I see the relationship as rent-seeking[1]. I'm assuming the agency is going to take somewhere between 25 - 30% cut on all hours billed to the client.
Over the first year, that amounts to about $57K. I'd be OK with paying that tax for the first year.
Yet I can't just cut the agency out of the deal after the first year. Anytime I cut them out, I have to leave the client for a year.
I get this. I understand it's common practice, and designed to keep providers (like me) from ever cutting the staffing agency out of the deal.
I think what was / is bugging me hinges on whether I look at this from the perspective of "It's everyone for themselves" or "What's good for society also matters."
In rent-seeking, one party is extracting value on an ongoing basis without doing anything productive (also on an ongoing basis). While it may be good for me on a selfish basis to take this deal, I question whether it's good for our society at large for people to engage in rent-seeking transactions.
I think I have clarified this a bit for myself. If nothing else, I learned a bit about why people can be of different opinions about rent-seeking.
Again, thanks for your help.
another way to look at it is to review your ideas on rent seeking as being 'always bad'. I think in most cases it is, but perhaps we can also understand rent seeking as a pen test of a system, forcing it to improve. Parasites exist in biology - the trick maybe to try find a way to make them symbiotic rather than just parasitical
good luck!
I declined the position today.
Thank you for the help!