So, wasoxygen and I go back and forth a lot on the issue of inequality, he being of the libertarian mind, and me being a bit more leftist, although by no means a commie. We have had many lengthy conversations by PM, but a question arose recently that I thought might be interesting to put to the community.
In the course of our conversations about unpaid internships, wasoxygen asked me why I oppose them. This is a lightly abridged version of the exchange:
- b_b: I think it's fair to say that I see unpaid internships as being akin to indentured servitude.
wasoxygen: That is just another label. Why do you oppose indentured servitude? And please don't say because it is akin to slavery, or I will have to ask again. I know why I oppose slavery, but I don't want to make any assumptions about your position. Hopefully not simply because slavery is unpaid!
I think it's not really going out on a limb to say that the overwhelming majority of reasonable people oppose slavery in this day and age. But, the question made me realize that I'm not sure I'd ever been asked why slavery is bad, but rather, I've always taken it as axiomatic that slavery is morally abhorrent.
I wrote a reply after thinking on the topic for a bit, but I'd like to know some others' thoughts on the question. I'll post my response after a bit if anyone seems to be interested in the question at hand.
Because it is unpaid Because it assumes that some humans are not as human as others. Because it robs folks of their humanity Because it degrades the morality of the owners. Because it steals labor Because it sets up power relationships that lead to sexual abuse
You know that movie that says all crime is theft? At the crux of the matter? Like thievery is wrong because you are stealing an item from a person who owns it. Killing someone is wrong because you are stealing their life from them. The act of physical violence is wrong because you are stealing, let's say, someone's well-being. And so on. In essence all crimes are crimes because you are taking something from someone, something that they own and that they are entitled (?) to. Not to say that thief is really the root of all crimes - I am not an absolutionist - but in the case of slavery, I would say that at a minimum slavery is wrong because you are stealing someone's time and what they do with that time. You are taking the fruits of someone's labor from them and not providing them with anything in return. In the case of indentured servitude, often something was offered in return (commonly in colonial America, a trip to America in return for say, 7-10 years of service, or what-have-you) but what was offered was not really worth the sacrifice that is made. Moreover in indentured servitude and also in slavery, you are bound in perpetum (made-up word) to do whatever your owner/master commands. When you are paid or employed you are given both the free will, and the means, to refuse orders. Because if you are a slave you have neither the free will nor the means (the money, at a minimum; often if we are talking about Americn, 1861 before-and-after slavery also consider things like education, etc) to walk away from your job. As a slave or an indentured servant you did not have the choice to quit your "occupation" : your occupation was your life, if you were able to run away you were both a fugitive AND destitute. Moreover if you were caught, either as a true run-away slave or someone who looked like a slave (even if you never had been) you could be returned to slavery at any time. Slavery is a problem because you have no choice and you are not able to make any reasonable choices. It is a robbery of your basic liberty and independence. Moreover that's just pretending that slavery exists in a kind of vacuum where things like physical violence, sexual abuse/rape, and vindictive owners/awful tasks didn't exist. I have attempted to leave those out of the equation because while slavery opens the door for such atrocities you can always say they don't always have to happen as a result. I think that slavery makes those things kind of almost a given. If you have enough people that think that they own other people you are going to have that kind of behavior. In the case of unpaid internships I think they are closer to indentured servitude than true slavery. Something is ostensibly given as a result of the labor; however the value of it is too small. The internships are seen as being "required" in order to gain experience since "one can't get a job without." Or "college grads are required to take a certain number of hours in internships to earn credits." (These are not in quotes because I am skeptical; they are in quotes because I believe they are the common given reasons.) The experience is seen as necessary. however in return for it the interns have no choice in what they are going to do, are often looked down upon by everyone else, forced to do ridiculous amounts of work that paid coworkers aren't (because they can just foist them off on others) and the interns are generally seen to be a lower, second-class "worker". Them's mah sense.
Why is slavery bad? Because we long for freedom. As soon as someone tries to control us, the disconnecting process begins. We long for freedom from control. Watch your babies pull themselves up and get on their feet. They want to run.
They long for freedom. Do you live near a school? At recess, lunch, and after school the kids run out the school doors. The kinderclatter fills the playground. They long for freedom.
