3 ms·

I agree. Probably kills a lot of learning and a lot of jobs. But that's just unintended consequences. Why should government be concerned with those, unless t

I agree. Probably kills a lot of learning and a lot of jobs. But that's just unintended consequences. Why should government be concerned with those, unless there is some expansion of government that can be engineered to address it?

ig1 17y ago
There is a strong argument against unpaid internships, they're hugely damaging to social mobility. If you need an unpaid internship to enter a career you're essentially excluding anyone from a poorer background (who have to work for money) from those occupations.
- fexl 17y ago
  Problem is there's no middle ground between $0.00 per hour and $7.15 per hour. If you outlaw $0.00 then those opportunities would simply cease to exist for everyone, including poor people working at McDonald's who could swing an internship on the side.
  - ig1 17y ago
    Yes. But it means those from more well off backgrounds and those from poorer backgrounds will be on a more level playing field when it comes to applying for permanent jobs.
    - fexl 17y ago
      No, people with money can afford to purchase technical and vocational training which poor people cannot. Money is valuable. If money did not confer advantages to its owner, it would not be valuable. Therefore a "level playing field" between people with more money and people with less money cannot exist. Besides, you are saying that you would forcefully prevent peaceful people from making mutually beneficial voluntary contractual arrangements among themselves, simply because not everyone is capable of participating. The implications are monstrous. Keep in mind that you are also forcefully excluding the McDonald's worker doing a part-time internship on the side.
      - ig1 17y ago
        That argument can also be used against all work related legislation (minimum wage, holidays, safety requirements).
        fexl 17y ago
        Correct. Though I would expect that working under exceedingly dangerous conditions would command a very high price.
        jackowayed 17y ago
        Not if you're desperate, there are far more people that need jobs than there are jobs, and accidents aren't ridiculously common. See the Industrial Revolution, coal mining, and sweatshops in developing countries.
        anamax 17y ago
        > Not if you're desperate, there are far more people that need jobs than there are jobs, and accidents aren't ridiculously common. See the Industrial Revolution, coal mining, and sweatshops in developing countries. You're assuming that they'd be on easy street if those jobs weren't available. You're wrong. While those jobs are crap, those folks are worse off without them. You can't make their lives better by taking away options. You can only make their lives better by providing better options.
        petewarden 17y ago
        You're assuming there's no existing hierarchical power relationship. The obvious example is child-labor: the parents decide whether the kid goes to work, not the kid. In general, there's all sorts of non-governmental power structures that pressure people into making decisions that aren't in their own best interests. Governmental intervention is always a hacky solution in programming terms, and often counter-productive, but there's legitimate areas where it's actually worked. How would you deal with child labor?

ig1 17y ago

There is a strong argument against unpaid internships, they're hugely damaging to social mobility. If you need an unpaid internship to enter a career you're essentially excluding anyone from a poorer background (who have to work for money) from those occupations.

fexl 17y ago
Problem is there's no middle ground between $0.00 per hour and $7.15 per hour. If you outlaw $0.00 then those opportunities would simply cease to exist for everyone, including poor people working at McDonald's who could swing an internship on the side.
- ig1 17y ago
  Yes. But it means those from more well off backgrounds and those from poorer backgrounds will be on a more level playing field when it comes to applying for permanent jobs.
  - fexl 17y ago
    No, people with money can afford to purchase technical and vocational training which poor people cannot. Money is valuable. If money did not confer advantages to its owner, it would not be valuable. Therefore a "level playing field" between people with more money and people with less money cannot exist. Besides, you are saying that you would forcefully prevent peaceful people from making mutually beneficial voluntary contractual arrangements among themselves, simply because not everyone is capable of participating. The implications are monstrous. Keep in mind that you are also forcefully excluding the McDonald's worker doing a part-time internship on the side.
    - ig1 17y ago
      That argument can also be used against all work related legislation (minimum wage, holidays, safety requirements).
      - fexl 17y ago
        Correct. Though I would expect that working under exceedingly dangerous conditions would command a very high price.
        jackowayed 17y ago
        Not if you're desperate, there are far more people that need jobs than there are jobs, and accidents aren't ridiculously common. See the Industrial Revolution, coal mining, and sweatshops in developing countries.
        anamax 17y ago
        > Not if you're desperate, there are far more people that need jobs than there are jobs, and accidents aren't ridiculously common. See the Industrial Revolution, coal mining, and sweatshops in developing countries. You're assuming that they'd be on easy street if those jobs weren't available. You're wrong. While those jobs are crap, those folks are worse off without them. You can't make their lives better by taking away options. You can only make their lives better by providing better options.
        petewarden 17y ago
        You're assuming there's no existing hierarchical power relationship. The obvious example is child-labor: the parents decide whether the kid goes to work, not the kid. In general, there's all sorts of non-governmental power structures that pressure people into making decisions that aren't in their own best interests. Governmental intervention is always a hacky solution in programming terms, and often counter-productive, but there's legitimate areas where it's actually worked. How would you deal with child labor?