Live data from Hacker News

The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

govexec.com

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#111
post #4

The so-called "real" explanation of the $600 hammer doesn't make the story any better. The hammer did indeed cost $435. If the government wanted to buy another one, the contractor would have charged them an extra $435. Just because the extra $420 was "R&D expense" for something else, doesn't make the hammer any cheaper. Even in the most charitable explanation, this makes it impossible to know the real cost of anythin…

Is this truth worse? I have a completely different reaction to your story.

There's a guy, who is a contractor (not an employee), who was hired to do work for the defense department. They hire and fire thousands per day. There needs to be a basic policy that guarantees a certain level of training and skill level, before you work on Defense for crying out loud. No one is going to spend days trying to figure out what you know and don't. Here's the training - some is easy, some you know, some is new to you. Get through it, then you start work.

This is the same with private companies. Whenever I switch the major vendor I work for, I have to get some certs, get some training, and most of the stuff I already know. Last time this happened a couple of years ago, I spent at least a month, just watching training videos and taking little quizzes at the end. This guarantees that before they send me to a customer, I have the base training for my role.

I already knew 95% of the stuff. I put the 2 hour videos on play muted, read the pdf a couple of times a day apart (30min of my real time), and passed the quiz at the end.

Your friend didn't have to watch useless watered down videos, and was just given the manuals. I wish I had those PDFs I read printed for me, but I didn't want to waste a whole tree worth of paper.

Yes, the training needed to get your baseline is part of your job. That's why people don't like it when they hire you and leave after a few months - because they have to pay you to certify your baseline skills those months.

No, you don't get paid less or more, depending on the type of work you are doing. If I have to come out to a DC and debug raw fiber channel dumps, or sit on the toilet at home and draw a visio - I get paid the same. You get paid per hour, not per type of task. That is literally every job that exists.

The $600 hammer is theft and billing fraud. Getting paid the same rate while the company certs you with training for your job, as you get paid for the rest of the job, is called employment.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hot coffee lawsuit is the first thing I think of here. Heck even the name is like… whew.

I guess "the dangerously hot coffee that fused a customer's labia" does not have the same punch when trying to argue for tort reform.

Found the litigator...

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#113
I worked for a small business that did work for the DOD. Our sales guy explained the rules of government contracting. Rule 1: get the money. The government is always talking about contracts that are coming. Rule 2: keep the money -the government is always looking for ways to charge back to your contract for things they need to do. Rule 3: get more money- use your current work to the inside track on future work.

At the end of they day the contract is a fixed amount for a defined statement of work. How you get there is a shell game of billing hours, equipment, overhead and allowed profit. (Cost plus contracts are a different animal altogether)

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#114

A plumber once showed me his $805 wrench. It cost him $5 on AliExpress, and in the middle of his tightening a bolt with all his weight, it split into two and one half hit him in his tooth. The co-pay for the tooth implant was $800, hence his "$805 wrench" and a moral not be cheap on your tools.

The first time you get to drill and extract a stripped fastener on-site because you had a cheap tool in your box really ought to be the last day you spend on cheap tools! I'd imagine a personal injury would really reinforce that sentiment.

But harbor freight has all those deals though!

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#115

My dad was in purchasing for various aircraft manufacturers, including McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. It was literally his job to try and keep this nonsense under control. It was extremely frequent that the engineers would request some screw with hyper specific requirements and would end up costing dozens of dollars or so per screw. Even more for the specialized tooling that would go with it. From his perspective, the…

This sounds rather familiar, in Software :)

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#116
post #66
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the government wanted to buy another one, the contractor would have charged them an extra $435. This claim appears to contradict what the story says, as far as I can tell? He's the original: > The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a b…

I think a more accurate analogy is that if you bought those 3 items and they did have proper itemized cost, but the whole package also had a $500 shipping charge. And then it’s not obvious how to distribute the shipping cost across each item. And in both situations it’s probably better to itemize by itself, though maybe some system didn’t allow for non tangible costs like “R&D”

If you itemize separately, then you can start to ask the important questions, like, “why is shipping $500”.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#118
A few years ago my buddy worked construction on a military project. Every morning he’d wake up before sunrise and drive 3 hours out into the middle of no where to work what looked like a gulag.

They ran huge capacity wires out to no where. They’d build a structure, tear it down, and build it again 20 feet to the left. They did this for months. Then he was fired for no reason. It seemed common knowledge that they rotated contractors like that and it wasn’t a long term gig.

The uncharitable explanation is that this is a massive exercise in fraud funneling tax dollars into someone’s friend’s pocket.

The charitable explanation is that there are 14 or so other sites doing exactly the same thing, with the same numbers on the books, and the same raw materials being shipped in. And at one of those other sites is an actual base they’re trying to keep secret.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#119

A few years ago my buddy worked construction on a military project. Every morning he’d wake up before sunrise and drive 3 hours out into the middle of no where to work what looked like a gulag. They ran huge capacity wires out to no where. They’d build a structure, tear it down, and build it again 20 feet to the left. They did this for months. Then he was fired for no reason. It seemed common knowledge that they rota…

The truth is somewhere in the middle - there are bidding systems to avoid issues, but there's also calling up your buddy and saying "everyone else bid $nnnk, if you bid $nnnk-$999 you'll win it." Etc.. almost every system can be gamed.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#120
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hot coffee lawsuit is the first thing I think of here. Heck even the name is like… whew.

> The hot coffee lawsuit ... So much lawyers' propaganda. We are engineers here. We are aware that coffee is water that boils at 100 degrees centigrade and gets no hotter than that. Every damn idiot and those more intelligent know full well that writing "Caution: contents hot" in microscopic text does absolutely nothing to make recently boiled water more safe. Sure we should all feel sorry for someone who is badly bu…

We are engineers here. We are aware that coffee is water that boils at 100 degrees centigrade and gets no hotter than that.

An engineer should know that the temperatures being used in this context are in Fahrenheit, and that on the Fahrenheit scale the boiling point of water is 212 degrees...

But go ahead and keep repeating it like the water was super heated to a 1000 degrees and writing text on the foam cup stops anyone from being burnt by boiled water.

McDonald's knew that the design of the cup and lid were defective, given that they had received several hundred reports of burned customers prior to the woman in the Hot Coffee lawsuit.

The "Hot Coffee" moniker is actually propaganda from far-right Koch-funded tort "reformers" who have spent tens of millions to convince people that this case was about just about someone spilling hot coffee (it was not) instead of a poorly designed product being kept in the market despite the business knowing of its flaws and choosing not to fix them (like the Ford Pinto).

Post reply on HN