A 2-fold increase in one, while keeping the other fixed, is literally the same as having the roles reversed.
But doubling the cost also doubles the cost (in addition to impact), while doubling the cost-effectiveness doubles only the impact. Thatâs a pretty big difference!
Like if we could either make 80k twice as big in terms of quality-adjusted employees while keeping impact per quality-adjusted employee constant, or do the inverse, we should very likely prefer the inverse, since that leaves more talent available for other projects. (I say âvery likelyâ because, as noted in the post, it can be valuable to practice running big things so weâre more able to run other big things.)
So I disagree that your simple summary of whatâs going on is a sufficient and clear picture (though your equation itself is obviously correct).
Separately, I agree with your second paragraph with respect to money, but mildly disagree with the final sentence specifically with respect to talent, or at least âvetted and trainedâ talentâthatâs less scarce than it used to be, but still scarce enough that itâs not simply like thereâs a surplus relative to projects that can absorb it. (Though more project ideas or early stage projects would still help us more productively absorb certain specific people, and Iâd also say thereâs kind of a surplus of less vetted and trained talent.)
I simply disagree with your conclusionâit all boils down to what we have at hand. Doubling the cost-effectiveness also requires work, it doesnât happen by magic. If you are not constrained by highly effective projects which can use your resources, sure, go for it. As it seems though, we have much more resources than current small scale projects are able to absorb, and thereâs a lot of âleft-overâ resources. Thus, it makes sense to start allocating resources to some less effective stuff.
Doubling the cost effectiveness while maintaining cost absorbed, and doubling cost absorbed while maintaining cost effectiveness, would both take work (scaling without dilution/âbreaking is also hard). Probably one tends to be harder, but thatâd vary a lot between cases. But if we could achieve either for free by magic, or alternatively if we assume an equal hardness for either, then doubling cost effectiveness would very likely be better, for the reason stated above. (And thatâs sufficient for âliterally the sameâ to have been an inaccurate claim.)
I think thatâs just fairly obvious. Like if you really imagine you could press a button to have either effect on 80k for free or for the same cost either way, I think you really should want to press the âmore cost effectiveâ button, otherwise youâre basically spending extra talent for no reason. (With the caveat given above. Also a caveat that absorbing talent also helps build their career capitalâshouldâve mentioned that earlier. But still thatâs probably less good than them doing some other option and 80k getting the extra impact without extra labour.)
As noted above, weâre still fairly constrained on some resources, esp. certain types of talent. We donât have left overs of all types of resources. (E.g. I could very easily swap from my current job into any of several other high impact jobs, but wonât because thereâs only 1 me and I think my current job is the best use of current me, and I know several other people in this position. With respect to such people, there are left over positions/âproject ideas, not left over resources-in-the-form-of-people.)
But doubling the cost also doubles the cost (in addition to impact), while doubling the cost-effectiveness doubles only the impact. Thatâs a pretty big difference!
Like if we could either make 80k twice as big in terms of quality-adjusted employees while keeping impact per quality-adjusted employee constant, or do the inverse, we should very likely prefer the inverse, since that leaves more talent available for other projects. (I say âvery likelyâ because, as noted in the post, it can be valuable to practice running big things so weâre more able to run other big things.)
So I disagree that your simple summary of whatâs going on is a sufficient and clear picture (though your equation itself is obviously correct).
Separately, I agree with your second paragraph with respect to money, but mildly disagree with the final sentence specifically with respect to talent, or at least âvetted and trainedâ talentâthatâs less scarce than it used to be, but still scarce enough that itâs not simply like thereâs a surplus relative to projects that can absorb it. (Though more project ideas or early stage projects would still help us more productively absorb certain specific people, and Iâd also say thereâs kind of a surplus of less vetted and trained talent.)
I simply disagree with your conclusionâit all boils down to what we have at hand. Doubling the cost-effectiveness also requires work, it doesnât happen by magic. If you are not constrained by highly effective projects which can use your resources, sure, go for it. As it seems though, we have much more resources than current small scale projects are able to absorb, and thereâs a lot of âleft-overâ resources. Thus, it makes sense to start allocating resources to some less effective stuff.
Doubling the cost effectiveness while maintaining cost absorbed, and doubling cost absorbed while maintaining cost effectiveness, would both take work (scaling without dilution/âbreaking is also hard). Probably one tends to be harder, but thatâd vary a lot between cases. But if we could achieve either for free by magic, or alternatively if we assume an equal hardness for either, then doubling cost effectiveness would very likely be better, for the reason stated above. (And thatâs sufficient for âliterally the sameâ to have been an inaccurate claim.)
I think thatâs just fairly obvious. Like if you really imagine you could press a button to have either effect on 80k for free or for the same cost either way, I think you really should want to press the âmore cost effectiveâ button, otherwise youâre basically spending extra talent for no reason. (With the caveat given above. Also a caveat that absorbing talent also helps build their career capitalâshouldâve mentioned that earlier. But still thatâs probably less good than them doing some other option and 80k getting the extra impact without extra labour.)
As noted above, weâre still fairly constrained on some resources, esp. certain types of talent. We donât have left overs of all types of resources. (E.g. I could very easily swap from my current job into any of several other high impact jobs, but wonât because thereâs only 1 me and I think my current job is the best use of current me, and I know several other people in this position. With respect to such people, there are left over positions/âproject ideas, not left over resources-in-the-form-of-people.)