Actually I've never put a call out for help -- we get many referals from people we've worked with in the industries we're in (mainly high-rise contracting and large scale buildouts), and the people who come to interview are the ones who know how the shop is run.
I retain 100% control of the projects and the customers, but the employees make more money than me. I'm probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to earnings, and I'm very focused on staying that way if not declining over time and exiting the business entirely.
There is nothing wrong with the way I do business, and I think it is a success considering that all my employees own 80%+ of their homes, own all their cars without leases or loans, and have a very solid savings plan. The other upside is most of them have tons of time to spend with their kids or their friends or vacationing, I don't believe in anyone working much more than 1000-1500 hours a year top. Efficiency comes with less hours but more work accomplished.
You're right, but most of our contracts are 2-16 weeks, with payment at the quarter and at the project end. Considering all my financial books are open to anyone who works for me, AND that many of my employees can be contacted directly by would-be interviewees, it isn't a risk if you can see the reward: more money for less time worked IF you're responsible and good at working.
Most people are lacking in both subjects.
I've also never had an employee quit on me in the 18.5 years I've been in business -- never one.
Actually I have spoken with quite a few slashdot users over the years and have offered to bring some on in the cities they live in. Recently I've considered opening up wider in the States with my business plan, but I am getting sick of working in the field I've been in more than 1/2 my life. For me, there are other horizons to be met, and IT will likely wither away as the talent moves overseas for a lower price. I hate to see it happen, but I think the majority of IT will go that way.
That's not to say that there won't be HUGE opportunities for those willing to find them -- every week I hear about another project that would make a pretty profit for whoever takes it, but I'm working more to downsize my own workload than upsize it. In a few years I'll give my company away to the staff and move on -- my hat and my jacket are waiting on the coatrack to be grabbed before I go.
That's a ridiculous reply to say 80% makes sense without understanding what the original 100% entails. If I told you we could bid a contract that lasts 4 weeks, pays in 2 and 8 (1/2 and 1/2), and should entail 45 hours of work at US$200, you'd probably take it if you knew you'd get US$6ish per hour plus 40-80% of the end profit. Most people would, at least.
The more big contracts you do, the bigger the next ones will be, if you are good to your customers and show them how much you've saved them at the end of the project.
I am simply not interested in working for bonuses. But minumum wage as the base? Hell it's no surprise you get applicants as you describe. I imagine that somewhere during an interview with you I'd be thinking "take your job and shove it"
All my interviews occur while I am either working on a project or with one of my employees working on a project. I like to show what the job entails. Never once has anyone ever said "take your job and shove it" and never once has anyone complained about the base rate -- most would prefer a lower hourly and a higher bonus if possible, but the IRS and a variety of local and federal laws make it impossible. I also can't do permanent 1099's because of the same laws, which would open up many more tax benefits for those employed by my company.
I've done my time working on death march projects with 80hr/week. But now that I've got the experience and (some) of the expertise that you probably want, I am simply not going to apply for any job which means I don't have a life. I'll happily work my butt off for 40-50 hours a weak. If I can't see my kid, do some fishing in the weekend, and generally enjoy myself then I do not want the job.
My lowest paid employee is deaf and works about 12-16 hours a week (including travel). He earns almost US$50k take home after taxes, and practically selects his own hours (5am to 2pm so he can spend time with his family). He owns his home (no mortgage) and his car, and he vacations probably 6-8 weeks a year whenever he wants. His contract is a re-occuring bid contract that we always win because he works that hard -- and the customers know it.
My top paying employee works less than 25 hours a week and earns 6 figures. He gets the job done fast and correctly, and I think I've had to fight a bill once in the 9 years he's worked for me. Maybe twice. He travels internationally with his wife whenever he wants, and I believe he owns 80% of his home, and all his cars are paid for.
If you want mindless drones that you can fool into slaving (literally) for you then expect the applicants you are getting. I can offer much more, but demand much in return including a quality of life and a decent wage. and by decent wage I really don't mean that high.
Decent wage is socialist claptrap -- it doesn't exist. The only dollar a person is worthy of earning is when he saves someone else $1.01 in money or time or raises their entertainment level in a degree equivalent with that $1.01. If I told you you'd get $11 at the end of the day for paying me $10 now, you'd take it. That is how we work, and that is how I pay people. They set their own bonus level and if they don't reach it, they get paid less. I can't think of one time when an employee hasn't exceeded the profitability on a project, and the customers kee rehiring us.
Jeese - come to think of it, I can get minimum wage + 80% bonus by working at McDonalds and making web sites in the weekend.
McDonalds doesn't pay between US$80 and US$300 per hour for a project. Considering that most projects are finished ahead of time, most people earn quite a bit more than minimum wage.
I would never hire a schmuck who doesn't understand the basis of business -- saving people time and money for the money they pay you. In fact, I teach my employees that money IS time -- time saved to redeem in exchange for time saved. There are reasons why I receive dozens of phone calls a month looking for work, and there are more reasons why I don't hire 99% of the people I interview -- even though they love the idea of stable but upper income levels, most don't understand that responsibility is the key to income, not talent. The least talented person should earn less than the most responsible, but that isn't the case in the business world, it seems. It is also why many consultants don't last 10 years -- they don't realize why they exist, and they don't know how to sell themselves to the RIGHT customers, rather than the seemingly profitable customers.
