From that perspective, your non-profit could be creating the illusion of progress—helping raise the people you work with in belize out of poverty, while simultaneously taking jobs from other, poverty stricken people in EG india.
The nature of wage markets means the jobs would tend to go to the worst-off people who can take the jobs, whose wage demands would be lowest, as they’d have the most to gain from a given wage (that is, they’d take the job for less money, because the money is more valuable to them). This isn’t a bad thing, although it’s usually presented as one, particularly by those whose wages would be undercut.
(This doesn’t consider market barriers or interference, granted; for one example, a mountain village might have the most to gain, but be unable to offer competitive labor pricing owing to the cost of providing infrastructure.)
Belizeans would probably be competing with wealthier people for work because their high level of English mastery allows them to compete for more advanced positions. The websites I mentioned have many workers from more developed countries. For example, half of MTurk’s users are from the United States.
I think I understand the point: hypothetically, this program would take work away from people more in need, possibly even making the world worse off because of that. But if I magically made half of the virtual workforce disappear, then the half of the people that were removed would be really poor and the other half would be twice as rich. But is that creating more good? No, because the richer half would not need the money as much as the poorer half. If I added more people who were earning less money before being added then I am creating a net good, and that’s what I am trying to do. I don’t think the impact of helping several dozen people (just at first!) get out of poverty is insignificant, and since the program could be expanded if our tests indicate it works effectively, I think it could be considered high impact it terms of the number of people it could help and how much it could change their lives.
You’re assuming that there’s more supply right now than there is demand. That’s possible, but unlikely given that I usually get 8+ highly qualified applicants for every remote work job I post (and a bunch more unqualified).
If that was the case, adding more people would get more people out of poverty. However, in this case, where the supply of workers outstrips the demand, adding more workers will just be shifting who gets any particular job—poverty stricken person A, that you’re not working with—or poverty stricken person B, that you are working with.
Edit: I feel like i’m being super critical of a highschool student taking action—not something I want to discouraging, especially online where the subcommunication just isn’t there. I applaud you taking action and Ill be interested to see what you create—I think I’ve said my reservations and hopefully you can address them.
My experience on Upwork is actually the same as yours! In our tests of the platform, it appears to be very difficult to find jobs due to the intense competition. I was unpleasantly surprised at first when I saw how difficult it was to earn money on Upwork as a new user. However, that was the whole point of the initial tests we did, so we expanded and have still been expanding the program to encompass other forms of virtual work that pay reliably and still have room to grow. Upwork will be a minor or non-existent part of our program.
If my program was just on Upwork, then I would be inclined to side with your analysis. Thankfully, it’s not.
While it is not bad for the system as a whole it can seem so for the previously isolated part of the market when considered separately. If you care 0 about foreigners that you don’t interact with you might not notice their blight so starting to notice and then alleviate that isn’t so conforting if you lose on a measure you have been caring all the time.
Yes, exactly. The point of my comment being, that to the extent that the current freelance websites represent this theoretical perfect market, Brendon_Wong’s idea will only be a feel good idea, while not actually creating any change.
However, if he can identify market inefficiencies (such as highly skilled, foreign workers not being hired due to asymmetric information, or the poorest workers not knowing about these opportunities), or as you pointed out, remove market barriers, he can actually make the natural market forces more efficient, and do some good.
Ultimately, the gains from these types of interventions are probably relatively small—he’d have to put very little resources in them and be extremely efficient to do a net good.
Well the total pool of work available for everyone is imperceptibly decreased in the short run, not aversely affecting anyone to any significant degree, while giving more of the poor who really need the money work opportunities… Is employing several dozen more people a small net good? I guess it’s a matter of opinion.
The nature of wage markets means the jobs would tend to go to the worst-off people who can take the jobs, whose wage demands would be lowest, as they’d have the most to gain from a given wage (that is, they’d take the job for less money, because the money is more valuable to them). This isn’t a bad thing, although it’s usually presented as one, particularly by those whose wages would be undercut.
(This doesn’t consider market barriers or interference, granted; for one example, a mountain village might have the most to gain, but be unable to offer competitive labor pricing owing to the cost of providing infrastructure.)
Belizeans would probably be competing with wealthier people for work because their high level of English mastery allows them to compete for more advanced positions. The websites I mentioned have many workers from more developed countries. For example, half of MTurk’s users are from the United States.
I’ll say that this hasn’t been my experience using these sites… I usually get several high-rated applicant’s from poorer countries.
I think I understand the point: hypothetically, this program would take work away from people more in need, possibly even making the world worse off because of that. But if I magically made half of the virtual workforce disappear, then the half of the people that were removed would be really poor and the other half would be twice as rich. But is that creating more good? No, because the richer half would not need the money as much as the poorer half. If I added more people who were earning less money before being added then I am creating a net good, and that’s what I am trying to do. I don’t think the impact of helping several dozen people (just at first!) get out of poverty is insignificant, and since the program could be expanded if our tests indicate it works effectively, I think it could be considered high impact it terms of the number of people it could help and how much it could change their lives.
You’re assuming that there’s more supply right now than there is demand. That’s possible, but unlikely given that I usually get 8+ highly qualified applicants for every remote work job I post (and a bunch more unqualified).
If that was the case, adding more people would get more people out of poverty. However, in this case, where the supply of workers outstrips the demand, adding more workers will just be shifting who gets any particular job—poverty stricken person A, that you’re not working with—or poverty stricken person B, that you are working with.
Edit: I feel like i’m being super critical of a highschool student taking action—not something I want to discouraging, especially online where the subcommunication just isn’t there. I applaud you taking action and Ill be interested to see what you create—I think I’ve said my reservations and hopefully you can address them.
My experience on Upwork is actually the same as yours! In our tests of the platform, it appears to be very difficult to find jobs due to the intense competition. I was unpleasantly surprised at first when I saw how difficult it was to earn money on Upwork as a new user. However, that was the whole point of the initial tests we did, so we expanded and have still been expanding the program to encompass other forms of virtual work that pay reliably and still have room to grow. Upwork will be a minor or non-existent part of our program.
If my program was just on Upwork, then I would be inclined to side with your analysis. Thankfully, it’s not.
While it is not bad for the system as a whole it can seem so for the previously isolated part of the market when considered separately. If you care 0 about foreigners that you don’t interact with you might not notice their blight so starting to notice and then alleviate that isn’t so conforting if you lose on a measure you have been caring all the time.
Yes, exactly. The point of my comment being, that to the extent that the current freelance websites represent this theoretical perfect market, Brendon_Wong’s idea will only be a feel good idea, while not actually creating any change.
However, if he can identify market inefficiencies (such as highly skilled, foreign workers not being hired due to asymmetric information, or the poorest workers not knowing about these opportunities), or as you pointed out, remove market barriers, he can actually make the natural market forces more efficient, and do some good.
Ultimately, the gains from these types of interventions are probably relatively small—he’d have to put very little resources in them and be extremely efficient to do a net good.
Well the total pool of work available for everyone is imperceptibly decreased in the short run, not aversely affecting anyone to any significant degree, while giving more of the poor who really need the money work opportunities… Is employing several dozen more people a small net good? I guess it’s a matter of opinion.