Hey!

Chris here. Welcome to Blueprint—the newsletter to help you build a winning engineering team.

Let me tell you something I've seen ruin more tech companies than almost anything else: hiring cheap talent.

Founders think they're being fiscally responsible. Smart with their runway. But they're actually making the most expensive mistake possible.

I've watched this pattern repeat countless times. Companies bring us in to course-correct after falling into this trap, and the aftermath is always the same: wasted resources and diminished product quality.

This week, we’ll dig into why saving on salaries often leads to paying much more in the long run and how to avoid that trap. Let’s dive in 👇

📒 DEEP DIVE

Why Cheap Talent Costs You Everything

Saving on salaries is the most expensive mistake tech founders make. Here's why it always backfires.

Cheap talent is cheap for a reason. I have yet to see a single time where this hasn't been true.

When founders look at their runway shrinking, they often make what seems like a fiscally responsible decision: hire less expensive talent to stretch those dollars further. 

On paper, it makes perfect sense. But in practice, it creates a downward spiral that costs far more than the salary savings ever could.

The Quality Death Spiral

When you compromise on engineering talent to "fill seats," it triggers a cascade of hidden costs that ripple through your entire organization.

Your existing top performers notice—and that’s not what you want. 

Great engineers have a sixth sense for quality, and they want to work with other exceptional minds. When they see the quality bar sinking, they start looking elsewhere. It might not happen immediately, but it's inevitable—they'll find somewhere that matches their standards.

Why? Because exceptional engineers are driven by mastery and achievement. They want to build excellent products with other skilled people. When you surround them with mediocre talent, you're actively pushing your best people out the door.

The Compounding Cost Effect

When you hire based primarily on cost, you're paying more than once for subpar work.

Run the actual numbers. Factor in:

• The rewrites

• Lost productivity

• Talent drain and project burnout

As Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson explain in "Rework," when you tear things down and start over, you're not just paying twice—you're paying exponentially more than if you'd done it right the first time.

Ultimately, those "budget-friendly" hires end up costing more than you saved.

This is especially true for specialized technical work. Let me share a real-world example.

When Expertise Pays For Itself

I recently saw this play out with a client who needed an AWS infrastructure set up. They faced a choice between two candidates:

A client needed AWS infrastructure set up and had a choice between two candidates:

• An engineer charging $75/hour with theoretical knowledge but no hands-on experience with this specific solution.

• An expert charging $150/hour with extensive hands-on experience.

The client initially thought it was an easy choice—go with the cheaper rate and save 50%. But here's what actually happened:

The less experienced engineer spent over 150 hours and still couldn't build a working solution. When they finally brought in the expert, that person delivered a perfect implementation from scratch in just 30 hours.

Do the math: $11,250+ with no working solution vs. $4,500 for a complete, functioning system. 

The "expensive" option was actually less than half the cost.

Why such a dramatic difference? Real experts know exactly which problems they'll encounter and how to solve them efficiently. They've already made the mistakes and learned the lessons. 

The "cheaper" rate actually meant paying someone to become an expert on the client's dime—learning each step and problem along the way.

This example illustrates the technical costs, but there are cultural costs too.

Bargain Hunting Kills Culture

Your team needs to feel you're looking out for their interests. If every conversation about compensation turns into you trying to "win the deal," you've already lost.

I've seen this play out time and again. Some personalities inherently think, "I've got to get a deal here" when hiring talent. If that's you, you might want to rethink your strategy. 

This mentality doesn't just affect how your existing team perceives your leadership.

When engineers see you constantly hunting for "bargains" rather than quality, they internalize a message: you value saving a dollar more than building something great. That perception spreads quickly and becomes part of your company culture.

I recently walked into a company with exactly this problem. They had a good product but had hired cheap global talent that barely contributed. 

With no senior expertise and only junior people who couldn't grow, they faced a disaster when major Fortune 500 implementations were about to fail. The technical founder who'd been holding things together had left, and I had to work through multiple nights putting out fires that shouldn't have existed in the first place if they didn’t just try to win the deal. 

The Only Hiring Question That Matters

The first question you should ask when hiring isn't about cost—it's about potential:

Can this person be great in this position? 

If the answer is no, you cannot hire them. Period. Doesn't matter how cheap they are.

When you're looking primarily at dollars and cents, you end up dragging down the rest of the company. You'll have a couple of people who are great at their jobs, but they'll get dragged down by everyone who isn't performing.

If someone has been cheap for a long time, by default, they're not great. No one who is truly great stays low-priced—that's just basic economics. Top talent commands top dollar because the market recognizes their value.

Your engineering team isn't just another expense line—it's your foundation. Foundations aren't where you cut corners; they're where you invest in getting it right the first time.

Think about it this way: Would you save money on the foundation of your house? Of course not. Because if that fails, everything built on top of it fails too. Your engineering team works the same way—they create the systems upon which your entire business operates.

If your budget forces you to stay lean, then stay lean—that's completely reasonable. Hire fewer people, but make sure they're exceptional. Build your technical foundation with the best materials you can afford, even if it means building a smaller house initially.

But putting out mediocre engineering work creates a financial time bomb that will eventually explode, costing far more than any initial salary savings.

🎙 EPISODE OF THE WEEK

This week on "Build Your Business," Matt and I tackle a critical milestone for every founder—hiring your first employee.

Making that first hire is a huge step, and most founders screw it up because they're not prepared for what really matters.

We break down the essential signs you're actually ready to hire (hint: it's not just about being busy), how to financially prepare beyond just the salary, and why culture fit matters more than you think.

If you're considering bringing on your first team member, or you've already hired but want to strengthen your approach for future growth, this one's for you.

Listen wherever you listen to podcasts: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube

BEFORE YOU GO…

I've literally never met a founder who built a successful engineering team on cheap talent and didn't eventually regret it.

I'm not recommending you blow your budget. I'm telling you to think about value differently.

Great engineers aren't just incrementally better than average ones—they're exponentially better. They see around corners. They build systems that scale. They make decisions that won't back you into a corner six months from now.

Cheap talent can't do that. They're dealing with problems your top engineers solved years ago.

Every company that’s scaled successfully did so with exceptional talent. They didn’t take shortcuts—and neither should you.

Talk soon,

Chris.