I think the point of the comment was: Nothing, as long as she's prepared to pay 8x as well, which she usually wasn't.

It's bad for the same reason all short-sighted goals are bad. You can't repeatedly institutionalize short term goals over long term goals without suffering long term failure.

Sometimes people produce less for reasons that are actually very important. This should be doubly clear in software, where "line of code" are not an accurate measure of successful work.

In both, the bullies end up with more stuff in their basket.

I don't understand the down votes and all these answers.

If I'm paying strictly for pieces produced (e.g. apples picked, widgets assembled) why would I balk at paying you for all of them if you're capable of 8X the average. I'm not losing anything.

Hell, I should be studying you to see how you're so efficient and apply that to my production (assuming you're not Superman hiding out).

Of course, that's not the same as cranking up the line speed at a dangerous job to crank out more widgets at the cost of more injuries.

Exactly - you pay more over a shorter period, or, in the case of a continuous widget assembly line, you pay fewer people more.

You SHOULD be but the reality of capital is that it is rarely willing to pay that much if it can help it.

It's not bad for the employer to get 8x as much out; it's bad for the employer to pay 8x as much, when they could pay (say) 3x as much and keep the other 5x as profit.

Doubly so if the easily measurable increase in quantity could be achieved at the expense of other qualities that are much more difficult to put in indisputable numbers.

That guy who closes tickets faster than anybody else at the company, but does so by crapping all over the code, he's being discussed all the time here on hacker news.

What is the source of the additional output?

To whom should that surplus flow? The labourer? Or the employer of that labourer?

Defend your answer.