Lots of good answers on here. This is what I had to say to wasoxygen, and what I think many people on here are say in different words:Here's why I oppose slavery, and why I think that libertarians and liberals sometimes find themselves on the same side of human rights issues: Because the most basic human right is the right of self-determination. The essence of being a human is the right to choose. When we deny that choice, we are stripping a person's humanity from them, humiliating and degrading not just their person, but their very existence. That is why slavery is wrong.
And here is my response to b_b's statement:
My favorite response here was lil's, as it is as inspiring and lovely as lil is. But on reflection I thought it was another instance of label-switching and did not have much explanatory power. "Why is slavery bad? Because we long for non-slavery." I know why I love freedom, but I don't want to make any assumptions about lil's position. I like _refugee_'s approach too. It depends on the idea of theft, but I feel that theft is so obviously and universally wrong it is not necessary to make the case further. Similarly, b_b and I (and thenewgreen) seem to agree that coercion is wrong. I feel we are on the verge of agreeing that labor relationships in which coercion is applied are objectionable, and those in which the terms, including any monetary compensation, are arrived at voluntarily, are not objectionable.Your description was so clear and aligned with my perspective that I could not have stated it better myself. Thank you for expressing it so eloquently.
In preparation for Passover, my friend just sent me some quotes about Freedom. I should make this its own post, I guess. I don't agree with all of these, but they add dimension to the discussion. 1. “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” ― Gloria Steinem 2. “I had crossed the line. I was free; but there was no one to welcome me to the land of freedom. I was a stranger in a strange land.” - Harriet Tubman 3. “The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day.” ― David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water" 4. “For any human being, freedom is essential, crucial, to our dignity and our ability to be fully human.” ― Izzeldin Abuelaish, I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor's Journey on the Road to Peace and Human Dignity 5. “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Sigmund Freud 6. “We gain freedom when we have paid the full price.” – Rabindranath Tagore 7. “When a truth is not given complete freedom, freedom is not complete.” – Vaclav Havel 8. “The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.” ― Albert Einstein 9. “Jazz stands for freedom. It's supposed to be the voice of freedom: Get out there and improvise, and take chances, and don't be a perfectionist - leave that to the classical musicians.” – Dave Brubeck 10. “Slaves are generally expected to sing as well as to work.” ― Frederick Douglass 11. “If my mind cannot be tied down, if my dreams cannot be diminished, then no amount of restraints can really guarantee my quiet submission.” ― Deborah Feldman, Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots 12. “Literature was the passport to enter a larger life…Literature was freedom. Especially in a time in which the values of reading and inwardness are so strenuously challenged, literature is freedom.” ― Susan Sontag 13. “The thing is this: You got to have fun while you're fightin' for freedom, 'cause you don't always win.” – Molly Ivins 14. “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.” ― Rosa Luxemburg 15. “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.” ― Isaiah Berlin 16. “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. 17. “Forgiveness is the key to action and freedom.” – Hannah Arendt 18. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” -- Martin Luther King, Jr. 19. “For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” ― Nelson Mandela 20. "The special virtue of freedom is not that it makes you richer and more powerful but that it gives you more time to understand what it means to be alive.” ― Adam Gopnik 21. "Anything outside marriage seems like freedom and excitement." – Jeanette Winterson 22. "Freedom is not given to us by anyone; we have to cultivate it ourselves. It is a daily practice... No one can prevent you from being aware of each step you take or each breath in and breath out." – Thich Nhat Hanh 23. "Freedom means the opportunity to be what we never thought we would be." – Daniel J. Boorstin
For this conversation, #4 seems especially relevant. #14 and #15 are powerful. #10 is heartbreaking. Douglass's memoir, along with Malcolm X's autobiography, are two books I read because I thought they would be good for me, like vitamins, but they turned out to be just great books.
Yes, but where we disagree is in the grey area between being a free, rational player, and being a forced slave. The line between choice and coercion lay somewhere in between, but where? Unless we can agree what constitutes a coercive circumstance, I'm afraid we'll always be at a standstill.
b_b, you have put your finger on the very crux of our debate. Our understandings of what the word "coercion" means will determine where we agree and disagree. I have provided a description so that a reader can examine any work situation and determine whether wasoxygen would say it is coercive, hopefully without having to consult me. Could you please do the same?
