/en/blog · writing
You're not just overpaying. You're building a system that's structurally unscalable. We'll break down where 2/3 of your development budget really goes.
This is too softly put - "losing 2/3 of the budget."
In reality, you're not "losing 2/3 of the budget." You are funding an outdated code production model.
It's not about skill level. It's about a mindset model:
write code by hand → instead of orchestrating AI
solve problems linearly → instead of systemic decomposition
work as executors → instead of system operators
speed = hours → not leverage
👉 They optimize a local task, not the system.
boilerplate
CRUD
integrations
tests
AI already does this. You're paying a person for something that shouldn't cost money at all.
An analog team means:
lengthy discussions
vague requirements
constant clarifications
👉 Ultimately: time is spent not on creation, but on synchronization
When there's no systemic thinking:
decisions are made locally
no overall system model
chaos grows
👉 Then you pay a second time - for "refactoring," "rewriting," "acceleration"
The main difference:
analog developer → does 1x
AI-native developer → does 5-20x
👉 The difference isn't in salary. 👉 The difference is in system output.
There, the unit of work is different:
not "line of code" → but "solved problem"
The developer:
👉 They don't "write code." 👉 They manage code production.
They think:
"We need more developers"
In reality:
you need a different work architecture
The question is no longer:
"how well do they write code?"
But:
how well can they build a system using AI
If you hire like it's 2020 - you're competing at 2020 speed.
But the market already operates in a different economy:
faster
cheaper
more scalable
👉 And the loss there isn't gradual. 👉 It's exponential.