[dijit]

> HN is filled with people who think engineering productivity is simple to measure.

I think the prevailing (correct) consensus is that developer productivity is actually very hard to measure, and every time it is attempted the measure is immediately made a target making the whole thing pointless even if it had been a solid measurement- which it wasn't.

IDK where you're getting the idea here that measuring productivity of anyone who isn't a factory worker is easy.

[hyperpape]

I do not think it is easy, like I said. I am saying other people are acting like it’s easy.

See the second comment on this article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47976781

See @emp17344 responding to me.

[dijit]

That second comment isn't making that statement though.

It's saying that: cost vs revenue is something we can see.

If I buy a plow for $2,500 and it enables growth of $5000, then arguing "the plow was expensive" is a moot point.

It doesn't make any argument about measured productivity, only investment vs return.

[mulmen]

The difficulty in measuring productivity is the attribution. How do you know the new plow enabled growth?

[dijit]

because trend and changing fewer variables.

[mulmen]

If you could actually prove that you wouldn’t be posting it on HN, you’d be shopping for a mega yacht.

[dijit]

What?

Theres hundreds of MBAs who know this and it’s used to squeeze the workforce.

Thats why its the default thinking from them, because it works sometimes.

I think you missed something.

[tomjakubowski]

Is it easy to measure a factory worker's productivity? It would seem surprising and interesting if every job's productivity is hard to measure except for one particular kind.

[dijit]

Any job where there's a definable output can be measured. Factory workers are one type.

Others might be farmers; if they're able to yield x tonnes of valid crops out of y acres.