Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

["Keatah@worldnet.att.net" <Keatah@worldnet.att.net>]

Doesn't matter, people will and do kill people for money. Simple as
that, the only difference is how subtle and civilized the execution is.
Smart people with money will make stupid people without money do their
bidding. Killing them in the process, if necessary.


Eric Smith wrote:
> 
> > Example from Business 101: Choices such as patching up leaking pipes
> >  explosion/employee hazard) instead of a new package size, or
> > advertising theme. They said 'no right or wrong answer', but the
> > correlation between the choices and resulting marks was an amazing
> > coincidence, don't you think.
> 
> Victoria Welch <vikki@oz.net> writes:
> > What scares me is that I think I can imagine what the correlation was.
> >
> > Is this for real?
> >
> > I personally think the correct answer is more than obvious :-(!
> >
> > Just the fact (? is this *really* true?) that the choices are what they
> > are with "no right or wrong answer" rather shocks me.  Contrary to what
> > management school teaches, it is the *employees* that produce the
> > saleable goods that actually bring in the money.  Perhaps the US
> > workforce has reached the level where killing them off doesn't affect
> > the bottom line significantly.
> >
> > If this is really true and not a joke or put on, perhaps working
> > conditions in third world countrys wouldn't be that much worse.
> >
> > Pardon me, but I am stunned.
> 
> Stunned?  It is very easy to understand the reasoning.  (Not that I
> condone it.)
> 
> If we spend the money on marketing, we expect $X additional return on
> investment.  There's a P% chance that an explosion will kill our employees,
> and cost us $Z.  So the expected outcome is (1-P/100)*X - (P/100)*Z.
> 
> If we spend the money on repairs, we expect no additional return on
> investment, but we also reduce the risk of killing the employees to nearly
> zero.  So the expected outcome is $0.
> 
> So if (1-P/100)*X is greater than (P/100)*Z, the choice is obviously to
> spend the money on marketing.
> 
> Where this usually falls apart, though, is that the probability P is
> deliberately estimated low, to make it more attractive to spend the money
> on marketing.  Or, the probability P is considered to be a constant, so
> the same decision is made every month, while in reality the dangerous
> condition is in fact getting worse.