[ejp]

Judging from a recent thing I watched[1] ... ~1.5 mins per nail (as of the 8.5 hr + 352 nail mark), while streaming and talking.

That would bring it down to only ~7 years of labor if we call it 1 min per nail, assuming that you're already working from prepared bar stock. Still a significant expenditure of skilled labor!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jAFLG8Y1XY

[Aloisius]

A nailer in the US in the 18th century could apparently make 200 nails per hour.[1] One in the UK reported making 3,000 nails/day in the 19th century.[2] Adam Smith reported seeing boys making 2,300 nails/day.[3]

As I understand it, nail making was largely unchanged from the Roman era. One would have to adjust for work hours which differed in the past than today for those, but it like it would take someone 2 years to produce that number working modern hours, though likely less than 1 in the era they were produced.

[1] https://www.mortiseandtenonmag.com/blogs/blog/issue-15-t-o-c...

[2] https://www.bournheath-pc.gov.uk/about-bournheath/bournheath...

[3] https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-1-of-the-di...

[hex4def6]

Apples to oranges, but assuming the equivalent of (say) $10/hour, at 2300 nails / hr * 8 hrs, that would be $80 for 18,400 nails, or $0.004/nail.

Quick google suggests iron was 1/300 the value of silver in the Roman empire, so if we say $40/oz, that makes an oz of iron = $0.13.

a 10-penny nail is about 0.2oz, so $0.026/nail.

$0.026 + 0.004 = $0.03/nail.

If I go to home depot, 1lb / ~80 10-penny nails would cost me $9, or $0.11.

So, astoundingly, it was cheaper in the Roman empire to buy nails(??). That doesn't seem right... Modern nails are different material (galvanized / zinc coated), but still.

[opwieurposiu]

The gp was saying around 200 nails an hour, not 2k an hour. Your labor cost is an order of magnitude too low.

I can't find the price of nails in roman times, but 300 years ago it was around a buck a nail.

https://www.nber.org/digest/202203/tracking-price-nails-1695

[paulorlando]

That report interested me. Especially how the price has gone up in the last century. There's another study that tracks the cost of lighting over the centuries as well: https://lucept.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/william-nordha...

[hex4def6]

Sure. I guess I was pointing out in a roundabout way that one of the assumptions must be wrong. I don't think 2,300/hr feels realistic. 200 seems much more reasonable (or less). I'd be inclined to believe 1 nail per minute (sustained). If you assume $20-40/hr, now we're up $2-4/nail which seems much more reasonable.

[Aloisius]

I think you misread the original comment. It doesn't say 2,300/hr.

It says 200/hr, 3,000/day and 2,300/day.

[ars]

I would not use silver to compare prices from that long ago, silver and gold were both cheaper than today.

I would use the salary for a day labor instead. Like if I spend my salary for a day on just nails, vs how many nails a smith could make for the same number of working hours.

[hex4def6]

Sure, but that means the Roman cost would be even cheaper. If silver was cheaper in Roman times, and iron was 1/300th the cost, then the Roman nail becomes even cheaper (which doesn't make sense)

I'm not sure what the hourly rate for a day laborer would be. $20/hr?

I think the real issues with this calculation are the idea someone can crank out 2,300 nails / hour. I think 1 per minute (sustained) seems much more reasonable. That makes the labor cost 40x more. And maybe it would be a semi-skilled occupation, so $20/hr or $40/hr makes more sense. So now the labor cost is 150x more.