I've long subscribed to the philosophy that you should buy the cheapest tool you can find and use safely, use it until it wears out, breaks, or your skill surpasses the capability of the tool - and only then should you spend money on high quality tools. Too much money is thrown away in the name of "buy once, cry once" only to discover that you don't need the capabilities offered by the top of the line options.
I strongly disagree. Cheap tools are a pain to use, and break when you need them most, and perpetuate throw away culture. If a good tool is too expensive to own find a rental or buy used, otherwise buy high quality.
High quality is a joy to work with and will serve you a long time.
High quality tools are absolutely a joy! I love the high end tools that I get to use in my professional life as a mechanical engineer. (less frequently now that I am a manager, but you never get tired of using a well designed Festool, Bosch, or Wera product)
However,I don't need the same level of quality in the things I have at home. I've built, repaired, and otherwise tinkered away on countless projects over the years with things I found/bought on sale/picked up along the way with no issues. I'm not a professional [plumber, carpenter, electrician, mason, machinist, etc] and I don't need the same tools they have to get the job done safely.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to spend your personal money on high end tools. In general I find the attitude around tool ownership to be one of gate keeping though, and I'm more interested in getting started and discovering what I really need with less expensive tools than I am in spending my entire budget on high end equipment only to learn that I don't need specific expensive features after a few uses.
Some people are into creating things, and other people are into tools. As the saying goes, it's a poor craftsperson that blames their tools. But I also think it's a poor craftsperson who tries to improve by improving their tools.
I see it a lot with photography. Some talented photographers pull incredible images out of older digital cameras and lenses, and don't bother to get new cameras/lenses because the reality is that a new camera wouldn't make their images much better.
Other photographers lack that kind of creative skill but still spend their time buying better and better gear, talking about gear online, and taking pictures of test charts—all without improving their skill.
For example I own a cheap non branded wire stripper (an upgrade to using a knife) instead of the high quality 150€ self adjusting Knipex equivalent (which "only" makes life easier and saves time).
But with safety features I wouldn't budge (eg. saw and grinding tools). For example Bosch blue has anti kickback in certain angle grinders which detects jamming discs and stops the motor.
I've been burned repeatedly by your philosophy. It only seems to hold if you know exactly what you want. I've got closets littered with high quality things that I don't ever use anymore because I lost interest before I could ever appreciate its quality.
Selling them is a pain of its own. I would have preferred to have bought cheap and not have to worry about recuperating value.
I think people get it into their heads that they need to be a buy cheap or buy quality person entirely, and I think the most succinct point I could make is that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Buy quality for the things where you know what you want and value the quality improvement, and buy cheap for the things that are new and unknown to you. You don't need a pro-quality snowboard before you decide that you like snowboarding.
Depends on kind of tool. A good (and probably expensive) tool will last you long, but sometimes those tools are more complicated to use because they are targeting professions. When it comes to an adjustable wrench - sure, buy an expensive one from a good brand. That makes sense because cheap and expensive only differ in quality and durability.
When it comes to complicated tools, probably start with something reasonable and cheap. That covers not just tools, but also appliances and other things: cheap coffee machines are put coffee/capsule in and press a button, expensive one would be very manual.
I think he means more towards 'buy the cheapest, but quality tool'
You don't want to use a dollar store screwdriver but at the same time you probably don't need a Wera.
I have a friend who has a fault of buying the best of everything, for example he bought a $300 Milwaukee cordless to hang some pictures on the wall, because "One day I might want to build a swingset". It's been 8 years and he never built that swingset.
Sure, an unused $300 milwaukee cordless is a waste, definitely don't buy something like that before you need it. Especially since there's quite a few choices available.
However a 6 piece Wera screwdriver set is $30-35 and easily to justify in any apartment or home and should last dramatically longer than a dollar screw screwdriver and MUCH less likely to cause damage to whatever you are working on. Even building a piece of Ikea furniture and the most minor of repairs (light switches, door hinges, loose chairs, etc) would justify the wera set.
Much better to buy something decent set for $35 than might last a lifetime of light use than the nearly disposable dollar store stuff. Even a small apartment can justify a handful of screwdrivers and allens.
Indeed. I hate cheap tools, and they can damage not just themselves, but whatever you are working on.
Last thing I want to do is round an allen, strip a screw, or round a nut because a tool can't be bothered to be the right shape and be made out of the right materials to apply whatever torque/pressure is needed.
