[EpicEng]

>By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best

I agree with your overall sentiment, but this isn't true at all. The best cost money, and the best don't want to work on boring stuff. Most software is boring. A team of mediocre devs is more often than not just fine to do the job and it keeps cost down (and turnover likely lower).

[SilasX]

In a way, "we only hire the best" is an admission that one doesn't understand the tradeoff you just described.[1]

(I call it "failing the Scylla-Charybdis Heuristic" when your model doesn't contain the downsides of opting for more of something: http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2015/12/the-scylla-charybd... )

[1] Edit: Though in some cases, one could say that, while legitimately accepting the tradeoffs it entails. Say, an environment where extremely competent people make a huge difference in terms of dollars and you have the budget to draw such people away from their alternatives. Perhaps asteroid mining, where all kinds of things could go wrong but you can't always provide remote assistance to the miner. Needless to say, "your scrappy startup with a CRUD app" is not that environment!

[mrkurt]

Usually just append "... for the position" when you see "we only hire the best".

[baddox]

Or really, “we only hire the best given all our criteria and constraints.” Then it’s solidly in the realm of tautology.

[paulddraper]

We hire the best we hire.

[mrkurt]

Not all criteria is binary, though. It's perfectly reasonable to say that "we hire the best for our given criteria". And probably more honest than most job promos. In fact, most meaningful criteria _isn't_ binary.

[pasquinelli]

so mediocre is better than best sometimes?

[gooseus]

I'd say so, do you want to drive a ferrari/porsche around your local city/town traffic? How about if nobody ever saw what you were driving and you just arrived at locations?

High-end resources are a pain in the ass to acquire and maintain... the best usually know they're the best and expect a lot of upkeep. The truth is that most work (as someone else mentioned) is boring and using high-end resources when lower-end will do is bad economics.

Most times when you get in a car, you're not racing someone else for your life or pink slips... you're just looking to go to the store and come back. Why waste half a tank and risk a flat in a racing machine just to go pick up milk?

[huac]

The question becomes what you optimize for - optimizing for speed picks you the Ferrari, optimizing for gas mileage gets you the Prius.

[EpicEng]

Definitely. Like any other decision, there's a cost/benefit assessment to be made. Why am I trying to hire super-ninja-ex-google-guy to code up my DB interface for the marketing folk? Doesn't make any sense, the value just isn't there, and super-ninja-ex-google-guy isn't going to take that job anyway.

Hell, I'm in this boat currently. I'm looking for a junior dev to help with certain menial tasks here and there. I'll pick the best _that I can quickly find_, but really, I just need someone halfway competent and I need them now.

[gscott]

Those trying to hire super-ninja-ex-google-guy want to raise more funding and need to brag to VC's to get more money.

[rdiddly]

...to pay for hiring super-ninja-ex-google-guy!

[Pharylon]

It's the Third Ferengi Rule of Acquisition. "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to."

Do you need to spend money on very best to code a simple CRUD page?

[phoe-krk]

It tends to get the job done cheaper and quicker instead of waiting for the "best" to get recruited, and then paying massive money to keep them at the company. Is that a suitable definition of "better"?