On one hand: it seems Scott covered this in his post, Ars Longa Vita Brevis. It seems obvious there that saving one hour of time at the start of the Teacher-of-Teachers life is equivalent to saving one hour of time at the end of their life.
However, in this post, and in the example of quantitative trading, these areas have several important elements:
The scope of the area is effectively infinite. You can always learn to be a better teacher, and you will always be adapting to changing market conditions when quantitative trading.
You can work in these areas continually (24/7). They aren’t limited by closing times, weekends, public holidays, etc. Learning to be a better teacher doesn’t stop at 5pm, and honing the tools of your quantitative trading trade doesn’t need to stop when the market closes.
Value is immediately available, for your time to be compensated as you go. In the case of a Teacher-of-Teachers, the person is supported lifelong in their task. In the case of quantitative trading, the market rewards you immediately.
Increasing your skills quickly increases the value you receive in exchange. Learning a better teaching technique = your student makes more progress. Learning a better quantitative trading technique = you make more money the next day.
However, consider the case of a someone who works at a restaurant during the week, washing dishes by hand. They love their job, and want to keep doing it. They start out at $5/hour, and at the end of their career, they do such an excellent job that they are paid $50/hour.
The scope is very limited. Once they’ve been washing dishes for 20 years, an extra 30 won’t make a massive improvement.
The work is limited. If the restaurant is closed, they can’t wash dishes.
Spending time in the weekend improving their dish-washing skills has very little benefit, and doesn’t pay them anything.
Getting 2% faster at washing dishes won’t improve their wage by 2%. It might not improve it at all. If it does, the payrise will be very much delayed — often until the annual performance review, or as an increase when changing jobs.
In this case, for this person, saving two hours in the weekend isn’t worth $100 (future wage) to them. It probably isn’t even worth $10 to them (their current wage). Going off earnings only, their time during the weekend is valued at $0.
I feel the same is true of most jobs. I get paid a salary for working certain hours. Outside of those hours, I get paid nothing. Should I pay someone $20 to wash my car in the weekend, or should I spend an hour doing it myself?
I have mixed thoughts about this post.
On one hand: it seems Scott covered this in his post, Ars Longa Vita Brevis.
It seems obvious there that saving one hour of time at the start of the Teacher-of-Teachers life is equivalent to saving one hour of time at the end of their life.
However, in this post, and in the example of quantitative trading, these areas have several important elements:
The scope of the area is effectively infinite. You can always learn to be a better teacher, and you will always be adapting to changing market conditions when quantitative trading.
You can work in these areas continually (24/7). They aren’t limited by closing times, weekends, public holidays, etc. Learning to be a better teacher doesn’t stop at 5pm, and honing the tools of your quantitative trading trade doesn’t need to stop when the market closes.
Value is immediately available, for your time to be compensated as you go. In the case of a Teacher-of-Teachers, the person is supported lifelong in their task. In the case of quantitative trading, the market rewards you immediately.
Increasing your skills quickly increases the value you receive in exchange. Learning a better teaching technique = your student makes more progress. Learning a better quantitative trading technique = you make more money the next day.
However, consider the case of a someone who works at a restaurant during the week, washing dishes by hand. They love their job, and want to keep doing it. They start out at $5/hour, and at the end of their career, they do such an excellent job that they are paid $50/hour.
The scope is very limited. Once they’ve been washing dishes for 20 years, an extra 30 won’t make a massive improvement.
The work is limited. If the restaurant is closed, they can’t wash dishes.
Spending time in the weekend improving their dish-washing skills has very little benefit, and doesn’t pay them anything.
Getting 2% faster at washing dishes won’t improve their wage by 2%. It might not improve it at all. If it does, the payrise will be very much delayed — often until the annual performance review, or as an increase when changing jobs.
In this case, for this person, saving two hours in the weekend isn’t worth $100 (future wage) to them. It probably isn’t even worth $10 to them (their current wage).
Going off earnings only, their time during the weekend is valued at $0.
I feel the same is true of most jobs.
I get paid a salary for working certain hours. Outside of those hours, I get paid nothing.
Should I pay someone $20 to wash my car in the weekend, or should I spend an hour doing it myself?
The above could be summarised as: Are you rewarded for results? or for time?
If you’re rewarded for results: The value of your time is the value of the marginal hour at the end of your career.
If you’re rewarded for time: The value of your time is the value of whatever you’re currently being paid.