Yes, I agree. For my part, I do not believe that factors such as the following are relevant to the question of whether a workplace is coercive: • the physical characteristics of the worker • the net worth of the worker • the cost of goods or services in some place • the average amount people in some place spend on food or housing • the compensation of other people who work at the same workplace • the amount of misery a person would suffer if they choose not to work∗ I have asked you several questions that I think are relevant in deciding if a workplace is coercive. But there is a simpler way to find evidence that workers are being coerced. We can ask them.... If an intern tells you he or she is free to leave the internship (though quitting, like any other decision, may have some negative consequences), where is the coercion? Also: ∗This last bullet point is the tricky one, because it affects us emotionally. I recognize that hunger may compel someone to work; the alternatives are too dire. We all want the hungry worker to have less misery, so we want them to have more money. The employer is already giving them some money, so it is easy to say that the employer should give them some more! But to the extent that hunger is a reason for the employer to pay them beyond what their work is worth to the employer, it is also a reason for all of us to pay them purely out of charity. The argument for forcing the employer to give the hungry worker charity applies to everyone else just as well. I would argue that the employer is already doing something to help the hungry worker, by offering them a job and some income, so we should not make things any harder for them.What would evidence of coercion in a labor arrangement look like? I think it would be obvious. Are chains required to prevent the worker from escaping? Is corporeal punishment used to intimidate and frighten the worker? Is the worker considered the property of the master? Do legal institutions enable the master to prevent the worker from seeking alternative opportunities?
Did anyone force the interns to sign? Are they not free to choose any other opportunity that they find more advantageous? If they learn that the internship is not what they had in mind, can't they quit at any time? Where is the coercion? As long as the arrangement is perceived as beneficial to both sides, it continues. As soon as it ceases to be, it dissolves.
I have to agree with wasoxygen for the most part. I am reminded of an argument I have heard many times in the last few years – the argument that workers are being "coerced” to stay in jobs they do not want simply to keep the healthcare benefits their employers provide. It is astonishing to me that a benefit provided by a private entity can be widely perceived as a form of “coercion” – and yet a government entitlement providing exactly the same benefit is perceived as a “right”. Doesn’t the individual feel somewhat bound to support those providing the assistance in either case – exactly up to the point at which the costs of retaining the benefit outweigh its value?
So, do you believe the minimum wage should be zero?
Short answer: Yes. The minimum wage is already zero. That is how much someone earns if they choose not to work or can’t find a job. I don’t see how selling one’s time, energy, and talent for money (i.e. working at a job) is meaningfully different from selling tangible products or services like massages or driving lessons. I think it is obvious that forcing a minimum price on any of these sales can be harmful to both buyer and seller. The buyer (i.e. customer, or employer) is forced to pay more, or go without what they wanted to buy. The seller (i.e. business, or worker) already had the option of refusing to sell for a lower price if they so choose, and must now get by with fewer options. Minimum wage can result in some workers getting a raise, but it is likely to result in additional, undesirable changes in the workplace to compensate. It encourages employers to prefer advantaged, more skilled workers over more vulnerable, less-skilled workers. It artificially encourages outsourcing, automation, and can promote discrimination (as “undesirable” employees are prevented from “competing on price”). When an outsider forces two people to modify their working agreement to satisfy the (possibly well-intentioned, possibly not) demands of the outsider, this is undeniably coercive. I have made more tedious arguments here and there arguing against coercive minimum prices for labor (warning: snark).
This is a dishonest re-definition. A wage is what you must pay, as an employer, if you wish to employ people. A wage is not "what you don't earn when you don't work". Minimum wage is there simply to prevent the type of abuse that is possible by employers when/if people are very desperate for work. It is a restriction on employers. It is no more coercive than myriad other taxes; I see no difference. No one likes taxes; that's not a good enough reason to eliminate them. I'll read your links and respond more later probably; busy week :-) [edit] It appears to me that your argument is exactly the same as an argument calling for zero taxes, on employers at least. ANY extra expense might keep an employer from employing someone, therefore it's wrong. Your argument devolves into "all taxes on employers are wrong".The minimum wage is already zero. That is how much someone earns if they choose not to work or can’t find a job.
