His argument hinges on consulting not being worth it at $100/hr - that is true, but it's also irrelevant, since typical consulting firms actually charge much more. Secondly he asserts that consulting doesn't scale. Well, with one example (of many such firms) tipping the scales at 200k employees, that point is demolished too.
> that is true, but it's also irrelevant, since typical consulting firms actually charge much more.
Again, it's irrelevant if you redefine "typical consulting company" as one of a clearly atypical group of big-name firms with tens to hundreds of thousands of employees.
> Secondly he asserts that consulting doesn't scale.
He makes two assertions. First, that with all the details accounted for, your profit will likely be half of what a naive assumption would find. And second, that as a founder you'd end up doing a lot of stuff outside your core competency or interest. At no point does he say, "Given these facts, it's clear that consulting cannot scale." If he had, sure, you could take two seconds, point out a single point to the contrary, and feel good about "demolishing" an easily refuted argument. He didn't, so we're back where we started.
If you had five of these employees you’d be clearing $300,000 per year, which sounds more like it. Except not because scaling brings more time and expense:
It was obviously worth it for the partners at the old Andersen Consulting, or VPs at Accenture or any other consulting firm. These were small companies once...
