5 ms·

Economics doesn't work like that. By your reasoning, a good programmer who can finish the job in half the time of a bad programmer's, is also 50% cheaper. Peop

Economics doesn't work like that. By your reasoning, a good programmer who can finish the job in half the time of a bad programmer's, is also 50% cheaper. People are willing to pay $10000 for a flock of Britney Spears's hair. You don't seriously believe that that 10k represents the amount of energy required to make the hair, right?

ars 17y ago
> By your reasoning, a good programmer who can finish the job in half the time of a bad programmer's, is also 50% cheaper. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I said energy not time. Perhaps you could clarify. > People are willing to pay $10000 for a flock of Britney Spears's hair. You don't seriously believe that that 10k represents the amount of energy required to make the hair, right? How much energy does Britney Spears use compared to an average person? So yes, that hair cost a lot of energy to make. And if someone stole that hair, then they earned a profit of $10,000, which they will then spend, and consume products/energy equal to $10,000 (which they would not have done if they didn't have that money). Price = cost + profit. Cost is easy to correlate to energy usage. Profit goes in someones pocket, and works just like wages. The more you have, the more you spend, and therefor the more energy you use.
- FooBarWidget 17y ago
  > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I said energy not > time. Perhaps you could clarify. Energy is correlated to time. Powering a computer for 2 hours requires more energy than powering a computer for 1 hour. Ditto for humans. A good programmer can finish the job in 1 week and eat just as much food as the bad programmer in the same amount of time. The programmer needs 2 weeks to get the job done. Therefore, in the time needed for to finish the job, the bad programmer has eaten twice as much food as the good programmer, and has powered on his work station for twice the amount of time. Therefore a good programmer should be twice as cheap as a bad programmer, according to your reasoning. I can guarantee you, good programmers are usually twice as expensive as bad programmers. > How much energy does Britney Spears use compared to an > average person? So yes, that hair cost a lot of energy to > make. Since an average human's hair costs practically nothing, Britney Spears's hair is infinitely more expensive. Therefore, Britney Spears has used infinite more energy to generate her hair. Since human energy comes from food, Britney Spears has eaten an infinite amount of food. Riiiight.

ars 17y ago

> By your reasoning, a good programmer who can finish the job in half the time of a bad programmer's, is also 50% cheaper. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I said energy not time. Perhaps you could clarify. > People are willing to pay $10000 for a flock of Britney Spears's hair. You don't seriously believe that that 10k represents the amount of energy required to make the hair, right? How much energy does Britney Spears use compared to an average person? So yes, that hair cost a lot of energy to make. And if someone stole that hair, then they earned a profit of $10,000, which they will then spend, and consume products/energy equal to $10,000 (which they would not have done if they didn't have that money). Price = cost + profit. Cost is easy to correlate to energy usage. Profit goes in someones pocket, and works just like wages. The more you have, the more you spend, and therefor the more energy you use.

FooBarWidget 17y ago
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I said energy not > time. Perhaps you could clarify. Energy is correlated to time. Powering a computer for 2 hours requires more energy than powering a computer for 1 hour. Ditto for humans. A good programmer can finish the job in 1 week and eat just as much food as the bad programmer in the same amount of time. The programmer needs 2 weeks to get the job done. Therefore, in the time needed for to finish the job, the bad programmer has eaten twice as much food as the good programmer, and has powered on his work station for twice the amount of time. Therefore a good programmer should be twice as cheap as a bad programmer, according to your reasoning. I can guarantee you, good programmers are usually twice as expensive as bad programmers. > How much energy does Britney Spears use compared to an > average person? So yes, that hair cost a lot of energy to > make. Since an average human's hair costs practically nothing, Britney Spears's hair is infinitely more expensive. Therefore, Britney Spears has used infinite more energy to generate her hair. Since human energy comes from food, Britney Spears has eaten an infinite amount of food. Riiiight.