This is a dishonest re-definition.
You are right; thanks for the catch. Perhaps I should use the term "income," but it is still missing the point. The idea I want to hint at is that increasing minimum wage does not automatically mean workers earn more. The standard economic objection is that minimum wage reduces employment opportunity and increases unemployment.the type of abuse that is possible by employers when/if people are very desperate for work
Would you support minimum prices on goods for sale when a business is very desperate for revenue? Do you use the term "abuse" when businesses offer very low prices? Consider that the "business" could be a single person and the "product" could be math lessons.[Minimum wage] is a restriction on employers.
It is enforced that way, but it seems clear to me that it effectively restricts both sides. It makes it illegal for workers to take jobs that pay below a certain level — in other words, from selling their assets (time, energy, talent) at certain prices.
Selling products at a loss to drive competition from the market is a common tactic. I'm not sure but I believe that's illegal in some circumstances. What I don't understand is why you believe the situations to be equivalent. A low wage is the employer harming or abusing the employee; a low price is the employer harming or abusing himself.Would you support minimum prices on goods for sale when a business is very desperate for revenue?
Here are some illustrations of the principle of minimum wage: • People who beg in the street sometimes receive donations of small change. These small payments won't help them much. Suppose they are prohibited from accepting donations less than US$10, will they will be better off? • Suppose coffee shops sell cups of coffee for an average price of $2. There are so many coffee shops competing for business that they can barely cover their expenses. Coffee shops sometimes become insolvent and close. The Coalition of Coffee Vendors proposes a law to support this important and beloved industry. From now on, the minimum legal price of a cup of coffee will be $5. Most coffee shops will be hurt, isn't that obvious? But some will do well — those which sold premium coffee in luxurious shops which were already charging close to or more than $5. (You won't be surprised to learn that these shops have a lot of influence with the Coalition of Coffee Vendors.) The law causes more harm than good. Therefore it is a bad law, aside from the fact that dictating how coffee shops and customers interact is nosy, paternalistic, and coercive. The chief practical negative of minimum wage is increased unemployment among the most vulnerable workers, who would most benefit from greater access to employment. This is a realistic concern (emphasis added).It is no more coercive than myriad other taxes
Agreed. And surely we can agree that all taxes have the negative effect of depriving the taxpayers of some funds. To decide if the tax, or a law, is good or not, we have to do a cost-benefit analysis. The fact that coercion must be used to collect taxes or enforce laws is a negative, but one that people might decide is worthwhile given the benefits. The number of unemployed youth in July 2013 was 3.8 million, compared with 4.0 million
a year ago. The youth unemployment rate was 16.3 percent in July 2013. Among the major
demographic groups, unemployment rates were lower than a year earlier in July for young
women (14.8 percent) and whites (13.9 percent), while jobless rates changed little for
young men (17.6 percent), blacks (28.2 percent), Asians (15.0 percent), and Hispanics
(18.1 percent).
Just FYI - the NZ minimum wage is $14.25; our current government (the right-wing party is in power now) have suggested it may rise to $15. Youth unemployment is a problem here, but not a major one, as far as I know.
First bullet - you are seriously equating people who give to beggers in the street with employers? Really? Second bullet - you are trying to equate minimum price with minimum wage. Apples/oranges. So you support a zero minimum wage because you believe it prevents unemployment? Well sure, of course it does, because with a minimum wage, you're not allowing unfair employment. That's kinda the point.
you are seriously equating people who give to beggers in the street with employers?
No.Really?
Really, no. I don't think that giving charity to strangers constitutes an employer/employee relationship.you are trying to equate minimum price with minimum wage. Apples/oranges.
A price is an amount of money given in payment for something. A wage is a price for labor. Consider that the "business" could be a single person and the "product" could be math lessons.So you support a zero minimum wage because you believe it prevents unemployment?
Alas, no.
The loss of one's right to choose is also why I think we find neurologic diseases so tragic, whether it be motor neuron disease, in which one can decide but not execute one's choices, or dementia, in which one can act but not choose. Either situation seems less than human.
