How Companies Can Legally Reduce Wages with Public Support
Thought Experiment on How Policy Decisions Can Backfire
Imagine a policy promoted as a breakthrough for public health: every job applicant must pass a fitness test to promote a fitter, healthier society. It sounds reasonable, even progressive, in a time of rising obesity and sedentary work. Politicians back it, the public nods in approval, and companies go along.
But baked into that feel-good initiative is something else—something that lets companies suppress wages, sidestep blame, and come out looking like heroes.
This article explores a thought experiment: how a mandatory job fitness test can be used to manipulate workers under the guise of promoting public health. Alongside historical and modern case studies, it shows a recurring theme—how policies meant to help people often end up working best for those already in power.
Let’s walk through how a good idea gets twisted into something else entirely.
Policy to Make a Fit Society
Picture a charismatic politician on stage, selling a bold vision: starting in 2026, all job applicants must complete a 15-minute treadmill run before their final interview. It’s marketed as a modest, reasonable step to encourage health and reduce national healthcare costs.
Companies must comply. The public supports it.
At first glance, it looks like a win all around. Employers get healthier workers. Job seekers adopt better habits. Healthier people mean fewer medical expenses for everyone.
But that’s not what actually happens.
Most job applicants don’t build a real fitness routine. They just train enough to pass the test. A few practice runs. Maybe some jogging the week before. Just enough to make it through 15 minutes on the treadmill.
Long-term fitness? Nowhere in sight.
It’s the same behavior seen in education—where students study to pass the test, not to actually learn. The treadmill test becomes another box to check.
Then companies notice something else.
They start scheduling the treadmill run immediately before the final interview, when salary negotiations happen.
Candidates show up, run hard, and walk straight into the negotiation room—breathless, sweaty, lightheaded. In that condition, they’re easier to undercut.
The recruiter offers a lowball salary. Most candidates just nod and accept. Not because the offer is great—but because they’re too worn out to argue. Some even feel lucky to be done.
From a company’s perspective, this is brilliant. They’re following the law. They’re promoting public health.
And they’re paying less.
Politically connected firms lean into the tactic first. They know how to work the system—and they work it hard.
Wages stagnate. Nothing improves health-wise. But companies win on paper, and politicians enjoy the optics of a “successful” policy.
This isn’t just a dark twist. It’s a real look at how policy can be turned into a tool for squeezing workers—especially when no one is watching the incentives.
Other Case Studies of Policy Decisions Backfiring
British Snake-Catching in Colonial India
In colonial Delhi, British officials introduced a bounty for every dead cobra to fight a growing infestation. Locals quickly found a workaround: they bred cobras.
Killing captive cobras was easier than finding wild ones. When the British caught on and ended the program, the breeders released the snakes. The problem got worse.
What was meant to solve a problem ended up growing it. Just like job applicants who train just enough to pass the treadmill, people game incentives when those incentives aren’t designed well.
Standardized Testing in U.S. Education (No Child Left Behind, 2001)
The No Child Left Behind Act tied school funding to standardized test scores. It aimed to lift struggling schools and ensure no child got left behind.
What happened instead?
Schools stopped teaching broadly. They started drilling students on test strategies. Some excluded low-performing students from test day. Others outright faked numbers.
The result: students trained for tests, not for life.
And companies like Pearson, which sold the tests, made huge profits.
This isn’t just bad policy. It’s a system built for measurement that got weaponized by those who stood to gain.
Gig Economy Driver Incentives (Uber/Lyft, 2010s–Present)
Uber and Lyft rolled out bonuses like “$500 for 50 rides this week” to meet demand and keep drivers on the platform.
At first, drivers made real money.
But they quickly adapted—working only during bonus hours or gaming the system with ride patterns. The platforms adjusted by lowering base pay and tightening the bonus terms.
Drivers worked longer hours chasing increasingly unreachable goals.
Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft fought to avoid classifying drivers as employees—keeping labor costs down while lobbying for favorable regulation.
The treadmill setup shows up again: people run themselves ragged to hit a target that keeps shifting, while the platform quietly profits.
Corporate Wellness Programs (2000s–Present)
Corporate wellness programs promised better health, lower insurance costs, and tax perks. Companies offered step counters, screenings, and health tracking tools.
But employees found workarounds—shaking step trackers, going through the motions, logging attendance without actually changing their habits.
The real gains went to insurance companies and health tech vendors.
Some employers even raised premiums on those who didn’t meet goals. It became less about health and more about shifting costs.
Once again, a policy meant to help workers ends up helping the companies instead.
Across all of these cases, a pattern repeats:
Policymakers set measurable goals.
People game them.
Corporations adapt fastest and profit most.
And the people who were supposed to benefit? They don’t.
Conclusion
When policy meets corporate incentives, things can spiral fast.
The fitness test, like many policies before it, starts with good intentions. But it ends up being used as a tool—for wage suppression, cronyism, and cosmetic progress.
From breeding snakes to teaching to the test, to gaming wellness apps and driver bonuses—the lesson is the same.
If we don’t understand how incentives actually play out, we’ll keep building systems that punish the vulnerable and reward those who already have power.
To protect the public interest, we have to ask harder questions.
Who benefits from this policy?
What behaviors does it reward?
Where are the loopholes—and who’s likely to use them?
The answers might not be comfortable. But they’re necessary.
Because if we don’t ask, the same story will keep playing out—with new names, new policies, but the same results.