I agree with you 100%. Since I pay my employees up to 80% of the profit on a project (but minimum wage otherwise), they bust their butts to be more efficient, and reap the benefits. I know a few of them who've earned probably US$500 per hour working hard to finish well before the deadline and leave almost zero punch list activities.
That being said, most geeks don't want to take a risk that they might only make US$12k per year (none of my guys do) in exchange for buying their efficiency and responsibility. I am glad I have so much competition, though, because it only helps my business when the bottom and middle level of IT is met by GOOD consultants. I'll happily accept the upper levels while passing on the projects that don't meet my criteria.
I recently sold my big home and vacation condo to move into a small home (trailer, actually), which freed up huge amounts of money, mortgage income-necessity, and time. I've been thinking of moving to a small town with an airport and buying into a private plane co-op so I can travel as I need to. As I find more work is possible remotely (although I prefer working face-to-face with my clients), this might free up even more time and money for me to spend as I want to.
The idea of working a solid 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year would drive me bonkers, no matter what lifestyle I can pretend I'm living. Glad to hear there are others out there who came to the same realization.
I think you have the right idea when it comes to what many are thinking, but I think the idea of using a house as an investment is where many people go wrong.
A house rarely is a good investment (even in this housing bubble we're in). I believe many people will lose 5-10 years of their retirement because of living in homes they can't afford. I truly believe that a home depreciates in value (even if it goes up in dollars the dollars are worth less), leaving you with a net loss investment upon retirement. Many people want to retire in more expensive houses, it seems!
I have always lived cheap (and owned). I recently sold my big house to move into a smaller home so I could use that equity to work less and spend more time with family, friends and my hobbies. In the long run, I think geeks are the worst because they seem to have this innate talent to finding the worst predicaments to put themselves into (I know many geeks who constantly beg me to hire them when I know they're constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and could never focus on the job when their lives are a mess of trying to look like the succesful geek).
Moving should NOT be a risk because of your home -- if you're wise and you saved a good portion of your wealth (I do it in gold and silver), no move should prove to be a financial burden -- if you have job interviews planned for your new town.
You're very right about the attractive trap part, but I'm not sure if the cost of living is met with the average salary out there. I know MANY people who are in dire financial trouble in the IT field in Cali, many who moved out of the Midwest to chase salaries 3x the offerings here.
For me, I like to grow slowly. We turn down many contracts because we can tell the company isn't right for us -- we focus on mutual profits in both directions. If they're looking for cheap or fast, we don't focus on them.
The vacuum isn't that bad, I know of many good IT consultants, but in the Midwest you can easily strike out on your own and be successful. I'm thinking that might be why it is hard to find good help -- those who do well go off on their own.
In the long run I couldn't care less, I've been working in the field for longer than I think I need to, and the new blood out there can be VERY good at their job. I'm finding that even while I earn a very solid living, my other streams of income mean less work (and less money), but my years in the field have left me with a solid lifestyle (not rich by any means, just stable) that should allow me to vacate the field and leave it to the next generation.
My "complaints" I guess are more about the field overall -- the few who are really good versus the majority that are terrible. I travel the world very often, and I see many more opportunities for others to take advantage of our inability to focus on the long term coupled with a blatant disregard for responsibility to one's customer. Who knows, maybe in 10 years we won't have this discussion but the Indians and Chinese might.
I've run my IT consulting business now for almost 20 years, a succesful business in the Midwest that has extended past. We ignored the dotcom boom (and bust), we grew slowly but surely, and we focus on showing our customers a profitable return on every investment they make in us.
We can't find good workers. I've interviewed repeatedly and found the new talent is terrible -- it seems that has technology becomes more "known," the amount of GOOD talent is dropping. I've interviewed some people from top colleges that just don't know their way around a business at all, and I have no desire to train them in exchange for a high 5 figure salary.
The only way I seem to find valuable employees is by picking up the real outcasts from the larger consulting firm -- outcasts that have great insight and work ethic but are too far outside the box to fit in any MBA-run company. Every time a consulting group goes under, the same morons get new jobs with the next company that won't exist in 10 years.
For those in the same position, what are you doing for hiring? I don't see talent coming out of college and moving to the Midwest (a very profitable IT sector), most are instead moving to the west coast, taking a big salaried job, and finding themselves stuck in a very expensive area where the high salary doesn't seem to overcome the overhead of living there (stress, costs, traffic). I'd love to find a resource for good employees, but I guess the answer is right there: good employees don't get fired. The balance between efficiency and knowledge and salary is not something I worry about -- if my customers realize a gain on the money they spend on us, I have no problem paying the person right. For those who know, most of my employees work at minimum wage with a large project bonus (up to 80%), and I have enough people looking to work for us that it isn't the pay structure that isn't helping me find good help.
Also, it seems that many people going to college for computer science/engineering aren't even learning the basics -- what colleges have you recent graduates gone to that have taught you real consulting skills, business sense and responsibility?
The only reason for a big business to use an HMO is because of the tax breaks and savings they've been granted by all the regulations that created the HMO monster. Look into the HMO Act of 73 for the damage created by federal "guidelines" that created the problems in health care we face today.
