Are there contracts for fixed pay vs. fixed pay rates?
Yes. I have personally signed such contracts (fixed budget software development) and lost money every single time. And yes, it is quite possible for you to get paid under minimum wage if you take too long. Scope creep is the primary culprit for these kinds of contracts, so make sure you put together iron-clad explanations of what is and is not covered by the contract (and pad the asking price for good measure). In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on. Software Contractors are not employees of the company that is procuring the software. Software Contractors necessarily work for another legal business entity. There is a business to business relationship between the procurer of the software and the entity producing the software. Therefore, the company procuring the software is not required to pay a minimum wage, or adhere to any other employment law. When any individual or company orders a software product and agrees to pay for it, that is a fixed priced contract. This happens millions of times a day. The amount of time taken to produce the software has no direct bearing on price. For instance, there is no minimum price for Microsoft Word based on the number of hours taken to produce it. Generally a Software Contractor will be a director and shareholder of a limited liability corporation. Directors are exempt from the standard protection offered under employment law. If the company producing the software was employing non-directors to produce the software, rather than sub-contracting to another business then employment law would apply.
"It's not ""the market"" deciding anything if you're forcing a business to pay someone an arbitrary amount that you declare to be a ""living wage"".  Why do you believe that you get to interfere in a mutual agreement between two people? One guy goes to another and says ""hey wanna do this job for me for X dollars"" and the other guy says ""ok cool sounds good"" and here you are jumping in and saying ""nope, can't allow that, I have to stop you""" "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-labour-analysis/japan-inc-turns-contract-workers-into-permanent-staff-as-labor-market-tightens-idUSKCN1BC3PJ) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Last year, the average monthly pay for regular workers was 321,700 yen while for contract workers it was 211,800 yen, so a change in status can mean a big jump in pay plus benefits workers weren&amp;#039;t previously receiving.  &gt; LABOR LAW REVISIONS. The trend is expected to accelerate toward April 2018 when a revised labor contract law starts forcing companies to provide permanent status for temporary workers who have served more than five years, if the workers request it.  &gt; The share of non-regular workers has almost doubled as companies saddled with excess capacity, debt and excess workers have replaced regular employees with cheaper contract workers.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xgsde/japans_labor_market_is_getting_so_tight_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~202637 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **employee**^#2 **year**^#3 **job**^#4 **contract**^#5" I can only speak to natural gas but I imagine the answer for electricity is the same. In general, yes, it is better to lock into a fixed price contract as in the long run, natural gas prices increase over time.  However, if you locked (signed a fixed price contract) in prior to the economic downturn, most likely you were better off not doing so but the key is long-term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_prices However, do your research as fixed priced contracts vary considerably from company to company. http://www.energyshop.com/ I think it's a good time to sign a fixed-term contract right now as I don't see prices coming down much further with global economies are now recovering from the downturn. HTH As no one has mentioned them I will...  The US  Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative.  The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm "From some background reading I'm doing, it sounds like the union has people by the proverbial balls anyway. Even in an ""agency shop"", where union membership is optional, non members must pay for the collective bargaining done by the union, and ""union shop"" just means that the employer can hire anybody, but they must join the union in order to be employed. All of those seem to indicate that every worker in the represented class must accept the terms of the collective bargaining. [reference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck#Background)  Part of the reason that I'm curious is that, once I've decided that I'm done being an engineer, I think it might be fun to teach, but every time I hear about union negotiations, it makes me think that operating in that system would be lame. Going from a world where merit is the primary differentiator to a world where years in the system count for more would kinda suck." "My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion.  Large companies often have large ""Policies & Procedures"" booklets to go with them.  One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one   salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future." a 60k pay raise is totally possible (depending on too many factors to list (ok, fine I'm generalizing)) coming from TX to San Jose. the difference in raw pay numbers makes it emotionally hard to make rational comparisons. I once baked at a job on the east coast early I'm my career before I understood how to compare reasonably.  anecdotal evidence shows it's possible because a machinist friend is moving here from Austin because he can make much more money. of course that's just an example. Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term. The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck.  Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest.  More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more.  Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal. If you are a temp-to-hire, or you are asked to setup a company then you are not an employee. They expect you to fund everything from your hourly rate. This includes pay, insurance, taxes, social security, sick, vacation, holidays... The rule of thumb for an established company is 1.75 to 2.25 times the salary rate is the rate they need to charge a customer. For example: employee get paid checks for $25/hour x 80 hours x 26 times a year.: 2080 hours or $52,000 per year. Company can only bill customers for 1800 to 1900 hours of labor. They need to bill at 2 times the salary rate or $50 per hour. They will collect $90,000 (1800*50). The numbers have to be run by the particular company based on their actual costs for benefits, overhead and profits.  If they were giving you $25 an hour as a contractor. They expect you to be making $12.50 an hour as an employee. None of those things sounded like concessions. I suspect, if you negotiated health care in terms of percentage of the cost instead of in raw dollars deducted, it'd actually come out that the company was taking a hit since the last contract. (I have no numbers to back this up, it's just that health care costs have been skyrocketing the last few years.)  Seniority rights kinda suck because they're just determined by time on the job and not merit. I'll take someone with 5 years in who's been getting better the whole time over someone with 20 who's been doing the negotiated minimum since the beginning. I'd like to be able to give the new people incentive to kick ass at their job.  The thing I don't like about unions is that they take the individual out of the game. Solidarity leads to one-size-fits all thinking, which is also the kind of thinking that gets companies thinking that everybody is replaceable. Really, everybody'd be better off if good people were hard to replace and average people could get by, but not excel. The partnership agrees to pay each of you salaries and/or bonuses, typically based on the net profit brought in. You do have a legal document setting out the rules for this partnership, right? If so, the exact answer should be in there. If you don't or it isn't, you need a lawyer yesterday. "When he wrote this I think there may have been greater interchangeability between workers, workers were perfectly competitive if you will.   I find that there is huge wage growth, in certain industries and with certain skills. This only impacts a limited number of people, with the majority of workers in fields that are not heavily valued.   Another avenue would be to look at the ""real"" wage. If wages are going up only 1-2%, but inflation was at negative 3-4%, then those workers wages were increasing at 4-6%.   I am not sure the gig economy is to blame. The gig economy would suggest that we are nowhere near full employment. How can people have time to have these gigs if they were gainfully employed already?   Another scenario is that we are not near full employment at all, that you have a large number of people who are reluctantly part time, supplementing their income with other jobs to make ends meet.   And I am sure that were Milton Friedman alive today, he would change his assumption to match reality. I wonder what wisdom he would have for us today." This is really just a matter of planning.  It's good that you don't want the train to go off the rails but really you just need to budget your fixed expenses.  I do this by having two checking accounts.  One account gets a direct deposit to cover all of my fixed expenses, the other is my regular checking account.   Take your rent and other fixed expenses, if you have any, and total them.  Take that total and divide by four.  That's how much of each check you should be socking away in to the separate account. Additionally, with a 30% pay increase you can probably start a savings account.  You should start to establish an emergency fund so this really never becomes a problem.  Take 10% of your pay and put it in savings, this will still leave you with a healthy pay increase to enjoy but you'll keep some of your money for yourself too. "There are several ways you can get out of paying your student loans back in the USA: You become disabled and the loan is dismissed once verified by treating doctor or the Social Security Administration. You become a peace officer. You become a teacher; generally K-12, but I have heard from the DOE that teachers at state schools qualify as well. So the ""malicious"" friend B is prescribing to the theory that if one of those conditions becomes true, friend A will not have to pay back the loan. The longer you drag it out, the more chance you have to fulfill a condition. Given that 2 of these methods require a commitment, my guess is that they are thinking more along the lines of the first one, which is horrible. Financially, it makes no sense to delay paying back your loans because deferred loans are only interest-free until you graduate and are past your grace period, after which they will begin accruing interest. Unsubsidized loans accrue interest from the day you get them, only their payback is deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period. Anytime you ask for forbearance, you are still accruing interest and it is capitalizing into your principal — you are just given a chance to delay payback due to financial hardship, bad health, or loss of job. Therefore, at no point are you benefiting beyond the time you are in school and getting an education, still looking for a job, or dealing with health issues. In the current market, no CD, no savings account, and no investment will give you substantially more return that will offset the loss of the interest you are accruing. Even those of us in the old days getting 4.X % rates would not do this. There was a conditional consolidation offer the DOE allowed which could bring all your loans under one roof for a competitive 5.x-6.x % rate allowing you a single payment, but even then you would benefit if you had rates that were substantially higher. From a credit worthiness aspect, you are hurt by the outstanding obligation and any default along the way, so you really want to avoid that — paying off or down your loans are a good way to ensure you don't shoot yourself in the foot."