[throwaway729]

> Hiring more people because of loss aversion also falls prey to the trap of "more people = more productive"

Although perhaps true, I don't really see how this is relevant to what CoolGuySteve said.

CoolGuySteve isn't recommending anything about the number of people that are hired for a particular role, or the rationale for picking that number. Rather, he's just observing something about the cost of being overly picky about the previously fixed number of people that are hired for a particular previously fixed set of openings.

[BurningFrog]

You don't always have a fixed number of positions.

Often it's "we could really use more people, but only if they're better than [some level]".

[ramblinjan]

I'll have to think some on this. I really was not trying to take the brutal "we only hire the best" nonsense that a lot of companies do.