logoalt Hacker News

owenversteeg05/04/20251 replyview on HN

I don't think that's really the issue, I think that's just one of the ways in which the lack of control manifests itself. You could substitute your problem with the main guy sending incompetent employees, or showing up himself but drunk, or doing poor work, and the cause would be the same: you can't do anything about it, you're not in control. If you were in control, it's no big deal. Imagine you're a well-organized GC on a new build house. You hire Sam's Plumbers and Sam sends some shit subcontractors. It's no big deal because you have Sam's money and you have other plumbers you've used before. You're not reliant on Sam, Sam has an incentive to care (and thus fix things), and you have real recourse. Or for a simpler example, I order a pizza, cash on delivery. Pizza place uses Frank's Delivery and Frank drops my pizza and it's all fucked up. They used subcontractors but I am in control: I don't need to pay, I can order different pizza, and I live here, so they have an incentive to make it right.


Replies

yupitsme12305/04/2025

Your examples are still using subcontractors, which is what I'm saying is the problem. Someone is diffusing responsibility and adding a layer of complexity just so they can reduce their risk and skim a little off the top.

Most of this would go away if the guy who gives me the estimate and takes my money is the same guy who comes back to do the work later. Or if the guy delivering the pizza works for the company that sells me the pizza.

This is the way it was through the 1990s, but now everything is corporatized and sub-contracted out.