Reply to: Are high paying contract jobs generally less interesting?

[itjobs]

It seems the best paying customers are Finance, Fintech and Government.

There are some roles out there with day rates of £650-£700, but the technologies are not always the most interesting.

I'm in doubts whether to focus more on having an interesting role versus a high day rate.

Is it so that higher paid roles are often more boring jobs or not?

It means more meetings, listening to loads of BS and less time to do actual work. On top of it, one may be at lose of guts to invoke notice period and walk away.

[oliverson]

Now then children, this is the professional forum so less of the .

The champagne was for go live and it was pisspoor. Just for your information.

What was pisspoor, the champagne or the go live? Or both?

[NotAllThere]

You are all for bigging yourself up today NAT. Having problems with Mr Floppy or something?

Now then children, this is the professional forum so less of the .

The champagne was for go live and it was pisspoor. Just for your information.

[scooterscot]

In my industry yes. Chasing dollars to satisfy a deadline is often the way.

[stek]

This is a professional forum.

So's your mum.

[Bee]

Cry baby kiss ass.

This is a professional forum.

[northernladuk]

I haven't seen him humiliate others like you do every day. I'm wonder what would be your problem.

Cry baby kiss ass.

[Bee]

You are all for bigging yourself up today NAT. Having problems with Mr Floppy or something?

I haven't seen him humiliate others like you do every day. I'm wonder what would be your problem.

[northernladuk]

The best UK contract I had (1999 to 2000) paid £620 a day for a 7 hour day. Not much grief either - except the poor champagne provided by PwC.

You are all for bigging yourself up today NAT. Having problems with Mr Floppy or something?

[NotAllThere]

From experience, the higher paid jobs involve longer hours and more grief.

On one project i did I easily had the highest day rate. On an hourly rate it wasn't much different to others.

The best UK contract I had (1999 to 2000) paid £620 a day for a 7 hour day. Not much grief either - except the poor champagne provided by PwC.

[GB9]

From experience, the higher paid jobs involve longer hours and more grief.

On one project i did I easily had the highest day rate. On an hourly rate it wasn't much different to others.

[jamesbrown]

I think on the techy side like me the old days of sitting in your single-skill box have gone. I was trado-Unix (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX) for years and years, no problem getting roles and now I have to do RHEL ESX etc, as well as SAN, firewalls and TSM - environments as a whole....

Makes it more interesting but you then get percieved as a master of none......

Yes, makes sense. I guess a particular combination of skills can also make you a specialist, but it really comes down to supply and demand. If you can position yourself in areas where supply/demand is sufficiently out of whack, you're bananad, but that requires pretty good foresight. In my experience, areas that require many years of formal education/training (vs. allow for learning on-the-job) reduce the supply quite a bit, but I'm not sure how much these generalities are worth across different industries.

[Bee]

If means more responsibility and a challenge are more interesting for me.
What is boring for you could not be boring for the others, this can happen if you are doing the same thing for ages.

[LondonManc]

My first instinct would be to say you can't generalise like the OP said. There are too many factors involved attempt to come to such a simplistic conclusion.

Oddly enough my experience seems to be the same as NAT's. If I had to list my gigs in order from lowest to highest rate the more interesting/hectic/fun gigs were down in the lower end. Thinking back they were all roll your sleeves up and get stuck in gigs. I don't think the numbers of gigs we are talking here is enough to prove it's a fact though.

I think that could also, in my experience, correlate to the size of the organisation. A smaller client would want their pound of flesh from you more and would be more likely to have more skills shortages do to the lack of people available.

[northernladuk]

No. In my experience, quite the opposite.

My first instinct would be to say you can't generalise like the OP said. There are too many factors involved attempt to come to such a simplistic conclusion.

Oddly enough my experience seems to be the same as NAT's. If I had to list my gigs in order from lowest to highest rate the more interesting/hectic/fun gigs were down in the lower end. Thinking back they were all roll your sleeves up and get stuck in gigs. I don't think the numbers of gigs we are talking here is enough to prove it's a fact though.