This sentence can be (and has been in the comments) criticized from many angles: Since we are employing two programmers to do work on the same keyboard at the

This sentence can be (and has been in the comments) criticized from many angles: Since we are employing two programmers to do work on the same keyboard at the same time, the output of pair programming must be greater than 2x the output of a single programmer to make sense. I think it's bad because it shows a lack of understanding of metrics: The only valid productivity metric is code that works, and that everyone agrees does what it is meant to do. Code that does what it is meant to do without bugs is worth a lot more. Try quantifying that. I dare you. Counterbalancing that is time-to-market. Expedient hacks are worth a lot, too. That you can, sort of, quantify. Risk capital costs a lot more than cash flow. Do your coders understand that? Where to use pair programming? Probably not when you are racing to find product market fit. Possibly yes when you can lose existing customers due to a nasty bug (that may have root causes in early stage expedience). Avoid dogma.