Good tools easily last decades, and I have some from my dad. Cheap tools often last a hard use or two, and sometimes less than a single hard use.
For me it's more of a pareto thing. 90% of the time, the Harbor Freight tool is gonna do the job. Even if I end up needing to buy a more expensive tool 10% of the time, I'm still coming out ahead. YMMV depending on how often you need to use various tools or if you're buying jack stands (or anything else where failure could lead to death/injury)
However I got a harbor freight pneumatic nail gun, oiled it before use, and every night before putting it away. It almost lasted the building of an 80 foot fence, almost.
If you need a single or low use unpowered tool I consider harbor freight. Generally anything powered, which is more expensive, I want to keep longer, and has a higher chance of damaging itself, what you are working on, or you I buy something name brand.
The harbor freight rolling tool chests are quite nice, and features on various tool/garage forums as a great deal.
...a potential, while under load and with a shift in weight, for the pawl to disengage from the extension lifting post, allowing the stand to drop suddenly.
Having just run to the garage to make sure that my Harbor Freight jack stands aren't in that recall, it occurred to me, "how do you fuck up jack stands?" If there ever was a patent, it had to have run out before my grandfather was born; just go copy a high-quality model, sorted. Even if one doesn't just plain copy the design, I don't think you'd have to be much of an engineer to come up with something that won't collapse on itself under load. I mean, there's three pieces to the whole damned thing, and the design seems to allow a lot of slop on tolerances. Yet the folks at Pittsburgh Jack Stands(tm) seemed to think, "but we could save another nickel if we made the tolerances just a bit larger."
Anyway, that's why I always slide some sort of backup under the vehicle no matter the quality of the jack stand.
> ..you should buy the cheapest tool you can find and use safely, use it until it wears out, breaks, or your skill surpasses the capability of the tool..
I wholeheartedly agree with this view, with one caveat. You shouldn't cheap out on certain specialty tools where failure can pose a risk of injury or damage, a suspension spring compressor is my usual example. Fortunately, purchasing an expensive one-off tool isn't your only option! They're often available for rent from local auto parts stores, to keep with my example.
But yeah, besides that caveat, you'll often be better served by going with a reasonably priced tool. If you use it enough to wear it out, or break it, kudos! Time to upgrade.
> I've long subscribed to the philosophy that you should buy the cheapest tool you can find and use safely, use it until it wears out, breaks, or your skill surpasses the capability of the tool - and only then should you spend money on high quality tools.
Overall, it's not a bad philosophy. But I can think of a couple of complications here:
- For battery-operated tools, standardizing on one system means you can buy a handful of pricy batteries and share them among many tools. Batteries wear out, and eventually need repeated replacement. And only needing to replace, say, 3 batteries from a single brand is convenient.
- A lot of times, it's possible to buy medium-quality tool sets (say, hex wrenches) for less than $100. I'm literally going to use many of them as long as I live. Why not spend $70 and get something halfway decent, instead of the $30 junk?
- If you're doing a big project (refinishing kitchen cabinets, building a deck, etc), that can easily justify spending a few hundred dollars on a quality key tool. A quality drill/hammer driver pair is game changing, for example. Saves countless hours compared to my old gear.
I had Craftsman power tools until battery replacements were only available from fly-by-night companies and a couple of the tools started failing (after 20 years). I wound up buying a couple of DeWalt tools on sale and they've been rock-solid. So I added a couple more as needed. I tried a Ryobi line trimmer a few years ago, and the battery system failed within two weeks. So I took it back and paid $50 extra for a DeWalt version that has run flawlessly. I could save some money by buying less-used tools from a second, cheaper brand. But that would double my battery replacement costs over the next 20 years, and I'd need to do more research for each purchase.
So sometimes a set of "79 auto tools for one low price!" is a good move. And sometimes, mid-to-high end homeowner gear or even a contractor tool is worth the money.
'I had Craftsman power tools until battery replacements were only available from fly-by-night companies and a couple of the tools started failing (after 20 years). I wound up buying a couple of DeWalt tools on sale and they've been rock-solid. So I added a couple more as needed.'
I think we are in complete agreement! After 20 years of use are are more than qualified to know what you need and go get it regardless of the price point!
Agreed. Buy the cheap one first. If you use it enough to break it or outgrow it, buy the best one you can then afford. So many of my tools I need just a few times a year. The harbor freight model is all I need.