Dell is trying to do something to help their employees, but in the end it'll fail to help because all we'll see is another group of people trying to avoid taxes.
Fair means equitable to all parties involved -- a level entry situation. The EU domain name situation is far from fair, with the regulations involved in the landrush inequitable because there were no market provisions for equality (instead the governing body tried to make equitable provisions that had nothing to do with the market).
You want fair? Auction them off. Let anyone jump on a domain name, but leave that domain open to auction for 7 days. Of course you'll have "trademark" holders who think they own words (legally, they do), which will destroy the market's provision for giving the seller of a domain name the best price that the market will bear. If McDonalds.eu could sell to John McDonald and he was willing to pay a billion euros for it, why shouldn't he?
We should have seen this coming -- how can anything be fair when the rules are fixed, and the law of supply and demand isn't allowed to govern.
It is an interesting premise, but Clinton definitely did NOT balance the budget, and he was also the beginning of the money inflation disaster that created so much cheap easy money and credit that created both the stock bubble and the housing bubble. Both of these bubbles created bad investments that in the long run will increase the wealth of other countries while slowly bankrupting the lower and middle classes through the death of savings and true investments.
I'm no fan of the idea of two parties pretending to battle while government continues to grow. In the long run, all that happens is more eyewash that people start believing in.
The best public policy is found and served by understanding the public. The public is a group of individuals who make individual decisions that best serve their lives now rather than later. This is true as we see that people would rather spend today rather than save for tomorrow, and they know they can live tomorrow by passing on the costs of retirement to the next generation rather than their offspring.
To put a crony into this chief position is not news, it is status quo. The public is never served by the politicians, especially those who are not voted into office directly (which can have even worse consequences). The public is served by letting people make billions of decisions separately, and letting businesses and individuals find ways to serve those decisions, instantaneously adapting the market to what the public wants at that moment.
By the time government is ready to react, it is usually too late and unnecessary. Even worse, many of government's reactions are to previous reactions that were too late, making the situation even worse for the millions of individuals making billions of decisions, sometimes unable to get what they truly want because that decision has been judged criminal by previous generations of politicians who never appreciated that the individual's need is best served by the individual's decisions.
Very interesting and also very odd. Paper (to me) is the least secure form of storing documents. It is easily lost, misfiled, near impossible to track, and in the long run costly to store.
Faxing those documents makes some sense, but it is still so antiquated -- a technology from the 60s (or earlier) still being used today.
I understand e-mail's insecurity, but I don't understand why companies aren't using the option of a secured private network to transfer information. Sure the internet is hackable, but there are enough encryption technologies to make it relatively worthless to hack if there are enough layers to transport through. I would honestly think that the best resource for an accounting department would be proprietary software that basically scans a document, allows the user to enter some tagging data ("dinner", "travel", etc) and some automated tagging ("date", "employee", "origination location") plus a basic adder ("amount", "client") that the employee could tag themselves. Once this information is bundled and encrypted and sent via another encrypted network over the Internet, I would believe the company would realize huge gains in reduced overhead.
Are we creating busy work in order to keep people employed? Are the most efficient companies already doing this and passing on the savings to their customers? Will that be the next step?
So basically it is government that is keeping this kludge still active. Their departments haven't upgraded from the 80s, and the law doesn't recognize any standard of electronic signature that would aid businesses in transacting contract signatures. Funny how that works;)
I removed my fax number from my old business card about 6 years ago by ACCIDENT. I've been paying a little extra a month for the fax number (its all electronically processed now anyway) for those 6 years. I don't think a single person has asked me for my fax number in that time -- the only faxes I really receive is from marketers who I opted-in with, and I guarantee I have never made a purchase because of a fax.
Is the fax obsolete? Does anyone rely on faxing (maybe for contracts?) for their jobs? For me, e-mail is for documents I need, SMS is for notes and quick messages. I don't see anything in my businesses that needs the fax other than applications for accounts.
I complain about the FCC constantly, but if I told people that I was anti-FCC because I was afraid of the abuse that normally comes from regulation-to-be-tyranny, I'd be called Mr. Tinfoil Hat. Yet this is exactly the reason why we have the Constitution limit the power of the federal government -- to prevent them from abusing the citizens as they quietly create a monopoly and then use it to do harm.
Where the federal government has any power over communications is beyond me -- the interstate commerce clause was written so that the federal government could prevent states from intruding on commerce -- no tariffs, no taxes, no abusive cartels. The federal government itself was not given power to actually reduce trade but improve it.
The more we believe that government is helping us, the more we'll be paying in taxes, a declining dollar, and a loss of rights that no one gives us but nature.
No Child Left Behind and various other laws make education a nationally standardized mess of differing opinions. With more Federal money being thrown at what should be a local issue, we're going to have more problems like this than ever.
I'm not fond of any public funding, grants, guaranteed loans or any form of research, but I am also not the kind of person to push my opinions on people I don't know. I am frustrated that my future kids would have to learn subject matters that are outside of my belief system. I believe that if a family wants to teach their children creationism, they'd choose a school that teaches it. If they want to teach evolution, the same would be true. That is more important than shoving every kid of every family into a common thinking (indoctrination).
Why the debate, anyway? What do you care what people you don't know, will never meet, and have no direct contact with teach their children? How does the standard I set affect you, even if you're 2 communities over?
Learning is about basic math, basic reading and writing, and basic discipline. It isn't about higher science or sex ed or history or foreign languages -- that is for the individual to decide if they want it as an elective that will affect their futures.
The more we shove people into the same mold, the less we'll be able to compete in the world. Variety is the spice of life, including in education, faith and science.
My problem is not necessarily that I don't agree with regulation, I don't agree with federal regulations. The original intent of the Constitution was for the people and the states to decide on local issues. The federal government really was not given power over most regulations. The interstate commerce clause was written so the federal government could stop states from trampling on commerce -- it was not meant to control commerce.
That being said, in a competitive market, the consumer IS empowered. We have no competition in oil (all the oil companies buy oil from the cartels, who are empowered by the protection of various governments). There is a huge collusion between the 3 parties. Open up competition -- stop subsidizing all energy companies including corn and sugar growers, and let the final decision fall to the consumers. Unfortunately, more regulation will likely happen, and this will just make the US less and less competitive over time. Eventually we wil be so uncompetitive that the system will likely stop itself -- this has happened for thousands of years to every empire, we are no different.
I just want open competition without GOVERNMENT regulations. If a corporation decides to try to take control of the market, the bigger they are, the easier it is for smaller companies to start competing with them. The problem is when the big corporations are given favoritism, which makes it hard for small companies to even try to compete by entering the market.
Laws are written with the pretext that it will better serve the citizens, but with the posttext that it servers the politicians in giving them power over those they serve. No change to the law will make a difference -- politicians don't write laws the way we want them written, and many of them don't even read the bills that they vote into law. Don't be surprised when the "Fix the Patent System Act of 2007" is passed, and all it does is incorporate 500 pork barrel items not pertaining to patents, as well as some changes that only give Congress more power over something it was never meant to destroy. Yes, Congress has the right to make patent laws, but they were supposed to exist for a short period of time to protect individual inventors, not megacorporations who create nothing and stifle innovation.
If we want to change the system, we need to get these laws in front of the Supreme Court, over and over and over. Don't let them tell you no, just keep refiling under new pretenses. Stop voting for the monsters who make the laws, and consider all the bad laws on the books.
What we need is a President who does nothing but veto, over and over and over. That won't happen. What we need is Senators to be elected by the state governments like it was before the 17th Amendment was passed -- Senators who think about the power of the state over the power over of the federal government. That won't happen. What we need is to reduce the power of the two parties by throwing out all campaign finance laws ("incumbent protection acts") and also throwing out the control of the debates. That won't happen.
It isn't just the patent laws that are broken, it is the system. Instead of a Republic of Independent States, we have a democracy of statism and authoritarianism. Don't expect it to get fixed, not as long as you continue supporting the monsters in office -- from both parties.
Which is actually how I love my life:) I spend about 20-40% of my monthly income on direct tithing support for people in my community, and almost 2 days a week doing the same. The best form of outreach is to truly help someone who is ready to be helped. My primary dislike of government is not helping people but teaching them to be needy. Those who go to government when they have needs are those who will never need my help.
You're right, I didn't realize it was provided for by private companies, in which case I thin there is merit if it wasn't for the fact that the city of San Francisco had to protect the monopoly of service. Just because taxpayers don't pay for it doesn't mean that it is best for the taxpayers if only one company (or partnership in this case) provides a service.
Nothing is free. If the city will be making money leasing to these two, why don't they lease to anyone who wants entry? Why does the city have to lease anything, how about letting coffee shops and copy stores and private citizens offer it freely at no cost to anyone, not even Google and Earthlink?
Exxon, BP, and Shell receive more subsidies than almost anyone, plus they also receive a ton of paternalism/cronyism/favoritism in creating an infinite barrier to entry. Try opening up your own refinery or your own gas station distribution company. Try importing gas outside of the 2 ports that it is mandated to go through and then see what name tags those guys are wearing.
Gas companies love subsidies and paternalism: government protects the company's profits so that it can tax the goods and give the citizens no choice in what they buy.
You're right, from one perspective, but that's the biggest problem with regulations and subsidies: what seems to not affect something we love may actually affect it more than you realize it. Even worse, someone affected badly by a regulation or subsidy might say nothing about it if they're also getting subsidized by government. Why rock the boat, many people receiving grants like to say.
I'd say my big problem with science and government is the same as religion and government and education and government: when something is mandated, we're forced to accept it just because 51% of voters (and maybe only 15% of the population) say it should be this way. It is bad at the city level, horrible at the state level and tyranny at the federal level.
So, I guess we should actually vote for every single tax increase and restraint on freedom that gets proposed...
That's what I've been pondering. I won't vote or support any increase or decrease, any addition or subtraction, just for the simple fact that Congress doesn't read the bills it votes for, and often times the bills contain more pork barrel spending than "fixing" of problems. I just find ways to extricate myself from the dollar and government services, and I support lawsuits against government as often as possible. I figured if 1 million freedom lovers would each spend US$1000 a year and hire our own law firm permanently, we could continuously file lawsuits against every government agency for the slightest constitution (State or National) violation. Keep THEM bottled up in lawsuits and they will leave us alone. Or go bankrupt fighting them.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I've never put a call out for help -- we get many referals from people we've worked with in the industries we're in (mainly high-rise contracting and large scale buildouts), and the people who come to interview are the ones who know how the shop is run.
