5 ms·

I was really surprised by the first few paragraphs of this article: "There's a puzzle at the heart of our economy that has troubled economists for decades. The

• philwelch 16y ago
  Yes--more specifically, it's a behavioral study into how they differ. A rational economic actor tries to maximize profit. That means expending less effort to get the same fixed wage. The puzzle in economics is how, exactly, humans are irrational.
  • billswift 16y ago
    The real problem with economics and human psychology is not so much that humans are irrational Though they often are, they are actually less so in economic contexts than in most others. I think the bigger problem is that classical economics has a rather limited view of "rationality". Just because something doesn't give an immediate or narrowly quantifiable return does not necessarily make it irrational in any reasonable sense.
    • kalid 16y ago
      Exactly. Classical economics assumes everyone's utility function == income. What about the pleasure of a job well done, companionship/relationship, job satisfaction, etc.? Well, since they can't be quantified they are ignored.
      • mhb 16y ago
        That's silly. In order to make comparisons, utility (including the intangibles you mention) can be and is estimated in terms of money. If they don't do that here, that is their failing and not one of economics in general.
        • anamax 16y ago
          > That's silly. In order to make comparisons, utility (including the intangibles you mention) can be and is estimated in terms of money. If they don't do that here, that is their failing and not one of economics in general. How about you go tell all of the economists that they're doing it wrong? While you're fixing economists, the rest of us will get along just fine with "economics doesn't model the real world very well". That may be pedantically wrong, but it's far more efficient.
    • billswift 16y ago
      The problem with economics I see is not a problem with most economic analysis; they actually do a good job with most questions in microeconomics (to the extent that economics is the closest we have yet come to a social "science"). The problem I have is when they address what are basically psychological questions, like this article which is mostly on motivation, where their assumption of rationality is not particularly useful. In classical economic contexts, as I wrote in the original comment, people are actually about as rational as they ever get.
• Typhon 16y ago
  Most works aren't fun enough to be their own reward. What is surprising about this article is the idea that people work hard, which is certainly not always true. Many people whose work is boring are indeed doing the bare minimum they can get away with. And many people who work hard do so because they feel they can't work less for some reason, because they're afraid to be fired if they don't for example.
• Mz 16y ago
  Additionally: People will work hard because if someone is going to be fired, they don't want it to be them. This assumption that they would do the bare minimum assumes they will keep the job no matter what they do. That's not true. That is not even considering things like the possibility for promotion if you stand out above your peers, the possibility for changing jobs within the company, or the possibility for getting a good recommendation if you apply for a job outside the company.
  • gaius 16y ago
    And in situations where it is true, e.g. working for the government, or in unionized jobs, that's exactly what they do do. Hard work won't even get you a promotion if it's done on seniority.