Maybe instead, aim to buy tools as cheaply as you can the first time.
I think it's best to just get your tools as gifts, or from garage sales.
But there are a lot of tools that are cheap, feel cheap, and will break on you.
Avoid using cheaply made tools -- this is also good advice.
A neighbor bought a table saw with really flimsy legs... and the whole things just shook when you put boards through it. Look, you don't want to use a table saw like that. For... all the common sense reasons.
Plus, with gifts at least, it's nice knowing my grandfather used the same socket set I have now. Emotionally-nice, and quality-nice... I know they aren't going to break on me since they didn't break on him.
> Look, you don't want to use a table saw like that. For... all the common sense reasons.
For example, you might have an increased risk of wood kickback, very nearly lose a leg, and spend years in physical therapy trying to replace the muscle mass that died. (I knew a guy.) Or you might bleed out.
Seriously, a few extra safety features on a table saw can make the difference between life and death. Assuming you don't just disable them.
(I have a cheapish table saw, but one that isn't complete garbage. I treat it with about the same caution I'd treat unexploded ordnance from World War II.)
> I have a cheapish table saw, but one that isn't complete garbage. I treat it with about the same caution I'd treat unexploded ordnance from World War II.
>I've long subscribed to the philosophy that you should buy the cheapest tool you can find and use safely, use it until it wears out, breaks, or your skill surpasses the capability of the tool
For a sufficiently cheap tool that might be instantaneously and the difference can be very hard to tell.
I think that you should spend money according to what you are comfortable with and what you actually have a use for.
>Too much money is thrown away in the name of "buy once, cry once" only to discover that you don't need the capabilities offered by the top of the line options.
I would say too many products are made and thrown away because people discovered that they were too badly made to use them.
True about some things, but there is a segment of tools where the first or second time you use it ever will be "this tool is garbage" and then you have to buy another one.
It depends on the tool. Personally, I have a ton of Rigid tools. They all work really well. I replace them with Rigid if they break, actually, because my batteries work with Rigid.
But, my table saw is a good table saw, because I want it to be safe, I want it to cut straight, and I want to enjoy using it.
My bandsaw is a good bandsaw b/c I need something that can cut thicker wood sometimes and don't want to deal with blades breaking and popping off a cheap saw.
I recently inherited a much nicer table saw than the second hand Harbor Freight one I had before, and it was quite a revelation how much easier it was to get good results with it and how much safer it feels to use. I'd definitely agree on that one.
The other category where I like to spend more is tools I hate to use. Some things I have specifically for jobs that suck and anything that makes those jobs easier is worth it in my mind. I have a nice drain snake, and the most expensive toilet plunger I could find for this reason.
Until you use a cheap tool on your expensive bike, the allowance on the tool is poor and strips a screw, which can only be custom ordered direct from the manufacturer with a 2 month lead time, leaving your half-fixed bike completely useless.
This happened to me when bleeding my hydraulic brakes - the screw was a 2.5mm Allen and my keys were slightly smaller than 2.5 from being rounded over a short period of time. That rounded the screw, and my choice was to leave my brakes without fluid.. or drill out the screw!
Allen fasteners are bad, and the people who designed them should feel bad. Even relatively high quality allen wrenches are prone to stripping fasteners. The best option on the market is the MAC RBRT series[1]
I keep a handful of left-handed drill bits on hand for drilling out screws. You can get them cheaply from mcmaster. They work much better than "Easy-outs" and similar tools, and 90% of the time the fastener backs out well before you reach the point where you have to hope you're not damaging anything but the screw.
"There have been 3 great joys in my life: sex, food and music. Of these music has proved the most reliable."
but your comment makes me want to revise it:
"There have been 4 great joys in my life: sex, food, music and good tools, and of these, music and good tools have competed fairly to be the most reliable."
If you are a trade professional and regularly have tools crap out on you, that's one thing. But my tools are more likely to need replacing purely out of obsolescence than anything else. And having an overbuilt tool collecting dust is just as much a waste as throwing one away occasionally.
Yes, because a good amount of the cost of that pro level tool is R&D and support for its use by pros. By using it once and shelving it you've paid for more engineering than you need. Case in point, when I needed to drill two holes in concrete block I opted for the cheapest $20 aliexpress carbide hole saw I could find rather than the professional diamond tipped version costing hundreds. In the unlikely event that I'll need to do the same job again I could easily bang out a few more cuts with what I have or order another cheap one and still be ahead.
