Hacker News Reader

Comment by markkanof | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree with your conclusion that almost everyone would like to hire Bricklayer B, but I think the disconnect in most work situations comes in rewarding the value provided by that person. If for example both workers would charge 5000 dollars to build the wall, people would be much more skeptical of paying Bricklayer B, because after all, it was only two hours of work. Basically people still have trouble evaluating the value of the work done vs the effort expended to do that work.

View on HN

This is totally true, and as the original article mentions:

"Unless you can afford to have two or more competing teams solving the same problem, and c’mon, who would do that, you will never know."

So, the above metaphor is almost always impractical, and it's hard to tell what the alternative is to the one bricklayer you have.

...I wonder how many times competing teams have been used for something? It actually sounds fascinating.

The mythical man month never mentioned that. It mentioned multiple implementations of one architecture, but that was for hardware IIRC.

AFAIK it is used in failsafe systems: you have two systems who deliver the same output, but are developed independently.

It depends - if everyone knew that B would provide a superior wall, in less time, for the same money, then they'd have a choice to make. Do I care about the build quality? Do I care about the time?

A better example is if A now comes back and says "yes, my wall's not as good, and I take longer, but now I'm only going to charge $4000", then you've got a bigger question - is it worth $1000 to you to get a higher quality wall that's done quicker? Or would you rather save the money and lose the time and build quality?

This more easily converts to a software example - do you pay a senior developer to develop your product quickly and well? Or do you save money by hiring a developer of lower skill, who will likely take longer and deliver a lower-quality product?

You're making a key assumption that a person is capable of evaluating the skill of a developer and the quality of the end-result.

What if you have no background in software? If the lower-skill developer convinces you his work is better (even if it's not) you're going to go with him.

Even if you do have a background in software, evaluating talent is difficult; it's why the interview process can be so convoluted.

"if everyone knew that B would provide a superior wall, in less time, for the same money, then they'd have a choice to make"

I'm more inclined to think that people would try to bargain hard with the Bricklayer B - "$500 in two hours is a good price for you, pal". After all the thought goes that even for that price B can erect a lot of walls in two weeks (which is A's single wall building time-span), and that's... only fair, right?

(in addition) Don't foul yourself that we live only under market-like laws of supply and demand, we're also social creatures that supposedly have to obey social norms. And the norms can be dictated.

I would hire Bricklayer B on an hourly basis.

Bricklayer B now takes 2 weeks as well.

Of course; otherwise he would be punishing himself for his efficiency.

I beg to differ, Bricklayer B would reject the job on account of being too busy doing work that paid a sum reflecting the value provided rather than reflecting the sociopathy of the employer.

Or.. B demands a higher payout. That reduces his customer base without affecting his revenue significantly. With fewer customers he has more free time on his hands, in which he invents robots that build brick walls. He now lowers his hourly rate.

Hardly, faster time to market is a value multiplier, not a loss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com