That wasn't the best thought out example. The total yearly cost for a programmer would have to exceed 666.666 $ to justify a 1000 $ purchase, if the improvement is only 0.05%.
That said, I agree. The benefit doesn't have to be big to justify it.
Ops. Yea 1/2 not 1/20th of 1%. The .0005 number is correct, but I messed up changing that to a fraction of a %.
Re:4K is for programmers
by pedrosorio on Saturday January 11, 2014 @01:01PM
(#7043179)
1/2 of 1% is 0.005
aka Assuming monitors last ~3 years and cost below 2,000$ it takes a tiny difference to be worth it because your not just comparing productivity delta's but also cost delta's. In other words a 2,000$ monitor that improves productivity by 1/20th of 1% than a 1,000$ monitor is clearly worth it over 3 years even if the difference is simply eye strain. 3x (salary + benefits + overhead) * .0005 > 1000$.
PS: Another way to look at it is spending an extra 1-2k per year on salary over industry standard rarely tempts programmers but an extra 1-2k per year on hardware might.