Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an expert is 90% of the time doing something boring, maybe he/she should be hiring somebody else to handle it, don't you think? Taking the idea to software, maybe it wouldn't hurt to hire cheap programmers as long as they're following the directions of an expert.
As a cheap programmer, I disagree. An expert may spend 90% of his time doing something he feels is drudgery, but he does it properly, so as to prevent the 10% all-hands-on-deck emergencies from occurring. If you hire cheap programmers to handle the 90% under the expert's supervision, the expert still has to painstakingly review the work so as to ensure it was done in a way that at least sort of resembles the method t…
I realise this may come across as me being arrogant or unable to work in a team. I can't with good conscience pass judgement on the former; I am however frequently contracted as an extra brain and pair of hands on projects with people of comparable skill who could do it without me, save for the project's time constraint. This generally works very well.
It's conceivable that the model might work if the skill gap isn't so big. Presumably that makes the programmers less cheap, and the scheme less attractive. Plus, they could probably muddle through without me, thus never feeling the need to hire me in the first place. Which, I assume, is why this has never happened to me.