4 ms·

That reads like an Onion satire. If it's literally true, it's very depressing. And I suspect it's literally true, at least for some women.

• javajosh 12y ago
  It is definitely satire, meant to highlight the fact that it is abhorrent to abuse people, or set up perverse incentives that may result in abuse, for non-performance, regardless of how the worker perceives the abuse. The fact that the workers in the study wanted the increased risk without any increase in compensation makes me sick to my stomach.
  • gumby 12y ago
    The fact that the workers in the study wanted the increased risk without any increase in compensation makes me sick to my stomach. The way it was described, they may have made less before, and by (in the au courant jargon of our day) "gamifying" it their earnings may have increased. For example if they typically entered 4800 fields a day, the extra "all or earn half" incentive of making it to 5K might actually spur them to more productivity, and hence more earnings. That is what Clark meant when he used MBA-speak to describe the workers as having "hired" their employers. This article comes across as describing a discovery while in fact so far it's merely an interesting hypothesis or even simply model, which might ultimately prove to be informative. Since the author is one of the people doing the work I don't know if this is accidental or intended.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]