My friend Nick Malik recently posted about programming, contracting and pay.
There's a book here somewhere, but sadly it has no audience, and therefore not worth writing.
Programmers seem to have a genetic defect when it comes to understanding the relationship between their efforts and their pay. It's not going to happen, they don't want to, and you can't make me.
Personally, I think that it's a crime that "From Serf to Surfer" is out of print. It was one of the best consulting "pull yourself up by the boot-strap" books I've ever read. The advice is relevant to ANY consultant in ANY field.
Programmers seem to understand that "my work is worth $x.xx an hour" but they do not understand the WHY behind it.
Here's a quick little story problem to test your job worth intelligence.
Let's imagine that company JKL has a particular job function (FooBar) that has to be done. That job function will have to be done for at least the next 6 years. The FooBar job function is so important that there's even a FooBar department.
JKL's FooBar department has 100 dedicated people doing the FooBar job. Every one in that department makes $50K annually.
JKL access to a consulting group which offers a tiger team of 5 expensive programmers, each of whom cost $200K annually, and have track record of completing their projects on time and on budget.
The tiger team says that they can, in 1 year, automate the FooBar department such that the department can effectively cut %50 percent of it's staff at the end of the project.
The tiger team has one other condition, on successful completion of the project; each programmer will get an additional $100,000 a year for the next 5 years regardless of their employment status with the consulting company.
Assuming that the programmers will be successful, and that JKL stays in business for at least the next 6 years, should the company hire the tiger team, and if so, just how much is this project worth to JKL?