I think this thread is conflating wasted money with wasted materials. Buying a nice tool once and underutilizing it wastes money. Buying cheap tools multiple times wastes materials.
That underused professional tool is as much a waste as the underused cheap one, maybe more considering the upgrade in materials. And between cost and materials, it's obvious which is the most on the mind of the consumer. The aliexpress tool is already rusting sitting on the shelf and I don't care. If I had followed "the mantra" and spent hundreds I'd feel like a sucker each time I opened my tool box.
Nice tools are nice because they use more resources.
A Milwaukee drill is physically heavier than a Ryobi of the same size - purely because of all of the upgraded components to make it more durable/longer-lasting.
But if you are only touching 5% of the expected lifespan of your tool, no need to have one that's over-engineered.
1. is the milwaukee doubly-engineered compared to the ryobi? because if you end up with 2 ryobis, that's twice the material/energy input of the one milwaukee
2. you seem to be ignoring the possibility that the milwaukee is "so" over-engineered that you pass it on to someone else, greatly extending its effective lifetime.
Again, from personal experience I have yet to ever get rid of a tool because it failed on me. The only reason I have ever lost a tool was through theft, the battery/charger/replaceable component was no longer supported, or the tool was too unsafe to use.
If I was a professional or ran a tool rental business I would 100% agree. But I wouldn't buy a pickup track no matter how durable if all I need it to do is grab groceries. It's better to get a tool engineered for the level of work expected.
for the typical level of work expected, or (as most Americans do with their vehicles) the "max" level of work expected?
There are plumbing tools I will never buy because I'm not a professional plumber. But you can be sure that the plumbing tools that I do own are top of the line for the tasks that they can accomplish.
Well, the one I am thinking of is an old-school all-metal belt sander that my grandfather gave to me.
The thing is an heirloom and may very well last forever, but basically has an unacceptable lack of modern safety features at this point. No trips, no guards, horrible ergonomics, weighs a ton, and has no grounding (keep in mind it's all metal). It also takes non-standard belts and I may or may not have cut my hand open twice just trying to change them.
So while I can understand the appeal of buying a tool that lasts forever, what are the odds you will actually want to use it forever?
There is also a safety concern with overly cheap tools.
For an example, the adjustable wrench in this article. What happens when you apply a lot of force on a stubborn nut? If the wrench experiences rapid unscheduled disassembly, you now have broken pieces flying in random directions.
In the US, the thing that most prevents this from being a problem is the threat of liability lawsuits. That doesn't apply to a tool made by a small company in China and sold by a fly-by-night outfit on Amazon's marketplace. I'm guessing Amazon is unknowingly the liable party here, but I'm not a lawyer.
What's going to happen is that the nut will round over, because there's little in this design to prevent the jaw back-driving the helix. Having used a lot of adjustable wrenches, and rounded over quite a few bolts, now I keep sets of open-end wrenches in reach on the toolbench and for adjustables I carry exclusively Knipex Pliers Wrenches, which are awesome tools. There's no way you're breaking the casting of the wrench without a big cheater bar, which I admit to having used...while wearing safety glasses.
Knipex are awesome, a good example of quality resulting in a tool that lasts much longer than the cheap tools and causing much less damage to the nuts you are working on.
> I've long subscribed to the philosophy that you should buy the cheapest tool you can find and use safely [...] Too much money is thrown away in the name of "buy once, cry once" only to discover that you don't need the capabilities offered by the top of the line options.
How about something in between these two extremes? You don't need to go "top of the line", but you can save yourself a lot of frustration if you spend a little more than the absolute minimum...
I have two exception for the buy it cheap rule. I first look for a high quality option being sold used. Sometimes you can get the better option for cheaper. This is of course only worth the time on more expensive stuff.
Then, I also have started getting the one step up from the cheapest option. A lot of times that seems to be a better buy these days.
I follow this for things I truly will need occasionally, like most specialized car repair tools. But my exceptions are things I know I will use regularly. In addition to not replacing things as they wear out, my reasoning is that it's nice to have a set of each type of tool, with a storage case instead of ending up with a large mix of tools. Of course, someone else might have a different list of regularly used tools and some of the following list is from trial and error, I didn't get all of these right the first time.
