

  11. Why do people like instability? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm one of those strange people who prefers a full time job, with a steady paycheck. I know the absolute dollar value for contracts in my field is higher than I get as an FTE, but everyone I know doing contract work is constantly hustling for a new job and never knows where their money will be coming from. I work for an IT services company so I get tons of exposure to different projects. I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if I didn't get work that varied often, but knowing you're going to be paid and can cover your expenses is a relief. I'm not a natural salesman, and really don't want to be looking for work again 2 weeks into a 3-month contract. We employ contractors in some positions where I work, and it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the contracting lifestyle overhearing them calling headhunters, juggling bills, etc.

    People with families, houses and other fixed committments tend to favor steady income. Companies want a disposable, nomadic workforce that never puts down roots and can load their belongings into their car at a moment's notice. I'm strange in that I think it's a good idea for people to stick around, see their projects through, and get involved in the communities they live in. I know employer/employee loyalty is at an all-time low but it doesn't have to be. I think well-run companies that think long term (a minority, I know) don't really want a payroll full of mercenaries that they can't really count on. One of the best things that could happen through the tax code and accounting rules would be to encourage employment of FTEs over contractors. Right now, companies do everything they can to avoid hiring people because there's no incentive. If you made it so that retaining and paying employees is cheaper than a bunch of hired guns, lots of people would be much less stressed.