[jecxjo]

>> People who currently have good jobs are unwilling to consider contract-to-hire

> In US, there is practically no difference between those three. You can be fired any day anyway. But yes, if you have a secure job that is good, the bar for switching is high, but so what? Why even switch? It's your choice then... Luxury problem!

It seemed weird to me that we are one of the only industries (well I guess engineering in general) who gets a contract that is contingent on each day until it is completed. At any given point you could be let go and yet if I contract someone to work on my home to legal work you setup a contract that states you owe them the money unless you are willing to go to court to contest their work.

When I last did a contract-to-hire it was basically "you can be let go for any reason, from slow output to your boss having a headache." Unless you get a sweet deal its difficult to pull a job with a set start / end time with guaranteed payout regardless of employment. I busted my hump at that last job so instead of doing my 6 months for the hire option they offered me the job before then 2nd month was over.

[notatgoogle2]

Not only that, but the GP misses the point that, while yes I can work for myself and do contract work, I then also have to find health insurance, pay taxes monthly, do a bunch of extra accounting that does nothing to move my business forward and is boring, etc. That's fine if you get more benefit that the resource sink of doing those things, but for most people that's only additional stress and no additional value. So saying they're equivalent is patently absurd.