- Screwdrivers: I have 2 Wera sets with many bits (small and large). They come with nice fabric/velcro carrying cases that are perfect for throwing in a bag, car, or drawer. High quality and the packaging is worth it compared to something loose or in a plastic case. I also have one full set of non-configurable Vessel screwdrivers that stays in my work area. They are a wooden composite, feel professional but are not much more than crafstman prices.[2]
- Wire strippers, side cutters, adjustable wrenches, pliers, etc: These really depend on material properties and tight tolerance, and it's worth buying quality. I like Knipex and engineer brands.
- Sockets and non-adjustable wrenches: These tend to be sold in large sets at sale prices and at various qualities. Unless you're a mechanic you can probably go into any hardware store, do a quick google search for complaints, and buy the cheapest set of sockets and wrenches. Don't pay for "200 pieces" including crappy little 1/4" bits and crappy screwdrivers in a giant blow-molded case that will annoy you later. Bonus points if you can find a small, nice case filled with actually useful sizes (probably <18mm and/or 3/4").
- Ratcheting screwdrivers: don't buy one unless you really find you need one for some reason. If you do buy one, it will either be useless or expensive.
- Drill bits: buy house brand from an industrial supply shop or mcmaster. Make sure it's easy and cheap to replace individual sizes.
- Battery-powered tools: Pick something like DeWalt, Bosch, Milwaukee or Hitachi/Hikoki[2,3] (the name of this one varies wildly with region) with a full range of tools and good reputation
- Soldering iron: You probably don't need more power than a pinecil which is usb-c and super-portable.[4] Plus it's got RISC-V cred. It's so convenient to unplug my laptop for 30 minutes and plug this in, or plug into a usb-c battery. For benchtop, a "Hakko clone" that takes abundant and great TS12 tips is good. To be honest I never touch my clone or my much more expensive but heavy actual Hakko soldering station since I got the pinecil. Both pinecil and the clone similar price to a piece of crap with poor temperature control from the hardware store.
[2]I chose Hikoki because I move around and it's available globally, and because it has excellent but pretty inexpensive vacuum cleaners that use the same batteries as the power tools.
The free tools that come included with that 3D printer you just bought will slip and ruin at least one of the hex nuts holding the FEP to the vat and you will have to spend nearly $100 for a new vat when you could have instead spent $45 on a set of Wera hex tools, not trashed the hex screw, and have a damn nice set of hex tools forever. (And your bike will thank you as well.)
Where exactly did OP advocate for using free tools that come included with your new [3D Printer / Furniture / etc]?
Also, anecdotally after 30+ years of using the free tools that come included with [whatever], I have never once ruined any of the hardware. The saying goes that a poor craftsman blames his tools, and that seems apt here.
I would argue that outside of the Elon Musk tier of the deep tech world (and there's really only one person like that) almost every other person I know making measurable progress in hard technology is extremely focused on one thing at a time. The Crichton style 100-things-at-once approach grabs more headlines, retweets, and attention - but most of the engineers I know working on fusion reactors, electric vehicles, carbon capture, artificial intelligence, space travel, and medical advances are not trying to be VCs, entertainers, authors, and philanthropists at the same time they move their field forward.
Focus on running towards what actually moves the world forward and you'll discover the other people who are keeping up with you quickly. Don't worry about all of the noise around busier people working on other things. None of that will last.
Meter is a developing next-generation volumetric imaging technology. We are building a machine that can see inside of anything and cloud-based software for processing the complex, volumetric data that the machine produces. Our technology will give engineers, designers, and eventually medical practitioners more confidence in their processes and lower the barrier to high quality imaging and inspection tools.
Our team of engineers includes world-class researchers, industrial designers, PhDs, founders of successful startups, and zero egos. We are backed by some of the top venture capital funds and angel investors in Silicon Valley and beyond. The company is headquartered in Cambridge, MA and has an office in San Francisco, CA.
We’re hiring across a number of open positions including…
Computational Imaging Scientist - Build state-of-the-art image processing systems
Research Scientist - Independently lead and contribute to applied research projects
Mechanical Engineer - Design structural components and motion systems for products
Backend Web Engineer- Drive development of the backend tech stack behind Meter’s customer-facing web app and websites
Computational Geometry Engineer - Build state-of-the-art geometry processing systems
DevOps Engineer -Architect Meter’s cloud data processing pipeline for performance and scalability
Frontend Engineer - Build user-friendly 3D experiences utilizing React, Typescript, Three.js, and WebGL
Meter is a developing next-generation volumetric imaging technology. We are building a machine that can see inside of anything and cloud-based software for processing the complex, volumetric data that the machine produces. Our technology will give engineers, designers, and eventually medical practitioners more confidence in their processes and lower the barrier to high quality imaging and inspection tools.
