If you need the money, don't take the job
Charging “reassuringly expensive” rates and avoiding fixed-price projects is framed as a way for software consultants to align incentives, preserve autonomy, and attract better clients. Commenters compare hourly, fixed-price, and retainer models, highlighting how each shifts risk and incentives, and note that large companies and governments alike often reward bigger budgets rather than efficiency. Several argue that consultants must be selective—especially with discount-seeking clients—and that long-term value comes from clear scope, honest pricing, and the ability to say no.
Language and Tone (“Scheme” vs “Plan”)
- Several commenters react to the word “scheme” as implying dishonesty in American English, while others explain it is neutral in British English (e.g., pension scheme).
- Some see the word choice as hinting at lingering impostor syndrome around high rates.
- General agreement that the underlying advice is solid despite minor wording quibbles.
Being “Reassuringly Expensive” and Value Signaling
- Many agree that high rates can reassure clients: they feel they’ve handed the problem to a top expert and can stop worrying.
- A common framing: clients are paying for confidence and for making the problem “someone else’s problem,” not just hours.
- Several note that charging more often leads to better clients and more interesting projects.
Fixed-Price vs Hourly vs Retainers
- Strong debate:
- Pro-hourly: clearer incentives, easier to handle changing scope, less adversarial around “what counts as a change.”
- Pro–fixed price: better client experience, aligned incentives if you include a bug-fix warranty, encourages efficiency, offers autonomy to the consultant.
- Multiple people stress that fixed price only works well with tight scope, short duration, and fast, explicit change orders; otherwise risk and conflict spike.
- Retainers are framed as a “cheat code”: recurring revenue for availability, but risky if overbooked. Some structure them as weekly/monthly hour bands with “use it or lose it.”
Incentives, Budgeting, and (In)Efficiency
- Long tangent on how big companies and governments share perverse budget incentives: spend the full budget or risk cuts.
- Disagreement over whether private firms are systematically more efficient; anecdotes show large corporations can be as wasteful and political as government.
Consultants vs Full-Time Employees
- Hiring-side voices prefer building full-time teams, noting onboarding cost and knowledge transfer issues with consultants.
- Others emphasize consultants’ niche expertise, speed in crises, and freedom from internal politics.
- Mixed views on wealth: some say independent consultants rarely get truly rich; others argue in certain markets consulting has a higher income ceiling than employment.
Client Quality, Discounts, and Boundaries
- Broad agreement that discount-seeking or budget-constrained clients often become the worst engagements.
- Many endorse being able to say no, structuring contracts with milestones, and explicitly pricing “availability” and scope changes.