[petargyurov]

Can't decide if this is inspiring or depressing.

Are software/tech consultants paid solely for their opinion or do they actually implement things, write code, etc?

I can't imagine getting paid as much as the commentors reported for simply giving advice...

[deconstruct]

Largely, "consultants" in the software/tech are implementing things.

Pure consultants, if they are specialized, can make more than that - and that's because of the value they bring.

[petargyurov]

Just seen your personal website. Out of curiosity, from which avenue (LinkedIn, your site, word of mouth, etc) do you receive the most contracts/engagement?

[deconstruct]

I'm happy to answer. Its word of mouth and referrals.

[gaws]

You might have to pay him for that secret.

[mouzogu]

it's reddit. at best they're embellishing the truth, at worst they're just fantasies.

if someone is paying 100k p/m for consulting, they're not just paying for consulting they're paying specifically for you. that's the hard bit.

[Detrytus]

Writing the code becomes relatively straightforward once you have decided what code to write. Consultant's opinions helps you go into the right direction and not waste your time on writing the wrong code. Which makes the opinion the force multiplier for the whole team.

[red-iron-pine]

there are strategy consultants who give opinions. usually backed by numbers, aka death by powerpoint / excel.

often times they exist to "read your watch to tell you what time it is" and bill you 800/hr for the privilege. but they often act as a lever to move implacable executives, or to serve as a sanity check for C-levels / the board before launching big initiatives.

other consultants write code, and are essentially high-end contractors. part of the value proposition is that they're very qualified -- hence why they cost so much -- and that they have a large org to lean on. the large org means that if the individual contractor dies or quits there is another who can jump in, and they can rope in other resources as needed.