From what I see in France, there's a ton of competition in "consulting". Not freelance, mind, but body shops renting out developers. The end clients have a tendency to think of those devs as completely interchangeable (that's the main reason they give when asked why they don't hire directly).
I have a hard time seeing how telling them to pound sand can have a serious effect, especially since your employer (entity signing your paycheck) is not the same as the entity for whom you actually work. So aggravating a few too many clients might start having adverse effects with your actual employer.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say but we are coming from different perspectives of FTE vs "staff aug". My company uses contractors as an FTE pipeline or funnel and by nature they have far less leverage (if they are good they will eventually be offered FTE spots and get more of the "leverage" I mentioned).
There's also probably some nuance between the US job market and French job market of which I have no business speaking to.
My overall point is, that in the US at least, for middle of the bell curve type talent to solve middle of the bell curve type problems, there is far less talent than there is problems.
> My overall point is, that in the US at least, for middle of the bell curve type talent to solve middle of the bell curve type problems, there is far less talent than there is problems.
I think that's actually the case in France, too. But there's also a fairly widespread mentality among employees to try not to rock the boat. Many people are afraid of being laid off and having to go through the recruitment grinder, which for most consulting firms isn't pretty.
However, regarding the "staff aug", I've been working for a client whose IT department has more contractors than FTE, and a bunch of the contractors have been there for a very long time (>5 years). I think there are only two FTEs who have been there longer than any current outsider.
This sounds extreme, but isn't isolated. I used to work for a "consulting shop" and many people there had been with the same client for very long periods.
Your situation and the OP's are different... it sounds kind of awful what you describe, a bit like how renting a house and giving a major slice of your income to the landlord tends to make it you're never going to be able to buy a house.
It sounds like you need a different kind of job to have a way forward.
That's what I think, too. The main issue to me is that every salary negotiation becomes tri-party, and every party has different interests.
What's more surprising to me, though, is that there actually are many companies that will go this route. They're paying basically twice the salary of any given person. I know many people try to avoid increasing payroll, which is often the reason given, but you'd think after a few years, when you know the employee does the job well enough, you might want to save some change.
From what I see in France, there's a ton of competition in "consulting". Not freelance, mind, but body shops renting out developers. The end clients have a tendency to think of those devs as completely interchangeable (that's the main reason they give when asked why they don't hire directly).
I have a hard time seeing how telling them to pound sand can have a serious effect, especially since your employer (entity signing your paycheck) is not the same as the entity for whom you actually work. So aggravating a few too many clients might start having adverse effects with your actual employer.