Hacker News Reader

Comment by troupe | Hacker News Reader

There are some people who just waste their money, but there are also a wide difference in the value people get from their cars and computers. Someone billing $500 per hour is going to be a lot more willing to upgrade their computer for even a small improvement. They may even keep a spare computer just to make sure they have minimum downtime if something goes wrong. Someone who just uses their computer to watch youtube videos may be fine keeping their computer until it stops working.

View on HN

When I got Amazoned a couple of months ago and didn’t have a personal computer at all, a side contract fell into my lap where I billed $150/hour. (Don’t cry for me. I found a full time job 3 weeks later).

I recouped the cost of the M2 MacBook Air 24GB RAM/1TB in less than 15 hours worth of work - taking my after tax rate into account.

My work was not compute intensive so the Air was fine. But I would definitely pay for a 30% improvement at that bill rate.

Excuse me, but why? If your work takes longer on a slower computer, you can bill more. But if you can complete two projects in the same time on a faster computer, you work harder but can't bill more. This only seems to work if you bill $150/project but if you bill hourly it doesn't work out. Yet you and the parent comment have said this, what am I missing?

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?

> "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.

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.

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.

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.

And I'm asking why you would, when that appears to lead to lower income in the situation you described. Will you explain?

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.

That's totally fair as well.

However.

I expect that the majority of people who upgrade their computer regularly can't justify it as a business expense. But I could be wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com