I retain 100% control of the projects and the customers, but the employees make more money than me. I'm probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to earnings, and I'm very focused on staying that way if not declining over time and exiting the business entirely.
There is nothing wrong with the way I do business, and I think it is a success considering that all my employees own 80%+ of their homes, own all their cars without leases or loans, and have a very solid savings plan. The other upside is most of them have tons of time to spend with their kids or their friends or vacationing, I don't believe in anyone working much more than 1000-1500 hours a year top. Efficiency comes with less hours but more work accomplished.
You're right, but most of our contracts are 2-16 weeks, with payment at the quarter and at the project end. Considering all my financial books are open to anyone who works for me, AND that many of my employees can be contacted directly by would-be interviewees, it isn't a risk if you can see the reward: more money for less time worked IF you're responsible and good at working.
Most people are lacking in both subjects.
I've also never had an employee quit on me in the 18.5 years I've been in business -- never one.
Actually I have spoken with quite a few slashdot users over the years and have offered to bring some on in the cities they live in. Recently I've considered opening up wider in the States with my business plan, but I am getting sick of working in the field I've been in more than 1/2 my life. For me, there are other horizons to be met, and IT will likely wither away as the talent moves overseas for a lower price. I hate to see it happen, but I think the majority of IT will go that way.
That's not to say that there won't be HUGE opportunities for those willing to find them -- every week I hear about another project that would make a pretty profit for whoever takes it, but I'm working more to downsize my own workload than upsize it. In a few years I'll give my company away to the staff and move on -- my hat and my jacket are waiting on the coatrack to be grabbed before I go.
That's a ridiculous reply to say 80% makes sense without understanding what the original 100% entails. If I told you we could bid a contract that lasts 4 weeks, pays in 2 and 8 (1/2 and 1/2), and should entail 45 hours of work at US$200, you'd probably take it if you knew you'd get US$6ish per hour plus 40-80% of the end profit. Most people would, at least.
The more big contracts you do, the bigger the next ones will be, if you are good to your customers and show them how much you've saved them at the end of the project.
I am simply not interested in working for bonuses. But minumum wage as the base? Hell it's no surprise you get applicants as you describe. I imagine that somewhere during an interview with you I'd be thinking "take your job and shove it"
All my interviews occur while I am either working on a project or with one of my employees working on a project. I like to show what the job entails. Never once has anyone ever said "take your job and shove it" and never once has anyone complained about the base rate -- most would prefer a lower hourly and a higher bonus if possible, but the IRS and a variety of local and federal laws make it impossible. I also can't do permanent 1099's because of the same laws, which would open up many more tax benefits for those employed by my company.
I've done my time working on death march projects with 80hr/week. But now that I've got the experience and (some) of the expertise that you probably want, I am simply not going to apply for any job which means I don't have a life. I'll happily work my butt off for 40-50 hours a weak. If I can't see my kid, do some fishing in the weekend, and generally enjoy myself then I do not want the job.
My lowest paid employee is deaf and works about 12-16 hours a week (including travel). He earns almost US$50k take home after taxes, and practically selects his own hours (5am to 2pm so he can spend time with his family). He owns his home (no mortgage) and his car, and he vacations probably 6-8 weeks a year whenever he wants. His contract is a re-occuring bid contract that we always win because he works that hard -- and the customers know it.
My top paying employee works less than 25 hours a week and earns 6 figures. He gets the job done fast and correctly, and I think I've had to fight a bill once in the 9 years he's worked for me. Maybe twice. He travels internationally with his wife whenever he wants, and I believe he owns 80% of his home, and all his cars are paid for.
If you want mindless drones that you can fool into slaving (literally) for you then expect the applicants you are getting. I can offer much more, but demand much in return including a quality of life and a decent wage. and by decent wage I really don't mean that high.
Decent wage is socialist claptrap -- it doesn't exist. The only dollar a person is worthy of earning is when he saves someone else $1.01 in money or time or raises their entertainment level in a degree equivalent with that $1.01. If I told you you'd get $11 at the end of the day for paying me $10 now, you'd take it. That is how we work, and that is how I pay people. They set their own bonus level and if they don't reach it, they get paid less. I can't think of one time when an employee hasn't exceeded the profitability on a project, and the customers kee rehiring us.
Jeese - come to think of it, I can get minimum wage + 80% bonus by working at McDonalds and making web sites in the weekend.
McDonalds doesn't pay between US$80 and US$300 per hour for a project. Considering that most projects are finished ahead of time, most people earn quite a bit more than minimum wage.
I would never hire a schmuck who doesn't understand the basis of business -- saving people time and money for the money they pay you. In fact, I teach my employees that money IS time -- time saved to redeem in exchange for time saved. There are reasons why I receive dozens of phone calls a month looking for work, and there are more reasons why I don't hire 99% of the people I interview -- even though they love the idea of stable but upper income levels, most don't understand that responsibility is the key to income, not talent. The least talented person should earn less than the most responsible, but that isn't the case in the business world, it seems. It is also why many consultants don't last 10 years -- they don't realize why they exist, and they don't know how to sell themselves to the RIGHT customers, rather than the seemingly profitable customers.
