> 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

> 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.