5 ms·
The gp was saying around 200 nails an hour, not 2k an hour. Your labor cost is an order of magnitude too low. I can't find the price of nails in roman times,
by opwieurposiu 1y ago
The gp was saying around 200 nails an hour, not 2k an hour. Your labor cost is an order of magnitude too low.
I can't find the price of nails in roman times, but 300 years ago it was around a buck a nail.
https://www.nber.org/digest/202203/tracking-price-nails-1695 https://www.nber.org/digest/202203/tracking-price-nails-1695
- paulorlando 1y agoThat report interested me. Especially how the price has gone up in the last century. There's another study that tracks the cost of lighting over the centuries as well: https://lucept.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/william-nordhaus-the-cost-of-light.pdf https://lucept.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/william-nordha...
- hex4def6 1y agoSure. I guess I was pointing out in a roundabout way that one of the assumptions must be wrong. I don't think 2,300/hr feels realistic. 200 seems much more reasonable (or less). I'd be inclined to believe 1 nail per minute (sustained). If you assume $20-40/hr, now we're up $2-4/nail which seems much more reasonable.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Aloisius 1y agoI think you misread the original comment. It doesn't say 2,300/hr. It says 200/hr, 3,000/day and 2,300/day.