I
I agree with you 100%. Since I pay my employees up to 80% of the profit on a project (but minimum wage otherwise), they bust their butts to be more efficient, and reap the benefits. I know a few of them who've earned probably US$500 per hour working hard to finish well before the deadline and leave almost zero punch list activities.
That being said, most geeks don't want to take a risk that they might only make US$12k per year (none of my guys do) in exchange for buying their efficiency and responsibility. I am glad I have so much competition, though, because it only helps my business when the bottom and middle level of IT is met by GOOD consultants. I'll happily accept the upper levels while passing on the projects that don't meet my criteria.
I recently sold my big home and vacation condo to move into a small home (trailer, actually), which freed up huge amounts of money, mortgage income-necessity, and time. I've been thinking of moving to a small town with an airport and buying into a private plane co-op so I can travel as I need to. As I find more work is possible remotely (although I prefer working face-to-face with my clients), this might free up even more time and money for me to spend as I want to.
The idea of working a solid 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year would drive me bonkers, no matter what lifestyle I can pretend I'm living. Glad to hear there are others out there who came to the same realization.
I think you have the right idea when it comes to what many are thinking, but I think the idea of using a house as an investment is where many people go wrong.
A house rarely is a good investment (even in this housing bubble we're in). I believe many people will lose 5-10 years of their retirement because of living in homes they can't afford. I truly believe that a home depreciates in value (even if it goes up in dollars the dollars are worth less), leaving you with a net loss investment upon retirement. Many people want to retire in more expensive houses, it seems!
I have always lived cheap (and owned). I recently sold my big house to move into a smaller home so I could use that equity to work less and spend more time with family, friends and my hobbies. In the long run, I think geeks are the worst because they seem to have this innate talent to finding the worst predicaments to put themselves into (I know many geeks who constantly beg me to hire them when I know they're constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and could never focus on the job when their lives are a mess of trying to look like the succesful geek).
Moving should NOT be a risk because of your home -- if you're wise and you saved a good portion of your wealth (I do it in gold and silver), no move should prove to be a financial burden -- if you have job interviews planned for your new town.
You're very right about the attractive trap part, but I'm not sure if the cost of living is met with the average salary out there. I know MANY people who are in dire financial trouble in the IT field in Cali, many who moved out of the Midwest to chase salaries 3x the offerings here.
For me, I like to grow slowly. We turn down many contracts because we can tell the company isn't right for us -- we focus on mutual profits in both directions. If they're looking for cheap or fast, we don't focus on them.
The vacuum isn't that bad, I know of many good IT consultants, but in the Midwest you can easily strike out on your own and be successful. I'm thinking that might be why it is hard to find good help -- those who do well go off on their own.
In the long run I couldn't care less, I've been working in the field for longer than I think I need to, and the new blood out there can be VERY good at their job. I'm finding that even while I earn a very solid living, my other streams of income mean less work (and less money), but my years in the field have left me with a solid lifestyle (not rich by any means, just stable) that should allow me to vacate the field and leave it to the next generation.
My "complaints" I guess are more about the field overall -- the few who are really good versus the majority that are terrible. I travel the world very often, and I see many more opportunities for others to take advantage of our inability to focus on the long term coupled with a blatant disregard for responsibility to one's customer. Who knows, maybe in 10 years we won't have this discussion but the Indians and Chinese might.
Thanks for the reply, very informative.
I've run my IT consulting business now for almost 20 years, a succesful business in the Midwest that has extended past. We ignored the dotcom boom (and bust), we grew slowly but surely, and we focus on showing our customers a profitable return on every investment they make in us.
We can't find good workers. I've interviewed repeatedly and found the new talent is terrible -- it seems that has technology becomes more "known," the amount of GOOD talent is dropping. I've interviewed some people from top colleges that just don't know their way around a business at all, and I have no desire to train them in exchange for a high 5 figure salary.
The only way I seem to find valuable employees is by picking up the real outcasts from the larger consulting firm -- outcasts that have great insight and work ethic but are too far outside the box to fit in any MBA-run company. Every time a consulting group goes under, the same morons get new jobs with the next company that won't exist in 10 years.
For those in the same position, what are you doing for hiring? I don't see talent coming out of college and moving to the Midwest (a very profitable IT sector), most are instead moving to the west coast, taking a big salaried job, and finding themselves stuck in a very expensive area where the high salary doesn't seem to overcome the overhead of living there (stress, costs, traffic). I'd love to find a resource for good employees, but I guess the answer is right there: good employees don't get fired. The balance between efficiency and knowledge and salary is not something I worry about -- if my customers realize a gain on the money they spend on us, I have no problem paying the person right. For those who know, most of my employees work at minimum wage with a large project bonus (up to 80%), and I have enough people looking to work for us that it isn't the pay structure that isn't helping me find good help.
Also, it seems that many people going to college for computer science/engineering aren't even learning the basics -- what colleges have you recent graduates gone to that have taught you real consulting skills, business sense and responsibility?
The only reason for a big business to use an HMO is because of the tax breaks and savings they've been granted by all the regulations that created the HMO monster. Look into the HMO Act of 73 for the damage created by federal "guidelines" that created the problems in health care we face today.
Here is a link or two.
