TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Ask HN: How can I charge more and find more interesting work as an IC?

8 点作者 elliotbnvl超过 4 年前
I&#x27;ve been doing web development (JS) for nearly seven years. I&#x27;ve raised my rate quite a bit but at this point I think I&#x27;m getting close to hitting a ceiling &#x2F; local maximum for &quot;generic React developer&quot;. I do put a lot of emphasis on solving challenging problems (so not just generic CRUD apps) and delivering real business value, and I&#x27;m not afraid to raise my rate, but I work through recruiters because I haven&#x27;t done a lot of highly visible work or blogging, and as such I don&#x27;t have a reputation of any kind to leverage.<p>I&#x27;m happy to blog and, following Patrick McKenzie&#x27;s and Thomas Ptacek&#x27;s advice, I don&#x27;t have a problem raising my rates. I think what&#x27;s holding me back is being unable to decide on a field &#x2F; niche to really own. My current specialty is design systems, and I&#x27;m getting to know then pretty well, but I&#x27;m not sure how translate that skillset into charging more than a React developer without a specialty might.<p>I&#x27;m considering changing niches and going back-end, or maybe full-stack. Or perhaps going into IoT, sys-ops, or even lower-level. I&#x27;m really open to anything: what&#x27;s important to me is finding an interesting problem that I can also charge more solving than I am now. Are these things mutually exclusive?<p>I&#x27;m hesitant to throw away the career capital that I&#x27;ve developed over the last six years, but it&#x27;s important to me that I continue to charge more for my work and eventually move away from hourly billing and into project-based, daily, or weekly rates. I can&#x27;t do that with my current strategy.<p>I also know that I have no interest and going the managerial route, because I love coding, not managing coders.<p>How can I find better, higher-paying, more interesting work while remaining an individual contributor?

3 条评论

giantg2超过 4 年前
Starting over in new tech is probably not going to earn you more. I don&#x27;t know that changing will get you more interesting work (90-99% in any domain is boring stuff).
Jugurtha超过 4 年前
I wrote about this in a Twitter thread <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;jugurthahadjar&#x2F;status&#x2F;1310668293305499653" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;jugurthahadjar&#x2F;status&#x2F;13106682933...</a><p>Context: Projects are in the mid six-figure range, a couple of individuals can pull the project off. Clients are large corporations. Domain is machine learning (turn-key, taking clients from puzzled look to wide smile).<p>I&#x27;ll reproduce it here:<p>0. Form:<p>0.0. It pays to provide services through a company. Companies write large checks to companies without blinking; not so large for individuals.<p>1. Contracts:<p>1.0. Get a lawyer to prepare contracts for collaborations. Someone at some point might disagree or have trouble remembering what they have agreed to pay you, make sure to have a mnemonic device in the form of a clear contract.<p>1.1. Companies have typical contracts for collaboration: don&#x27;t sign anything without legal counsel.<p>1.2. Retain intellectual property to amortize engineering and sell what you make to others.<p>1.3. Companies might ask that you do not sell to competitors: define them and contain geographic zone and duration. Get paid for the opportunity cost.<p>1.4. Split project into tranches for which you get paid. This can help cash-flow and reduce risk, especially in the beginning.<p>2. Presentation:<p>2.0. Your company solves problems and being open minded about these problems is useful; so it&#x27;s not much about finding problems for your solutions, but more like finding solutions to clients&#x27; problems.<p>2.0.0 After enough problems you built solutions for, patterns emerge and you can abstract a solution that serves several use cases. See &quot;Abstraction&quot; section.<p>2.1. General presentation with broad strokes of your capabilities, including previous work with other clients<p>2.2. Conversation with the prospect on their worries in a given space<p>2.3. Conversation with the prospect on their worries in a given space<p>2.4. Extract problems from that conversation and send a list of N problems to solve&#x2F;ideas to explore.<p>2.5. The client finds one problem urgent&#x2F;highest priority&#x2F;highest value<p>2.6. You get together and talk about &quot;desirability, fasiblity, viability&quot;.<p>2.7. Once you agree on what to do, prove the concept.<p>2.7.0. e.g: organizations give us data and ask us to predict something, say customer churn or subway car malfunction. We return predictions, they validate the predictions, and we can then start the project because they have proof we actually can predict what they want us to.<p>3. Execution:<p>3.0. Your opinion on what is valuable for the client does not matter. It doesn&#x27;t have to be valuable to you, only to the client. A client who gets excited by a functionality that took one hour to implement because it solves a real problem is a learning experience.<p>3.1. Go above and beyond. Some sectors&#x2F;clients are hard to get in, but once you&#x27;re in, you&#x27;re in.<p>3.2. Listening and assuming the client is smart goes a long, long, long way.<p>3.3. Send meeting notes to the client. It clears ambiguities during&#x2F;after the project.<p>3.4. Press to get the client&#x27;s domain experts&#x27; collaboration. They will actually use what you&#x27;re building. Get them at the table.<p>3.5. Some of the most valuable insights are gleaned after a meeting and not necessarily with your &quot;counterpart&quot;.<p>Don&#x27;t build the wrong thing.<p>4. Abstract:<p>4.0. When you solve many problems, some patterns emerge. You built custom products for your clients, but you can abstract functionality and build tooling to scale your services, and enable others to do the same.<p>4.0.0. e.g: we we built machine learning products for enterprise clients. After many projects, we built iko.ai, our own machine learning platform to &quot;Get Data Products Released&quot;.<p>4.1. One advantage of this approach is to explore the space while being profitable. Some problems exist not for lack of a nice front-end or lack of knowledge of the target audience. Coming at them from a purely &quot;webdev&quot;&#x2F;&quot;devops&quot; mindset can bring bad surprises.<p>All the best,
webmaven超过 4 年前
<i>&gt; I think what&#x27;s holding me back is being unable to decide on a field &#x2F; niche to really own. My current specialty is design systems, and I&#x27;m getting to know then pretty well, but I&#x27;m not sure how translate that skillset into charging more than a React developer without a specialty might.</i><p>So, this crossover between design and development is something I have some experience with. My question is whether you just mean UI and similar on-screen design systems (and whether you actually do the design yourself), or if you&#x27;ve extended this to things like signage and wayfinding, packaging, organizational identity, and so on.<p>Second, when you identify as an Individual Contributor, do you mean as part of a team (and if so, what sort of team), or are you more interested in working alone on projects you can complete yourself?<p>A bit of a digression, but I think this may help:<p>Design work tends to go to individuals and teams that specialize in the type of clients they work with, whether that is determined by size, sector, industry, geographic location, or business model, rather than (or in addition to) the type of work that is required. This is because clients typically aren&#x27;t just looking for skill and expertise (which they may not be able to evaluate), but for emapthy with and understanding of their challenges needs and even fears and aspirations.<p>Deep and heavy stuff, huh?<p>Not to worry (much, anyway), a shortcut to this achievement is the specialization in type of clients, mentioned above; by signaling that you have done (or seek to do) work for other clients JUST LIKE THEM, you&#x27;re giving them what they need in terms of reassurance. It is also helpful, though not essential, if you yourself match the client along one or more of the dimensions you&#x27;re targeting, even if they aren&#x27;t necessarily relevant to the work.<p>Of course, this same reassuring information will turn away clients that don&#x27;t match your target profile, so deciding on a particular type of client almost certainly means sacrificing other opportunities (though these days setting up several business facades targeting different types of clients isn&#x27;t too difficult).<p>And so, offering a range of services can be attractive to clients, which makes it rather important to be able to handle project management at least, even if you don&#x27;t want to start an agency or studio and be a manager per-se.<p>Anyway, enough of the squishy handwavy stuff. A specific resource that I found very helpful back when I was billing myself as a web designer&#x2F;developer is the book &quot;The Business Side of Creativity&quot; by Cameron Foote. Many of the pre-SaaS small business mechanics described (such as around accounting) are now outdated, but the sections on how to specialize and seek out the clients that need what you&#x27;re selling are probably what you&#x27;re looking for. They are just as applicable to software consulting as they are to design work.<p>Another is &quot;Selling the Invisible&quot; by Harry Beckwith, which is all about marketing <i>services</i> (which are usually intangible) rather than products.