tvjunky

I think my assessment was dead on, get some life experience and some perspective. As for your original comments, I offer the same advice. Maybe pick one of the points you complain about and try to fix it.

Sheltered, entitled and delayed adulthood. You give every indication of all three in these short comments. I suggest you put down the sociology book, forget your dreams of having the next (insert app clone) and get job at the nearest Wal-Mart. Life happens differently and faster when your opportunities are limited.

I think this rebuttal adds some perspective, asks some additional questions and certainly doesn't cast blame. I think it makes a clear point in the end. That point, your feelings/thoughts are not new or special and is more hyperbole than thoughtful comment. It's a tough world out there snowflake. If you see victimization in not wanting to own a car or house, then you have some big surprises coming.

With the benefit of hindsight and a single source this certainly might seem like future prediction or visionary thinking. However, with the events of the time, this idea was pretty obvious and similar opinions were shared by many. If there was vision, it was that he put his thoughts online for all to see.

I still see your point. However, how do you solve a problem if you just don't know something? To me, a big factor in this test is, did they finish and does it work? Lets say they understand that Modulo would be the way to go but they are unsure of the syntax. Where would they find the answer? Or do we say, sorry you're out...you must memorize everything?

Maybe sometimes we forget, the interview is for BOTH parties. I think it's fair to ask if puzzle like questions are an expectation. It would be simple to answer: "Yes, we know this is a silly puzzle, but it's a fast way for you to show us your real world skill".

I see the point. Still you're not testing how the candidate works. No one knows everything about everything. We are looking for the right team member to solve business problems, full stop. Shipped code always wins over the perfect algorithm sketched on the whiteboard.

Having been on both sides the interview process and going through hundreds of candidates, I agree that a code solving problem is a valuable gauge for the technical acumen of the candidate. In fact the best experiences I have had on both sides of the table have had a well thought out coding element included. The better ones had a more real world requirement and aren't so puzzle like (yes FizzBuzz is pretty simplistic, but it’s still a puzzle).

The biggest issue I see with this approach is the “On Paper” (white board applies as well) code. This is an unrealistic expectation. Unless you’re writing all your code on paper and this is a basic skill for your process, you've already added a factor that may push a normally fine developer out.

If language is unimportant, then process should be as well. Let the developer solve the problem in the best way they can, even if they do ‘Google’ it. You can use the amount of ‘googleing’ as another factor to evaluate.

If you think of it as a placement agency, i.e. contractor, who works for you, then yes that extra % may seem like a problem. But then do you manage sick/vacation time? A company who manages the schedule would usually try to have a backup cleaner during those times or provide a new cleaner in the event the current one leaves. They might also follow up to maintain work standards. They might(should) provide insurance coverage on your belongings in case of an accident. On the cleaner side, finding "part-time" work is often a challenge and they enjoy the benefit of having the job handed to them and don't have to worry about where the next job is coming from.

It's interesting, there seems to be a few here on HN that have a problem with people building businesses and making money. Is it implausible that the cleaner you have had for months/years could end up with more work than they can handle and begin to bring in help to do the jobs they won? That's often how small businesses are created.

This may be another factor Exec discovered before rolling out an "official" cleaning service. The focus then is less on one off requests and more on getting return business and managing the customer. It would be easy enough for a contractor who got random work from Exec to pull a few regulars if there was no follow up after the web scheduled job. As a side note, I disagree with the win/win idea. Ethics and trust are put into question for me. If the service provider is willing to screw over their employer, what are they going to do in your home.

Can't help on cost but for most things there is a another type of MVP. Minimum Viable Price. It just costs a certain amount to perform the service even if you think it's only X.

Yes supplies, are only a small factor. A Broken laptop is an expensive cleaning. A quality owner/operator/business is going to take care of it to keep you happy but, that comes with a slightly higher cost per job. For the other scenarios you mention, I'm not sure your going to have that easy of a time filing a claim, especially if you mention "employee". To flip it around a bit, would you also bear the cost if a plumber/electrician made a mistake and flooded/burn your house?

Indeed there is an entire underground, for lack of a better word, for these kinds of services. They work on referrals and some continue to grow and add employees while, others are happy to just get paid for the hours the can work. However, because of the nature of these kinds of services opinions vary and that's the problem. One persons great is another persons sucks. I think Exec discovered this and is now aiming for quality and consistency rather than sending some random person over to "clean".

Lead gen in general is an internet history lesson. The focus on local/reviews over the last few years was intended to be the fix for the trash lead gen created. The fact is, the vast majority of businesses like this are very small (even the franchises) and there is no corporate structure. They only make a profit if the come every week and they need to set limit on the kinds of things they do. For most of these, Google does a good job of putting the customer and service together even if reviews are another waste land. The missing questions are: is this service what I want and is it worth paying for?

How did you find this great lady for $10 an hour? Do you buy the supplies or does she bring her own? Do you tip? Do you give a holiday bonus?

