3 ms·

I'll take a crack at justifying it. First of all, if you have a minimum wage law (which we do), it has to be enforced. Allowing people to work as "unpaid inte

by akeefer 17y ago

I'll take a crack at justifying it. First of all, if you have a minimum wage law (which we do), it has to be enforced. Allowing people to work as "unpaid interns" is a half-assed way that corporations take to work around that law. You can argue about the efficacy of minimum wage laws, but it seems like real empirical studies (instead of just theoretical arguments) have been pretty inconclusive. And overall, the point is that you can't just let people create a massive loophole in that law by just deciding not to pay people at all. Secondly, from a simple ethical standpoint, unpaid internships privilege people who are already well enough off to be able to give their labor away for free (i.e. generally middle-class or wealthier kids whose parents can support them). You don't get a lot of poor kids applying for unpaid internships at age 20 or 22 because, guess what, they need those 40+ hours a week to actually earn an income. So the tradition of unpaid internships in certain traditionally white-collar industries tends to be a subtle form of class discrimination. And recasting it as a "volunteer" thing is also a total cop-out: you volunteer for a non-profit charity, not a for-profit corporation.

apotheon 17y ago
> You can argue about the efficacy of minimum wage laws, but it seems like real empirical studies (instead of just theoretical arguments) have been pretty inconclusive. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. > And overall, the point is that you can't just let people create a massive loophole in that law by just deciding not to pay people at all. I, for one, don't have any problem with people finding "loopholes" in bad laws. > So the tradition of unpaid internships in certain traditionally white-collar industries tends to be a subtle form of class discrimination. Class warfare? Seriously . . . ?
- akeefer 17y ago
  "A subtle form of class discrimination" is a far cry from "class warfare." I'm saying that, ethically speaking, unpaid internships help to further close off certain careers to people who are traditionally disadvantaged by giving opportunities to get ahead to people who are already traditionally more advantaged. If you disagree with that logic, that's fine: just explain how I'm wrong instead of just dismissing it.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    I disagree with the idea that the possibility that one set of people might be more "advantaged" than another is good justification for ensuring nobody gets a leg up. . . . and claiming otherwise, specifically when those sets of people are identified by social or economic class, is pretty much "code smell" for "class warfare".
cwan 17y ago
So then what you're arguing then is society is better off for there not to have any work being done at all - essentially what Mark Cuban's concluding statement is: for the "benefit" of the exploited intern, we would rather they sit at home rather than gain any experience at the risk that the experience is useless? What does it matter if the firm is for profit or not for profit/charity/government agency in the first place? So charities couldn't possibly exploit the poor/their workers? By this logic, should we ban or let government set prices on everything? After all, any free giveaways causes pressure on substitutes to go down in value. So by setting a price on a good or service which is below what some other guy has, you're essentially being "exploited". Class discrimination? Right, so you're arguing that it's not fair that "middle-class or wealthier kids whose parents can support them" have the privilege of unpaid internships so this practice should be stopped? As for empirical studies, the problem is that it's very difficult to isolate the variables but when it comes to understanding simple price floors and price ceilings, it's a pretty simple, conclusive relationship. Further, the studies are pretty clear in my books with the overwhelming evidence of cause and effect of minimum wages (sure there are those that are inconclusive, but if you're looking for a "scientific consensus" - you won't find the average economist saying that it's inconclusive unless they happen to work for a union): http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm

by akeefer 17y ago

apotheon 17y ago

> You can argue about the efficacy of minimum wage laws, but it seems like real empirical studies (instead of just theoretical arguments) have been pretty inconclusive. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. > And overall, the point is that you can't just let people create a massive loophole in that law by just deciding not to pay people at all. I, for one, don't have any problem with people finding "loopholes" in bad laws. > So the tradition of unpaid internships in certain traditionally white-collar industries tends to be a subtle form of class discrimination. Class warfare? Seriously . . . ?

akeefer 17y ago
"A subtle form of class discrimination" is a far cry from "class warfare." I'm saying that, ethically speaking, unpaid internships help to further close off certain careers to people who are traditionally disadvantaged by giving opportunities to get ahead to people who are already traditionally more advantaged. If you disagree with that logic, that's fine: just explain how I'm wrong instead of just dismissing it.
- apotheon 17y ago
  I disagree with the idea that the possibility that one set of people might be more "advantaged" than another is good justification for ensuring nobody gets a leg up. . . . and claiming otherwise, specifically when those sets of people are identified by social or economic class, is pretty much "code smell" for "class warfare".

cwan 17y ago

So then what you're arguing then is society is better off for there not to have any work being done at all - essentially what Mark Cuban's concluding statement is: for the "benefit" of the exploited intern, we would rather they sit at home rather than gain any experience at the risk that the experience is useless? What does it matter if the firm is for profit or not for profit/charity/government agency in the first place? So charities couldn't possibly exploit the poor/their workers? By this logic, should we ban or let government set prices on everything? After all, any free giveaways causes pressure on substitutes to go down in value. So by setting a price on a good or service which is below what some other guy has, you're essentially being "exploited". Class discrimination? Right, so you're arguing that it's not fair that "middle-class or wealthier kids whose parents can support them" have the privilege of unpaid internships so this practice should be stopped? As for empirical studies, the problem is that it's very difficult to isolate the variables but when it comes to understanding simple price floors and price ceilings, it's a pretty simple, conclusive relationship. Further, the studies are pretty clear in my books with the overwhelming evidence of cause and effect of minimum wages (sure there are those that are inconclusive, but if you're looking for a "scientific consensus" - you won't find the average economist saying that it's inconclusive unless they happen to work for a union): http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm