4 ms·

If you are billing at $150 per hour, people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more

by troupe 3y ago

If you are billing at $150 per hour, people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer." Imagine you go to see a lawyer who is charging you $750 per hour, but instead of using a computer, they are writing everything out by hand and then personally using a typewriter to type up their notes. You ask why they don't use a computer and they point out that they can make more money by billing you for the time it takes to use slower technologies. Might you consider a different lawyer?

jodrellblank 3y ago
> "probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" And yet, regardless of how moral it is, the calculation seems correct - billing at $150 an hour means things which take longer, get you more money. Two people have claimed that a faster computer will earn them more money, while describing a situation wherein a faster computer will earn them less money. It doesn't make sense. With your lawyer comparison it's easy to see paper and tyepwriter; are you suggesting that customers know whether contractors are using an Apple M1 or an Apple M3, and have an idea of how much time that ought to change the quote by, and would consider a different contractor based on the computer they are using? I doubt clients have that insight or interest. Are you saying they buy Apple M3 because they are more moral contractors and it's the right thing to do? Even if it is more moral, I find that unlikely to be the reason since the argument was explicitly "it makes me more money" not "it saves my customers money". > "people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" I think people would see you upgrading your M1 to an M3 and decide you were being extravagant and therefore charging them too much, and leave for a competitor who is more frugal. Far more than they would decide you were a con artist because you didn't have the latest and greatest. Are you saying that the reason to invest in a new top of the line Apple laptop is to compete on a race-to-the-bottom where you can undercut competing quotes? That also feels unlikely - you could likely do that more effectively with a second hand AMD Ryzen desktop than a new Macbook Pro (something the well-informed customer would know) and that people competing in a race to be cheapest tend to aggressively penny-pinch rather than aggressively spend on the best.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Well first, no one racing to get the cheapest pays $150/hour. You pay $150/hour for someone with unique expertise. And good luck taking that AMD Ryzen desktop on a customer site.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    They paid for you at that rate with an M2, you said you would "definitely pay for a 30% improvement" - that suggests you would be done in less time and able to bill less money, and if you were on-site you couldn't even hide it from them and pocket the difference - so why would you? That's the bit which makes no sense.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      I said I would pay for a 30% improvement - meaning if it would have improved my productivity or even just be less irritating. Most of my time is spent between the AWS console and VS Code writing Python and Node. A faster computer wouldn’t speed that up.
      - jodrellblank 3y ago
        And I'm asking why you would, when that appears to lead to lower income in the situation you described. Will you explain?
        troupe 3y ago
        If you are optimizing for making the current job take longer, then you should use a slower computer. However, if the reason people will pay you $150 per hour is because you are 10 times faster than the person who costs $50 per hour, you want to keep your speed as high as possible because that it what creates the long term demand for your services.

by troupe 3y ago

jodrellblank 3y ago

> "probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" And yet, regardless of how moral it is, the calculation seems correct - billing at $150 an hour means things which take longer, get you more money. Two people have claimed that a faster computer will earn them more money, while describing a situation wherein a faster computer will earn them less money. It doesn't make sense. With your lawyer comparison it's easy to see paper and tyepwriter; are you suggesting that customers know whether contractors are using an Apple M1 or an Apple M3, and have an idea of how much time that ought to change the quote by, and would consider a different contractor based on the computer they are using? I doubt clients have that insight or interest. Are you saying they buy Apple M3 because they are more moral contractors and it's the right thing to do? Even if it is more moral, I find that unlikely to be the reason since the argument was explicitly "it makes me more money" not "it saves my customers money". > "people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" I think people would see you upgrading your M1 to an M3 and decide you were being extravagant and therefore charging them too much, and leave for a competitor who is more frugal. Far more than they would decide you were a con artist because you didn't have the latest and greatest. Are you saying that the reason to invest in a new top of the line Apple laptop is to compete on a race-to-the-bottom where you can undercut competing quotes? That also feels unlikely - you could likely do that more effectively with a second hand AMD Ryzen desktop than a new Macbook Pro (something the well-informed customer would know) and that people competing in a race to be cheapest tend to aggressively penny-pinch rather than aggressively spend on the best.

scarface_74 3y ago
Well first, no one racing to get the cheapest pays $150/hour. You pay $150/hour for someone with unique expertise. And good luck taking that AMD Ryzen desktop on a customer site.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  They paid for you at that rate with an M2, you said you would "definitely pay for a 30% improvement" - that suggests you would be done in less time and able to bill less money, and if you were on-site you couldn't even hide it from them and pocket the difference - so why would you? That's the bit which makes no sense.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    I said I would pay for a 30% improvement - meaning if it would have improved my productivity or even just be less irritating. Most of my time is spent between the AWS console and VS Code writing Python and Node. A faster computer wouldn’t speed that up.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      And I'm asking why you would, when that appears to lead to lower income in the situation you described. Will you explain?
      - troupe 3y ago
        If you are optimizing for making the current job take longer, then you should use a slower computer. However, if the reason people will pay you $150 per hour is because you are 10 times faster than the person who costs $50 per hour, you want to keep your speed as high as possible because that it what creates the long term demand for your services.