5 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.