2 weeks vacation per year is pitiful. Do people really get on and are happy with only that? I get 5 weeks ( minimum legal in France), i use it to the max and it's okay, but sometimes insufficient.
In my thirties I worked in many different countries for many different companies. Going new places with different cultures and being able to enjoy my time there was always the main driver: i.e. experiences & work/life balance over salary.
I would never trade these experiences for early financial independence at maybe age 50. I think there is a best before date for some experiences in life.
Maybe now it is possible for a select minority to have both. But most of of my friends in their 30s who work 'normal' jobs and have this early financial independence aim it doesn't hold true.
I.e. they will simply not have made these experiences when they reach that goal. Few have ever managed to leave their country of birth for anything else but holidays.
Some personal examples:
Living & working in Japan and thereby traveling the country on weekends or going to a cool club in Tokyo. When you're 35 vs when you're 55. Would you even do the latter at that age? Would it be the same?
Living and working in India and thereby going for a weekend hiking trip in the western Ghats were you're sleeping in an abandoned train station in the middle of the jungle. When you're 35 vs 55. Would you even do the latter at that age? Would it be the same?
Living and working in Sydney, going to a party of friends on a yacht on Friday after work and on a diving excursion to the Great Barrier Reef on Saturday morning when you're 35 vs 55. Would you even do the latter? Would it be the same? I was still hung over when I put on the diving gear but it was ok. With almost 55? You would simply have to skip the diving trip.
None of the above are made up. The pandemic-related lockdown made me realize what rich tapestry of experiences my past life choices have afforded me.
I have four people in my circle of friends who are actively working on early retirement. They do 'compensate' a lot on the weekends and when they go on holidays but that is not the same as the above.
But still pitiful and anti-health, on first principles. "Normal" though it may be in a workaholic and ideology-driven country like the U.S.
If it's a trade-off you choose to accept in exchange for early retirement, though, that's another matter.
Average professional job has about 8-9 paid holiday days, plus vacation time on top. My worst number of vacation days was 10 at my first job right out of college (they had to change after they struggled to attract employees) but every other job has been more than that.
But only accounting for 10 unpaid days per year would barely cover minimum federal holidays, so it’s not realistic. It’s equivalent to saying you’re never going to take time off unless the company is shut down for a federal holiday.
Of course good companies typically don't offer only the minimum.
In general you work 272 days a year and the rest is vacation and days off (this is also the reason we get a different amount of days off every year).
I have about 40 working days off, of which the company can choose the dates of 10.
People whose work is counted in days get special "extra vacation days to catch up" (this is more or less the real name), around 15 per year I think.
I love my current job, the people, the work, the challenges. I still need an occasional break, and I still like seeing different things.
The worst deal I would sign is a day rate (no logging hours) but fixed scope/duration is far better.
Of course, there are a number of professions (law, accounting, etc.) where hourly charges are absolutely the norm. I've done some legal work and it was in some ways very nice to get paid whenever you were "on the clock."
Most of the work we did in general was for specifically scoped deliverables and we actually tried very hard not to do day rates, much less hourly rates, but this was one case it really wasn't avoidable--and, of course, was the way the white shoe law firm operated.
But yes, you did some law work and they want you to charge hourly rather than based on value.
Hourly is a good choice for contracts where they are looking to buy labor. Which is a common model, because they often see contract labor as a substitute for employee labor.
The other models you mention can be much better, but also require the contractor to have both particular skills and enough relationship power to make them work. I have seen well-meaning developers absolutely get screwed on fixed scope contracts. And I've also seen less-well-meaning developers absolutely screw their clients on fixed price contracts. This is an area where blanket statements are harmful.
How do clients get screwed with fixed fee? Clients should pay for value, not hours sat in a chair.
I think the implication is that if one party is capturing the excess value produced disproportionately, that is screwing the other side. Particularly if this occurs because of information that is asymmetric in negotiation.
If my SAP implementation is going to save over 1 million per year in increased manufacturing efficiency, how should I price my services? The floor is set by the cheapest contractors in my market, the ceiling is how ever high I can negotiate.
The client will capture far more value than me over the lifetime of the product. I also don’t want to charge by the hour because there’s a conflict of interest and I want to detach hours worked from fees charged otherwise I’m just slaving away.
Hourly is for blue collar work, it’s not professional at my and your level.
Now that you have shipped the technically correct but not very useful thing, you collect the fee and then start accepting "change orders" at a punitive rate. At this point switching to another contractor will be even more risky and expensive, so they'll probably just suck it up. Or if you're really good at the game, you then negotiate a whole new fixed-fee contract with a higher price tag, and the deliver what they now think they want.
Bonus points if, as I've seen a big-name global contractor do, you deliver something not even barely working but possibly conforming to specs, and then just walk off the job. Even though the client has contractual obligations that they can't fulfill if the software doesn't work. At that point, the client realizes that a) they still need the software, b) the big-name contractor is the only who can deliver in time, and c) suing is risky, will take years, and anyway the big-name contractor can afford more lawyers. In this case the client signed another multi-million dollar contract with the big-name contractor, easily doubling the "fixed" fee. I lost touch with my contacts there before the thing ever worked, so I don't know how many times the big-name global contractor pulled this off on the same job.
Many large companies absolutely refuse agile delivery and require fixed scope and cost to get anything done.
Yes, waterfall is a bad choice. But no, clients aren't to blame for trusting a vendor to do right by them.
Why use quotation marks for something I didn't say? Nothing I've said means "fuck the clients" unless you are maliciously taking the worst possible interpretation.
A change that takes a massive amount of time and effort isn't something I should do for free.
I'm more than happy to build a backlog, refine it, and build until there's a RC... so few enterprise clients want to subscribe to the perceived risk, they'd rather spend months specifying everything upfront to make some senior person happy whether that delivery methodology has been proven to work or not.
I actually get six weeks vacation at my full time US job and I use part of that to work in my part time consulting job.
I have "3 weeks" but it's only 15 days.