comparative advantage

Even if Mr. A is inferior to Mr. B in productivity for a certain task, there are situations in which Mr. A should do that task.

No one is wasted.

Discussion of how much can be paid when funds are not plentiful.

However, this is a rather dubious premise, since it sees humans as production machines that "if you can get 10 value out of 1 hour of programming, you should be able to get 80 value out of 8 hours".

Suppose my X ability is 1.0 and Y ability is y (< 1.0, e.g. 0.5); it takes 1/y (e.g. 2) time to do one task Y

Suppose we outsource to someone whose Y ability is z (< y, e.g., 0.25).

It takes 1/z (e.g., 4) time.

If not outsourced, 1/y time is consumed to complete one Y task

When outsourcing, one Y task is done with payment proportional to 1/z, 1/y time is spent on programming, and 1/y (> 1.0) X tasks are done.

Well, you have to separate "tasks that need to be done but are not particularly profitable" from "profitable tasks," etc., or else you're not doing a good job!

Ricard's theory of comparative advantage in the first place was the production of commodities, so the task does not produce value after the fact.

There is an assumption that the quantity of goods traded is proportional to their value.

Does it sound like a good idea to tie it in with work-as-life?

Unlike the original Ricard's comparative advantage story, in the case of task outsourcing, the task of managing other people's tasks arises.

There is also the cost of finding someone to take on the project.

---