Our team of engineers includes world-class researchers, industrial designers, PhDs, founders of successful startups, and zero egos. We are backed by some of the top venture capital funds and angel investors in Silicon Valley and beyond. The company is headquartered in Cambridge, MA and has an office in San Francisco, CA.
We’re hiring across a number of open positions including…
Computational Imaging Scientist - Build state-of-the-art image processing systems
Research Scientist - Independently lead and contribute to applied research projects
Mechanical Engineer - Design structural components and motion systems for products
Backend Web Engineer- Drive development of the backend tech stack behind Meter’s customer-facing web app and websites
Computational Geometry Engineer - Build state-of-the-art geometry processing systems
DevOps Engineer -Architect Meter’s cloud data processing pipeline for performance and scalability
Frontend Engineer - Build user-friendly 3D experiences utilizing React, Typescript, Three.js, and WebGL
UI/UX Designer - Lead design for an integrated hardware/software ecosystem
Meter is a developing next-generation volumetric imaging technology. We are building a machine that can see inside of anything and cloud-based software for processing the complex, volumetric data that the machine produces. Our technology will give engineers, designers, and eventually medical practitioners more confidence in their processes and lower the barrier to high quality imaging and inspection tools.
Our team of engineers includes world-class researchers and industrial designers, PhDs, founders of successful startups, and zero egos. We are backed by some of the top venture capital funds and angel investors in Silicon Valley and beyond. The company is headquartered in Cambridge, MA and has an office in San Francisco, CA.
We’re hiring across a number of open positions including…
Computational Imaging Scientist - Build state-of-the-art image processing systems
Research Scientist - Independently lead and contribute to applied research projects
Mechanical Engineer - Design structural components and motion systems for products
Backend Web Engineer- Drive development of the backend tech stack behind Meter’s customer-facing web app and websites
Computational Geometry Engineer - Build state-of-the-art geometry processing systems
DevOps Engineer -Architect Meter’s cloud data processing pipeline for performance and scalability
Frontend Engineer - Build user-friendly 3D experiences utilizing React, Typescript, Three.js, and WebGL
UI/UX Designer - Lead design for an integrated hardware/software ecosystem
Gimmick or not, wearables (Watch + Airpods) are a massive business for Apple. Large enough that they would be a F500 company if spun out at current revenue numbers.
This was written back when YC was a few companies per batch and all of the biggest successes were yet to materialize.
Today?
Stripe: 2,500+, AirBnB: 6,300+, Dropbox: 2,300+
I wonder if this stance changed a dozen years later now that there are several multi-thousand person organizations in the YC network. Does PG think differently today after seeing several examples of large companies run by people he knows personally, or would he tell a talented hacker not to work at Stripe because it is too big?
> In a way, every scaling startup is an experiment in empirical microeconomics research on “What parts of the typical corporate form are necessary and which are pageantry which we only keep around due to anchoring, the sunk cost fallacy, and tradition?” Every time a startup bites the bullet and hires a VP of Sales, a lifecycle email copywriter, a retirements benefits administrator, or a cook, count that as a published result saying “Yep, we found this to be necessary.”
They also need large departments for everything else: Accounting, engineering, HR, legal, facilities management, marketing, IT, customer service, etc. You simply can't run a huge business without a large number of employees, and you need a deep management hierarchy for that to remotely work.
Customer service tends to scale linear to sales, while engineering may or may not, so it gets pretty impossible to run a massive company with few employees without being massively hands off.
Engineering definitely scales sub-linearly to revenue (unless you're a body shop), but it's definitely always still above a constant. Large tech companies would be crazy to keep their engineering teams artificially low, because when you're making billions in revenue the added headcount ends up paying for itself even if it's only capturing that last 1% of possible product efficiency gains. Like, Google Search could be nearly as good as it is now with 1/20th the engineers -- but that last bit of improvement is still absolutely worth having the much bigger team.
Management guru Tom Peters has claimed all you need to do is outsource; and the minimal corporation is a CEO with a computer & phone. This was in the 90s, tho.
This clearly doesn't actually work though; how many Fortune 500 companies can you point to that use a mostly outsourced employee base, even for their core functions? The closest you can get is likely an Uber or similar, but all they've outsourced is drivers and janitors; they still employ many thousands of engineers, salespeople, etc.
