3 ms·

> Working for no pay on your own company is still totally legal and, whaddaya know, also known for giving a person experience. . . . but useless for getting yo

> Working for no pay on your own company is still totally legal and, whaddaya know, also known for giving a person experience. . . . but useless for getting your foot in the job field's door, because you have to already be there to "take advantage" of that "opportunity". Your "solution" completely ignores the catch 22 of needing a job to get experience and needing experience to get a job.

ahoyhere 17y ago
After years of freelancing, without prior "work experience" and without even a high school diploma, my first job paid me $64,000. Think about it - I ran my own business, I was responsible for everything from client acquisition, billing, account management, not to mention actual production and marketing. And I didn't starve or get evicted, so it clearly worked. That's great experience. An unpaid internship doesn't give you any more experience than running your own business. And honestly, it can reflect poorly on your business acumen and/or drive. If you are relying on the names on your resume, not what you actually did, it's not going to do you much good. It's fine to not have enough drive to do things on your own, to want to take the "default route" to "default success." There's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I applaud anyone who finds their path to happiness. But. People frame these unpaid internships as some great act of heroic entrepreneurial spirit, and they're not. If you want to be rewarded down the road for great acts of heroic entrepreneurial spirit, be an entrepreneur. Bonus: that creates jobs, and builds everyone up, instead of creating competition for 'free' jobs that pay nothing but 'experience.'
- apotheon 17y ago
  > People frame these unpaid internships as some great act of heroic entrepreneurial spirit, and they're not. I'm not calling them "heroic". I'm just annoyed that other people are casting them as "evil". They can be mutually beneficial, and I don't see a problem with that. The "evil" is people trying to prohibit mutually beneficial transactions. By the way, I love the entrepreneurial spirit. I just don't love the "you must be an entrepreneur, one of the lucky people who sneak past the catch 22, or 'paid' by way of taxes" plan. I prefer maximizing opportunity, rather than limiting it, even for people who don't have that entrepreneurial spirit.
  - ahoyhere 17y ago
    Then look at it this way. Barter is taxed, and working for free for "experience" is clearly a form of barter. Unpaid internships still must be taxed. They will probably be taxed at a higher prevailing wage than minimum wage. So, you have tax payment going on, while no employment paying is going on. Meanwhile back at the ranch, rich or reasonably well-off kids can take free internships, which creates more free internships, which creates competition for free internships. And those smart, deserving, motivated kids who can't afford to work utterly for free cannot compete for free internships and instead have to work at McDonald's or some other, less useful job. If the internships are paid, everyone is better off... except, perhaps, the employer who hoped to get free labor. (But who still has to pay taxes, natch.)
    - apotheon 17y ago
      > If the internships are paid, everyone is better off You're assuming that the cost of providing internships is essentially zero. When the likelihood of internships being offered at all (based on cost) is factored into things, your argument falls apart.
      - anonjon 17y ago
        And are you assuming that the internships are being provided as a public service? That is laughable. Either the company gets a hire-able employee or they get a whole bunch of work done that no one else was going to do.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  This might be the time to mention the true story of Christopher Gardner, as shown in "The Pursuit of Happyness" who worked for six months without pay to find his dream. One story does not an argument make, but it's just an observation.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - timr 17y ago
    He also had to live on the street with his child for those six months, and at the end of the day was still lucky to get the job. Maybe he wouldn't have been given the opportunity at all if it were paid (though I find that line of reasoning doubtful), but it's pretty hard to argue that he wouldn't have been better off with a paid internship.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      > it's pretty hard to argue that he wouldn't have been better off with a paid internship. . . . if the internship existed at all. Your argument seems to take the form "The downside you suggest is doubtful to me, but it's pretty hard to argue he wouldn't have been better off if he did everything exactly the same and magically got money." Well, duh -- if people give you money, you're likely to be better off, if all else is equal. This whole discussion started with an "all else is not equal" set of circumstances, though, where Cuban stated outright that the project cannot afford to exist if the "internships" are paid with hard cash. Period. Thus, the "doubtful" circumstance is a reality in this case -- and, given that state of affairs, talking about whether they'd be better off if Cuban would just pay them for these jobs that don't exist is nothing but wanking. Let's discuss this in the on-topic world for a moment: Do you think these potential unpaid internships that have been prohibited by government could have benefited some people who are now worse off because those opportunities don't exist, or not? If you think they could have, perhaps you can explain why you want to deny them those opportunities. If you think they could not have, perhaps you could explain why not. That's what's relevant here -- not whether or not everybody magically having more money would be nice.

