In AlJazeera English, Sarah Kendzior writes about a $22,000 internship at the U.N. No, they aren't paying interns $22,000. The intern pays the U.N. $22,000 to “gain inside knowledge of just how the UN really operates.”
Pacific-Standard reports on a study that examined economists' desire to publish in highly prestigious journals. No academic journal pays its authors for their work, but there is a pecking order among these journals for prestige. They sent a questionnaire to fellow economists and asked them, " If a medicine existed that would give them a day-long surge in brainpower—enough to formulate an article good enough for one of four major journals—would they take it? If so, would they still do so if they knew it would slightly reduce their lifespan?"
Yes, economists would shorten their lifespans, if they would be guaranteed an article in a top-tier journal. They would be willing to shorten their lifespans by nearly a year for that money-less honor. Of course, there are indirect monetary benefits from publishing in a prestigious journal. You can bumped up the academic payscale with a promotion, but the types of people who get published in those journals are already at the top of the pay scale and have tenure.
I have not necessarily made the best career decisions over my lifetime. I always seem to lean towards jobs that provide prestige and not so much money. With all my career fluctuations, I'm stuck in the "paying dues" job phase and never made it to the "gravy train" phase. So, I understand the need for low paying, prestigious work, but I'm trying very hard to be more rational about my work efforts.
Some of these unpaid internships and honorific jobs are a result of the crappy economy. Post-college kids need to get something on their resume, other than their summer job at Wendy's. But the economists in the Pacific-Standard story aren't suffering like that. Where's the rational actor in all this?
Apt. 11d 
Surely the respect of one’s peers is the most important thing in the world to most people. Money is just a means to that, and a longer life without that respect would be valueless.
LikeLike
The year they’re giving up comes at the end of their lifespan. One less year in a nursing home isn’t the equivalent of one less year, payable next year.
If you assume you’ll spend the last year of your life in chemotherapy or living with end-stage alzheimer’s, it becomes even more attractive to swap that year for current glory.
LikeLike
I call stupid survey. Are economists more capable then everyone else from valuing the hypothetical last year of their life compared to something good happening right now? I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone is properly valuing that potential last year.
I’d like to see how the economists would value one less year of their child’s life or their parents’. Or a pinky. Or their hair. On the flip side, what would they give up a year of life for? straight up cash? a bigger house? admission of their child to their preschool/highschool/college of choice?
(Just clicked through on the link; they did use thumb removal as some form of control, though I haven’t read the whole study. Still think it’s stupid, though I will have to read it before I can really say it’s stupid).
LikeLike
For me it wouldn’t be the publication that was the incentive, but the surge in brainpower that would enable me to write an article that was that good. I think a lot of academics feel like our research is pretty good, and we work hard, but if we were just a little smarter, or had a touch of brilliance, we could come up with ideas that would advance the field in substantial ways.
For me, “advancing the field” would mean some kind of genuine improvement in the world. So for an economist it might be that you discovered the perfect tax structure, enabling countries to do everything they need to do for the poor, infrastructure support, etc., without unduly burdening anyone. (I guess – I don’t really understand what economists do.)
LikeLike
Economists are aware of interest rates. Living better in the present (visiting post at a top department, promotion and tenure, easier access to grants) might be worth a lot more now than the expected losses later.
You’re likely to see this outcome in sports as well. A lot of professional footballers are probably in line for early-onset arthritis, and there’s accumulating evidence of dementia brought on by blows to the head (what the fans call “hard-hitting”) and yet it’s worth putting in the time in the weight room and practice field.
LikeLike