Dell is trying to do something to help their employees, but in the end it'll fail to help because all we'll see is another group of people trying to avoid taxes.
Fair means equitable to all parties involved -- a level entry situation. The EU domain name situation is far from fair, with the regulations involved in the landrush inequitable because there were no market provisions for equality (instead the governing body tried to make equitable provisions that had nothing to do with the market).
You want fair? Auction them off. Let anyone jump on a domain name, but leave that domain open to auction for 7 days. Of course you'll have "trademark" holders who think they own words (legally, they do), which will destroy the market's provision for giving the seller of a domain name the best price that the market will bear. If McDonalds.eu could sell to John McDonald and he was willing to pay a billion euros for it, why shouldn't he?
We should have seen this coming -- how can anything be fair when the rules are fixed, and the law of supply and demand isn't allowed to govern.
It is an interesting premise, but Clinton definitely did NOT balance the budget, and he was also the beginning of the money inflation disaster that created so much cheap easy money and credit that created both the stock bubble and the housing bubble. Both of these bubbles created bad investments that in the long run will increase the wealth of other countries while slowly bankrupting the lower and middle classes through the death of savings and true investments.
I'm no fan of the idea of two parties pretending to battle while government continues to grow. In the long run, all that happens is more eyewash that people start believing in.
The best public policy is found and served by understanding the public. The public is a group of individuals who make individual decisions that best serve their lives now rather than later. This is true as we see that people would rather spend today rather than save for tomorrow, and they know they can live tomorrow by passing on the costs of retirement to the next generation rather than their offspring.
To put a crony into this chief position is not news, it is status quo. The public is never served by the politicians, especially those who are not voted into office directly (which can have even worse consequences). The public is served by letting people make billions of decisions separately, and letting businesses and individuals find ways to serve those decisions, instantaneously adapting the market to what the public wants at that moment.
By the time government is ready to react, it is usually too late and unnecessary. Even worse, many of government's reactions are to previous reactions that were too late, making the situation even worse for the millions of individuals making billions of decisions, sometimes unable to get what they truly want because that decision has been judged criminal by previous generations of politicians who never appreciated that the individual's need is best served by the individual's decisions.
Read F.A. Hayek's many books for more details.
Very interesting and also very odd. Paper (to me) is the least secure form of storing documents. It is easily lost, misfiled, near impossible to track, and in the long run costly to store.
Faxing those documents makes some sense, but it is still so antiquated -- a technology from the 60s (or earlier) still being used today.
I understand e-mail's insecurity, but I don't understand why companies aren't using the option of a secured private network to transfer information. Sure the internet is hackable, but there are enough encryption technologies to make it relatively worthless to hack if there are enough layers to transport through. I would honestly think that the best resource for an accounting department would be proprietary software that basically scans a document, allows the user to enter some tagging data ("dinner", "travel", etc) and some automated tagging ("date", "employee", "origination location") plus a basic adder ("amount", "client") that the employee could tag themselves. Once this information is bundled and encrypted and sent via another encrypted network over the Internet, I would believe the company would realize huge gains in reduced overhead.
Are we creating busy work in order to keep people employed? Are the most efficient companies already doing this and passing on the savings to their customers? Will that be the next step?
So basically it is government that is keeping this kludge still active. Their departments haven't upgraded from the 80s, and the law doesn't recognize any standard of electronic signature that would aid businesses in transacting contract signatures. Funny how that works ;)
I removed my fax number from my old business card about 6 years ago by ACCIDENT. I've been paying a little extra a month for the fax number (its all electronically processed now anyway) for those 6 years. I don't think a single person has asked me for my fax number in that time -- the only faxes I really receive is from marketers who I opted-in with, and I guarantee I have never made a purchase because of a fax.
Is the fax obsolete? Does anyone rely on faxing (maybe for contracts?) for their jobs? For me, e-mail is for documents I need, SMS is for notes and quick messages. I don't see anything in my businesses that needs the fax other than applications for accounts.
I complain about the FCC constantly, but if I told people that I was anti-FCC because I was afraid of the abuse that normally comes from regulation-to-be-tyranny, I'd be called Mr. Tinfoil Hat. Yet this is exactly the reason why we have the Constitution limit the power of the federal government -- to prevent them from abusing the citizens as they quietly create a monopoly and then use it to do harm.
Where the federal government has any power over communications is beyond me -- the interstate commerce clause was written so that the federal government could prevent states from intruding on commerce -- no tariffs, no taxes, no abusive cartels. The federal government itself was not given power to actually reduce trade but improve it.
The more we believe that government is helping us, the more we'll be paying in taxes, a declining dollar, and a loss of rights that no one gives us but nature.
No Child Left Behind and various other laws make education a nationally standardized mess of differing opinions. With more Federal money being thrown at what should be a local issue, we're going to have more problems like this than ever.
I'm not fond of any public funding, grants, guaranteed loans or any form of research, but I am also not the kind of person to push my opinions on people I don't know. I am frustrated that my future kids would have to learn subject matters that are outside of my belief system. I believe that if a family wants to teach their children creationism, they'd choose a school that teaches it. If they want to teach evolution, the same would be true. That is more important than shoving every kid of every family into a common thinking (indoctrination).