ahoyhere 17y ago

After years of freelancing, without prior "work experience" and without even a high school diploma, my first job paid me $64,000. Think about it - I ran my own business, I was responsible for everything from client acquisition, billing, account management, not to mention actual production and marketing. And I didn't starve or get evicted, so it clearly worked. That's great experience. An unpaid internship doesn't give you any more experience than running your own business. And honestly, it can reflect poorly on your business acumen and/or drive. If you are relying on the names on your resume, not what you actually did, it's not going to do you much good. It's fine to not have enough drive to do things on your own, to want to take the "default route" to "default success." There's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I applaud anyone who finds their path to happiness. But. People frame these unpaid internships as some great act of heroic entrepreneurial spirit, and they're not. If you want to be rewarded down the road for great acts of heroic entrepreneurial spirit, be an entrepreneur. Bonus: that creates jobs, and builds everyone up, instead of creating competition for 'free' jobs that pay nothing but 'experience.'

apotheon 17y ago
> People frame these unpaid internships as some great act of heroic entrepreneurial spirit, and they're not. I'm not calling them "heroic". I'm just annoyed that other people are casting them as "evil". They can be mutually beneficial, and I don't see a problem with that. The "evil" is people trying to prohibit mutually beneficial transactions. By the way, I love the entrepreneurial spirit. I just don't love the "you must be an entrepreneur, one of the lucky people who sneak past the catch 22, or 'paid' by way of taxes" plan. I prefer maximizing opportunity, rather than limiting it, even for people who don't have that entrepreneurial spirit.
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  Then look at it this way. Barter is taxed, and working for free for "experience" is clearly a form of barter. Unpaid internships still must be taxed. They will probably be taxed at a higher prevailing wage than minimum wage. So, you have tax payment going on, while no employment paying is going on. Meanwhile back at the ranch, rich or reasonably well-off kids can take free internships, which creates more free internships, which creates competition for free internships. And those smart, deserving, motivated kids who can't afford to work utterly for free cannot compete for free internships and instead have to work at McDonald's or some other, less useful job. If the internships are paid, everyone is better off... except, perhaps, the employer who hoped to get free labor. (But who still has to pay taxes, natch.)
  - apotheon 17y ago
    > If the internships are paid, everyone is better off You're assuming that the cost of providing internships is essentially zero. When the likelihood of internships being offered at all (based on cost) is factored into things, your argument falls apart.
    - anonjon 17y ago
      And are you assuming that the internships are being provided as a public service? That is laughable. Either the company gets a hire-able employee or they get a whole bunch of work done that no one else was going to do.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
This might be the time to mention the true story of Christopher Gardner, as shown in "The Pursuit of Happyness" who worked for six months without pay to find his dream. One story does not an argument make, but it's just an observation.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 17y ago
  He also had to live on the street with his child for those six months, and at the end of the day was still lucky to get the job. Maybe he wouldn't have been given the opportunity at all if it were paid (though I find that line of reasoning doubtful), but it's pretty hard to argue that he wouldn't have been better off with a paid internship.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    > it's pretty hard to argue that he wouldn't have been better off with a paid internship. . . . if the internship existed at all. Your argument seems to take the form "The downside you suggest is doubtful to me, but it's pretty hard to argue he wouldn't have been better off if he did everything exactly the same and magically got money." Well, duh -- if people give you money, you're likely to be better off, if all else is equal. This whole discussion started with an "all else is not equal" set of circumstances, though, where Cuban stated outright that the project cannot afford to exist if the "internships" are paid with hard cash. Period. Thus, the "doubtful" circumstance is a reality in this case -- and, given that state of affairs, talking about whether they'd be better off if Cuban would just pay them for these jobs that don't exist is nothing but wanking. Let's discuss this in the on-topic world for a moment: Do you think these potential unpaid internships that have been prohibited by government could have benefited some people who are now worse off because those opportunities don't exist, or not? If you think they could have, perhaps you can explain why you want to deny them those opportunities. If you think they could not have, perhaps you could explain why not. That's what's relevant here -- not whether or not everybody magically having more money would be nice.