"Tools are judged by their ability to do the job repeatedly and without fail" Not necessarily. I might just need it once, or for very light use. It is often true that you get what you pay for, but this doesn't mean you should pay for more than what you need.
Rarely is hiring a professional going to be cheaper than a cheap tool if you can do the job yourself.
Personally, I COMPLETELY understand the point of the article. There are certain tools I use a lot. For those, I avoid crap and try to buy Made in the USA stuff if I can help it (not that everything made here is good or everything made in China is bad - but the signal to noise ratio is definitely better if you buy domestically made stuff).
On the flip side though - there are other things that I expect to use
This is true if your time is not valuable. I frequently learn new skills, but it's because I enjoy it. If I factor in my normal salary of what I could be making if I was doing my normal job, it would definitely be cheaper to hire a professional than buying tools and DIYing it.
For jobs that don't look like they would be fun, or the skills I would learn would not be applicable in the future, I just get a tradesman to do it.
That assumes that you can always just trade time for money though. I get a salary. I don't have any option to just work extra hours and make more money. If I pay for something, that's taking up money that's coming in at an effectively fixed rate.
If I instead do something myself rather than paying someone else, I'm essentially generating income (instead of consuming it) by converting excess time into funds saved.
That assumes that you can always just trade time for money though. I get a salary. I don't have any option to just work extra hours and make more money. If I pay for something, that's taking up money that's coming in at an effectively fixed rate.
No it doesn't assume that. Your salary is merely a convenient way to assign a dollar value to your time. There are any number of things you could be doing with your time, like going on a vacation
If I instead do something myself rather than paying someone else, I'm essentially generating income (instead of consuming it) by converting excess time into funds saved.
You are generating income inefficiently as long as there is no way you could be making a higher wage than whatever you saved hiring a professional for the time it took you to do an equivalent job.
Division of labor was one of the primary advances that paved the way for modern society. It allows people to spend time doing the jobs they are most efficient at.
Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Then you don't really need it and should hire a professional to do the same work for a fraction of the cost.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Rarely is hiring a professional going to be cheaper than a cheap tool if you can do the job yourself.
Personally, I COMPLETELY understand the point of the article. There are certain tools I use a lot. For those, I avoid crap and try to buy Made in the USA stuff if I can help it (not that everything made here is good or everything made in China is bad - but the signal to noise ratio is definitely better if you buy domestically made stuff).
On the flip side though - there are other things that I expect to use
Re: (Score:2)
This is true if your time is not valuable. I frequently learn new skills, but it's because I enjoy it. If I factor in my normal salary of what I could be making if I was doing my normal job, it would definitely be cheaper to hire a professional than buying tools and DIYing it.
For jobs that don't look like they would be fun, or the skills I would learn would not be applicable in the future, I just get a tradesman to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes that you can always just trade time for money though. I get a salary. I don't have any option to just work extra hours and make more money. If I pay for something, that's taking up money that's coming in at an effectively fixed rate.
If I instead do something myself rather than paying someone else, I'm essentially generating income (instead of consuming it) by converting excess time into funds saved.
Re:Judgement (Score:2)
That assumes that you can always just trade time for money though. I get a salary. I don't have any option to just work extra hours and make more money. If I pay for something, that's taking up money that's coming in at an effectively fixed rate.
No it doesn't assume that. Your salary is merely a convenient way to assign a dollar value to your time. There are any number of things you could be doing with your time, like going on a vacation
If I instead do something myself rather than paying someone else, I'm essentially generating income (instead of consuming it) by converting excess time into funds saved.
You are generating income inefficiently as long as there is no way you could be making a higher wage than whatever you saved hiring a professional for the time it took you to do an equivalent job.
Division of labor was one of the primary advances that paved the way for modern society. It allows people to spend time doing the jobs they are most efficient at.