Also, the management chain still exists, it's just at a different company. But from the worker's perspective that's irrelevant; just as many people still have bosses.
Well that is a bit of a showing up to a luxury/sports car/truck discussion and saying 'my daily driver is a bicycle' philosophical difference/smartassery. It is clearly objectively worse in several ways (cargo capacity, max speed, environmental conditions) but better in ways that the others don't even try for (no emissions, gives exercise to the operator, negligible road wear). They fundamentally aren't even trying for a monolith but to become 'independent' as possible. Less charitably it could be called sophistry to self-justify their flaws and failings.
A hypothetical 'outsource everything' company would be perfectly agile because everything else is fungible replaced with whoever is doing the outsourcing regardless of what is going on everywhere else. The downsides are not only that they are the reverse ofvertically intergrated in that they give up margins to everyone else in the chain and that they have no differentiator other than what they can provide as 'middleware' and outsourcing everything to stay that agile means that it is shrank by design. They would have to provide real value margin as a middleman in order to exist long term vs the clients 'just putting all of the pieces themselves'.
The point is that large corporations have fundamentally moved society forward in many ways that small single-person companies simply cannot do. You don't get smartphones and automobiles and electricity without large corporations.
People can talk all day about how people shouldn't have bosses, but they don't stop and consider what civilization would actually look like if that were true. It would look radically different from today.
That’s not a firm, it’s just a person participating in the economy. There is a whole field of economics that asks: “having regard to the fact that if production is regulated by price movements, production could be carried on without any organisation at all … why is there any organisation?” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
True. But services you need all the time are or at least should be much cheaper in house. I mean your inhouse lawyer probably costs 100/h, outsourced 400/h.
Germany? So lets say 25/h is overhead (office space etc), 1680 workhours per year, so about 125k. Taking 80% to calculate the employees gross salary gives 100k annual. As far as I understand this is a very decent salary.
How much do you pay inhouse councils in your country?
It’s the same with the article “Great Hackers” and Graham’s previous impassioned advocacy of private offices for every knowledge worker, even in dense urban centers.
It’s frankly hypocritical of Graham not to ensure YC and its companies embody values like this.
Instead he and other “thought leaders” around VC want to be viewed as progressive, forward-thinking people with an advocacy to avoid commodity thinking towards workers & their lives and workspaces.
But it’s all lip service - bluster so Graham can sound like he’s the good guy but actually just function as the same exploitative commodity thinking old boys club kind of investor privately.
All the PR credit without actually putting his money where his mouth is.
> It’s frankly hypocritical of Graham not to ensure YC and its companies embody values like this.
That is a strange sentiment, sorry. PG is not some omnipotent being that can "ensure" anything for the companies he originally helped launch. His "enforcement" options are probably minimal, based on his (by now many times diluted) ownership. The best he can do is advocate, leveraging a lot of respect he still commands in the startup community. And this is what he is doing there. My 2c.
Nah sorry, the leaders of organizations set the values and expectations, and if they make it a cultural priority, others will follow.
He is just profiting from pushing worse working conditions onto the end employee - conditions he has himself criticized but nonetheless does not actually put his money where his mouth is to engage in much more direct advocacy or culture building within YC & its companies - most likely because his views actually are hypocritical.
When it was himself and a few people dealing with a small family of startups, then he cared. He did not want those people treated in a commodity way. When his stake is in a nameless batch of companies each trying to grow huge staffs while offering very poor total comp (even accounting for equity) on false promises that YC startup workplaces would let you avoid the bureaucratic blockers of established companies that pay better, his view has shifted to see those workers as commodities, not to be invested in to do good work, but to be given the most threadbare open office working environments with the least investment and high built in expectations of turnover due to employees gradually realizing how poor the total comp is (even accounting for equity). YC is a sort of nicely branded start-up mill. Not an incubator, but a mill.
This is obviously much lower status than what Graham wants to be known for, so he talks a big game like it’s a very productivity-centric incubator environment, while tacitly endorsing practices that make it more like a mill, with poor commodity treatment of workers in terms of total comp and workplace conditions.
“Diluted ownership” is a poor attempt at an excuse for that.
It’s interesting to see it in contrast to Joel Spolsky, who actually did put his money where his mouth is and give employees private offices, even in Manhattan, and has continued doubling down on private offices as the right strategy year after year.
