No, actually they don't. Volunteering and unpaid internships have nothing at all to do with the minimum wage, although I can see why you'd like to think so (since you disapprove of the concept). IF unpaid internships are legal, then they are (obviously) not affected by a minimum wage. Volunteering (also obviously) has nothing to do with a minimum wage. You've successfully hijacked a discussion about internships, in order to talk about what you want to talk about.Advocates of minimum wage have the awkward task of explaining why volunteering is good but unpaid internships are bad.
I don't know the difference between volunteering and unpaid internships, so - no. What I do believe is that businesses will (if they can) circumvent worker-rights legislation (including minimum wage laws) under either of these monikers, and when they do, THAT is morally questionable.
Worker-rights legislation, like minimum wage, is meant to protect the most vulnerable workers. Professionals like doctors and engineers don't need such protection. Without legal protection, businesses would take advantage of the most vulnerable workers, like children, disabled people, agricultural workers sweating in the fields, or restaurant workers. Yet these people can all legally be paid less than minimum wage in the United States. Similar exceptions apply in New Zealand. David Bonior sponsored the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2002, and later opened a restaurant, paying his 50 or so employees $2.36 an hour. The law recognizes that people with few skills or other disadvantages cannot afford to be priced out of the job market and makes exceptions for them. But not all of them. Last July, the U.S. unemployment rate for people aged 16 and up was 5.3%. For black people aged 16-24, the rate was 20.7%. Are we helping them by making their labor more expensive to employers? I think you're right, this is the subject I want to talk about. Thank you for your feedback, and for any other ideas you might like to share.
I disagree with your first statement - one need not be 'vulnerable' to be entitled to worker's rights. My stance on minimum wage differs from yours, I suspect, and can be summed up quite simply - if you (as an employer) can't afford to pay the legal minimum wage, then you have a problem with your business model. You do society no favours by enabling slave wages simply because it allows more jobs to be available.
I am curious to understand your point of view, but it doesn't seem that you are curious to understand mine. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does seem like an opportunity for each of us to learn about a different perspective. Perhaps you do not find it strange that disabled people are not covered by minimum wage. Or perhaps you think the law is wrong and they should be covered. I think they would be harmed by minimum wage, and am curious to know if you think differently.
Having given it some thought, I do think it's unjust to exempt minimum wage due to disability. Let's assume a person's disability makes him 50% productive. He shouldn't be paid half because of that - he deserves a day's wages for a day's work. It's also not fair to expect an employer to bear the cost; in this case the ideal would be a State subsidy to the employer, matching wages at 50% each. This seems to me a good, fair, and valid use of tax dollars.
Fairness is an elusive goal. People who work half time (perhaps because it is their second job) might find it unfair that the disabled person receives twice as much pay for the same amount of work. Young people are also exempted from the minimum wage. As inexperienced workers, they can't produce the same value for an employer as older, more experienced workers. In 2013, New Zealand recognized that minimum wage was locking young, inexperienced people out of the job market, and therefore implemented a "starting-out wage" of 80% of the adult minimum wage, saying For young people who can produce at least 80% of the value of adult minimum wage workers, the law no longer prevents them from entering the job market and gaining experience. Since 2013, the numbers are improving, but over 20% of young people seeking work remain unemployed. Working at a low-paying job ("slave wage" is meaningless) is worse than what many people do for income. But it may be better than any alternative that some people have. You do society no favors by banning others from voluntarily acting on opportunities simply because you would refuse them.The starting out wage is part of a range of measures that support more young people entering the workforce (and gaining the education and training they need for work). It will influence the demand for young people by employers, and therefore encourage them to create more jobs.
Your first paragraph makes no sense. The two do the same amount of work (labour), what is different is the amount of output / productivity. As to the rest, all I can say is that if your only goal is maximum employment numbers, then minimum wage makes sense. That is not the only consideration. I don't see a lot of point in continuing this; we both know and understand the other's positions, we just don't agree.
It depends on what you mean by work: effort, or value created. Productivity usually refers to value created, and many workers produce value by tapping on keyboards. Employers are concerned with value created, and switch to machines that produce the same value created when human labor is more expensive. I believe I can express your position in a way you would agree with, but I am not sure you could do the same. But I don't insist on continuing. Perhaps someone else could explain why I believe minimum wage is more harmful than helpful and, if they disagree, why I am wrong.The two do the same amount of work
we both know and understand the other's positions
That's twice now you've groundlessly accused me of not understanding you. I think we're done here.
I wasn't aware of the disability exemption for NZ, and I don't know the details yet, but I do find it strange. On the face of it, it seems unjust but perhaps there is a valid reason for it.