Does she provide liability insurance in case she breaks your washing machine?

Contractor vs. Employee would be one easy difference. Cleaning is a more specific task. I'm guessing they have a list of "do's and don't" for the 2 people @ $65 rate. If you have someone performing random "on demand" tasks paid after completion, they could easily just be 1099's. Profit could be similar.

There are a lot of factors in overhead but 20 - 40% would be right assuming all the common expenses for this kind of business. I also assume they employ their cleaners and aren't all contractors.

Sure they have some cash but this is a service business with the biggest money to be made in recurring customers. Providing a deep discount upfront and then having to adjust later to make a profit seems short sighted.

This pricing is not out of line in the least if you're treating this as a real business. Hourly wages would probably be in the $12-18 range. With 2 cleaners per job, that looks like an acceptable margin while also providing for all the normal overhead. Certainly a different approach from PathJoy.

Indeed an honor for a select few. The correct Motto for your friend would be "Touch Me Not" and a good greeting/acknowledgment/goodbye would be "Hooah!"

Semper Fi, while a good Motto and applicable, is the Marine Corp Motto.

Hooah!

Great points.

On the topic of working elsewhere. Large urban areas provide the best opportunity for lower cost and more efficient operations. Two things limit growth for this kind of service in smaller less dense areas. Travel and population. Both limit the number of jobs that can be requested or completed.

I think there are some big problems with this latest round of "TaskRabbit for X", aggregated labor services (Cherry, GetMaid, and others). In the case of Pathjoy, the differentiation they are trying to sell is price. The technology is nothing special unless your idea of finding a house cleaner is Craig's List. Yet, is price the problem to be solved with these services? Is pushing down the price on a service like this beneficial to anyone except the aggregator?

For some TaskRabbit type tasks, especially the last minute or one-off tasks, it make a lot of sense because the transaction may not have happened otherwise. However, for these kinds of specialized labor type tasks, isn’t there some harm done to the service market through lower wages for the cleaner and inconsistent service for the customer?

Also, how does Pathjoy maintain customer loyalty? If service is a kind of “on-demand” how can you maintain consistent work for the cleaner? What is to stop the cleaner or customer from doing an “under the table deal”?

I think there could be an opportunity to “Disrupt” these older services but I’m sure lowering the price is NOT the way to a sustained business, even at scale.

Andrew,

    I think you have something here but it still seems a bit cart before the horse. The presumption is that we all want to be excellent to each other. In my experience when people are being rude it's more often a conscious choice rather than an inadvertent mistake. Granted, I don't live in an area where residents have to battle or shuffle around for parking and neighbors will be "neighborly" and register. However, during events with large numbers of people from outside the neighborhood, we often see rude behavior. In these cases there is no opportunity alert the offender of their "mistake". We either must be proactive to guard our parking or start a a tow truck parade to coincide with the event.

What is the incentive to "register" my car? It seems a bit backward. The "F-bomb laced note" is the simpler solution in this case. Straight to the point and no registration required.

Thank you, you proved my point.

There is a clear definition for "Opportunity Cost". It's an accepted principal with a long history. From my other comment, I was under the impression that you were not aware of it. Maybe you still aren't. My point is, you are creating the fallacy in your argument by not acknowledging the entire principal. Your use of money as the only driver in the personal decision provides a false conclusion to the "statement you often hear". The conclusion you left me with is: given you're a "High Paid" engineer, you should not fix your own car or help out your community restaurant because the math doesn't work out. However, if you want to screw around with "non-billable" tasks, that's cool, you'll just pay for it.

As almost everyone here has pointed out, that's just NOT what the concept of "Times is Money" is about. BTW, the different reasons ARE the core of the principal. Of course people are going to make different decisions. But, I guess for you it only works when Billable hour > cost of item.

So if you understand that opportunity cost is in fact about choice and trade off, why did you leave out the core of the principal? Focusing only on the money in this DIY / "pay for it" argument is what make it a fallacy. If you change your car repair example so that Don makes much less per hour than the repair cost. It still might make sense for Don to pay the mechanic to do the repair. Only Don can make that choice. Anyone one else is just giving their opinion.

Your Money/Time principal has long been defined. It’s called Opportunity Cost. You have experienced this principal your entire life. In many cases, especially as we earn more, this principal tends to involve money. However, it’s really about value and the decisions we have to make in life.

As far as how you express it, your conclusions are a bit off. The method by which you earn money (hourly, salary(taxable or not)) has no bearing on the value traded. Additionally, both time and money are finite, therefore a tradeoff must occur. This is true no matter your ability to work more or you’re a billionaire. In your approach to this idea, you’re assuming some kind of concrete, always balanced, equation. While this is more true(and easier to see as balanced) when opportunity cost is applied in business (outsourced factory can make widget X in bulk cheaper), this is almost always false in life situations like you describe. There are just too many variables. Skill, willingness, enjoyment, or necessity as just a few of the intangibles that factor into the decision.