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.
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.