So the article doesn't site sources, but it looks to me like another dev sharing "expertise" based on 1 data point (his experience of one team, one product).<p>I work in technical diligence, we assess companies getting purchased, getting ready to exit, raising money, etc. I've done 50+ myself, read reports for hundreds more, and Crosslake (my employer) has done thousands. This is not our experience.<p>Overspend on dev team is <i>occasionally</i> an issue. Key person risks, tech debt, and other symptoms of lack of expertise are <i>frequently</i> serious issues. (No amount of juniours eliminates key person risk on a senior, only a similarly expert senior does). The companies I have seen that made policies of hiring smaller teams of the best people they can find and paying them well were, in general, kicking ass.<p>I would argue this article has it completely backwards. My opinion, based on anecdotal (because I didn't run stats on it) but much larger sample size is that the difference to your company over the long term of senior vs junior dwarfs the difference in cost. We are <i>constantly</i> saying "hire more seniors in X,Y,Z". We are rarely saying "cut dev spend".<p>My advice: for your core offering, buy the best devs you can and make them happy. For all the peripheral commodity stuff (the "not rocket science"), outsource to Eastern Europe and have a full time senior based locally who job is to run that team, interfacing with their lead and managing integration with your core.<p>Especially right now. Preferring juniors when the market is full of freshly unemploye ace seniors would be terrifically stupid.