Why the debate, anyway? What do you care what people you don't know, will never meet, and have no direct contact with teach their children? How does the standard I set affect you, even if you're 2 communities over?
Learning is about basic math, basic reading and writing, and basic discipline. It isn't about higher science or sex ed or history or foreign languages -- that is for the individual to decide if they want it as an elective that will affect their futures.
The more we shove people into the same mold, the less we'll be able to compete in the world. Variety is the spice of life, including in education, faith and science.
My problem is not necessarily that I don't agree with regulation, I don't agree with federal regulations. The original intent of the Constitution was for the people and the states to decide on local issues. The federal government really was not given power over most regulations. The interstate commerce clause was written so the federal government could stop states from trampling on commerce -- it was not meant to control commerce.
That being said, in a competitive market, the consumer IS empowered. We have no competition in oil (all the oil companies buy oil from the cartels, who are empowered by the protection of various governments). There is a huge collusion between the 3 parties. Open up competition -- stop subsidizing all energy companies including corn and sugar growers, and let the final decision fall to the consumers. Unfortunately, more regulation will likely happen, and this will just make the US less and less competitive over time. Eventually we wil be so uncompetitive that the system will likely stop itself -- this has happened for thousands of years to every empire, we are no different.
I just want open competition without GOVERNMENT regulations. If a corporation decides to try to take control of the market, the bigger they are, the easier it is for smaller companies to start competing with them. The problem is when the big corporations are given favoritism, which makes it hard for small companies to even try to compete by entering the market.
Laws are written with the pretext that it will better serve the citizens, but with the posttext that it servers the politicians in giving them power over those they serve. No change to the law will make a difference -- politicians don't write laws the way we want them written, and many of them don't even read the bills that they vote into law. Don't be surprised when the "Fix the Patent System Act of 2007" is passed, and all it does is incorporate 500 pork barrel items not pertaining to patents, as well as some changes that only give Congress more power over something it was never meant to destroy. Yes, Congress has the right to make patent laws, but they were supposed to exist for a short period of time to protect individual inventors, not megacorporations who create nothing and stifle innovation.
If we want to change the system, we need to get these laws in front of the Supreme Court, over and over and over. Don't let them tell you no, just keep refiling under new pretenses. Stop voting for the monsters who make the laws, and consider all the bad laws on the books.
What we need is a President who does nothing but veto, over and over and over. That won't happen. What we need is Senators to be elected by the state governments like it was before the 17th Amendment was passed -- Senators who think about the power of the state over the power over of the federal government. That won't happen. What we need is to reduce the power of the two parties by throwing out all campaign finance laws ("incumbent protection acts") and also throwing out the control of the debates. That won't happen.
It isn't just the patent laws that are broken, it is the system. Instead of a Republic of Independent States, we have a democracy of statism and authoritarianism. Don't expect it to get fixed, not as long as you continue supporting the monsters in office -- from both parties.
Which is actually how I love my life :) I spend about 20-40% of my monthly income on direct tithing support for people in my community, and almost 2 days a week doing the same. The best form of outreach is to truly help someone who is ready to be helped. My primary dislike of government is not helping people but teaching them to be needy. Those who go to government when they have needs are those who will never need my help.
You're right, I didn't realize it was provided for by private companies, in which case I thin there is merit if it wasn't for the fact that the city of San Francisco had to protect the monopoly of service. Just because taxpayers don't pay for it doesn't mean that it is best for the taxpayers if only one company (or partnership in this case) provides a service.
Nothing is free. If the city will be making money leasing to these two, why don't they lease to anyone who wants entry? Why does the city have to lease anything, how about letting coffee shops and copy stores and private citizens offer it freely at no cost to anyone, not even Google and Earthlink?
Exxon, BP, and Shell receive more subsidies than almost anyone, plus they also receive a ton of paternalism/cronyism/favoritism in creating an infinite barrier to entry. Try opening up your own refinery or your own gas station distribution company. Try importing gas outside of the 2 ports that it is mandated to go through and then see what name tags those guys are wearing.
Gas companies love subsidies and paternalism: government protects the company's profits so that it can tax the goods and give the citizens no choice in what they buy.
You're right, from one perspective, but that's the biggest problem with regulations and subsidies: what seems to not affect something we love may actually affect it more than you realize it. Even worse, someone affected badly by a regulation or subsidy might say nothing about it if they're also getting subsidized by government. Why rock the boat, many people receiving grants like to say.
I'd say my big problem with science and government is the same as religion and government and education and government: when something is mandated, we're forced to accept it just because 51% of voters (and maybe only 15% of the population) say it should be this way. It is bad at the city level, horrible at the state level and tyranny at the federal level.
So, I guess we should actually vote for every single tax increase and restraint on freedom that gets proposed...
That's what I've been pondering. I won't vote or support any increase or decrease, any addition or subtraction, just for the simple fact that Congress doesn't read the bills it votes for, and often times the bills contain more pork barrel spending than "fixing" of problems. I just find ways to extricate myself from the dollar and government services, and I support lawsuits against government as often as possible. I figured if 1 million freedom lovers would each spend US$1000 a year and hire our own law firm permanently, we could continuously file lawsuits against every government agency for the slightest constitution (State or National) violation. Keep THEM bottled up in lawsuits and they will leave us alone. Or go bankrupt fighting them.