[daggersandscars]

In the US, there are (at least) two competing views of contractors.

One side believes that contractors are cheap, disposable labor that costs less than hiring an employee with benefits.

Another side believes that contractors are a way to access temporarily needed expertise they lack in-house and cost more than hiring an employee with benefits.

Some firms' views depend on the skillset. Other firms have the same view no matter what.

In my experience, the more general a position, the more likely it is to be put in the "cheaper" group. The more specialized a position, the more likely it is to be put in the "expensive" group. Neither of these categorizations necessarily is correct, just how the firm is viewing things.