There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft.... When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness.
I didn't care for the book (quotes here). Too unrelentingly, intentionally sad. Strangely, I did not feel the same way about The Road.
The Road was the most emotionally evocative book I've read in years (before that, -Dostoevsky). It gave me vivid dreams and nightmares on multiple nights (I only read it before bed for the most part). The best were the nightmares that contained scenes preceding the book...stumbling down a highway, looking back over my shoulder to see a mushroom cloud in the distance...
When they speak of the great Russian psyological novel authors, it isn't just a convenient label. In Crime & Punishment, the internal unravelling of the protagonist was rendered with such realism, it was almost to the point where I could understand him and his skewed point of view. It was that well written. This was profoundly disturbing and depressing while reading it, since the protagonist committed a grisly murder. It's one thing to make a character come alive, but another to tease out the threads of his mind and gently lead you to the same place he is going. Just made me feel like I understood the mechanics of a broken mind far more than I wanted to. The Road was emotionally impactful to a similar degree but in a more benign way as I had a relationship with the victims in that case.
I agree with your assessment of Crime and Punishment, it was disturbing how much I could "relate" to his way of thinking. I felt similarly after reading Albert Camus' the Stranger.
I could not get into The Stranger. Camus is one of my favorite authors but I much prefer his political essays to his fiction. I started The Stranger after reading Letters to a German Friend and it was too much of a departure in style at the time I think.
Ha, I have read them both as well. As for The Kite Runner, it's a first novel and shows it in places. I wasn't that fond of it and it didn't break my world open. The Road I found more readily engrossing though I think that is also a result of McCarthy's writing style.
I couldn't help being affected by The Kite Runner, it just felt manipulative. It is perhaps a poor criticism, since there must be many true stories that would be even more heartbreaking. I did not see either movie, but have The Road on my list. Can you recommend for or against it?
I have not seen the movie for The Road. I may have seen the Kite Runner movie (the first time I read it was for an English class) but I don't remember it. To be honest, I have been watching a lot of documentaries lately, and things on Netflix. I am not good at catching movies in theaters or shows when they're on TV.
Take the issue to its extreme - suppose you are wealthy, and the society you live in is very poor. You can pay people next to nothing, and they will work themselves to death for that pittance (to try to keep their family alive, perhaps). You can afford to pay a living wage, but you don't have to, because there are people who will take what you offer. Is it ethical in this situation, to pay only what the market will bear?
Isn't this why we have a minimum wage? Because we as a society say that you shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of others, even though you could without coercion?
First of all, I would be extremely uncomfortable in this situation. It makes me quite uncomfortable to walk past one very poor person on the sidewalk, while I and hundreds of people around me enjoy fresh coffee, wear clean clothes and play with our smartphones. To be surrounded by poverty-induced misery on all sides would make me miserable, if not suicidal. So your suggestion of starting some kind of business and offering people jobs is appealing. Specialization of labor and voluntary exchange have been a powerful force in generating wealth around the world. Let's assume I can figure out some business that can be successful in this environment. Probably I can't offer jobs to everyone around, not at the beginning anyway. Even if I could, probably some people won't have skills that contribute to the business, or there will be more unskilled people than I can usefully employ. So I have to choose: do I use my limited budget to employ a smaller number of people at a higher wage, thereby improving a smaller number of people to a greater extent? Or do I employ a larger number of people at a lower wage, thereby spreading the wealth more widely but with less individual effect? It is not obvious to me that one is clearly better than the other, so I think it might be justifiable to aim for a workforce size and corresponding salary that is best for the business and therefore best for everyone since this business is the best hope we have of pulling people out of poverty. What would you do?Take the issue to its extreme - suppose you are wealthy, and the society you live in is very poor.
Hi again, briandmyers. I regret that our discussion earlier didn't lead in constructive directions, and I thought this thought experiment very interesting. I will respond to it honestly, and I would be interested to see how you would respond as well.You can pay people next to nothing, and they will work themselves to death for that pittance
But at least there is some hope. I have some wealth. It is obvious to me that the only possible comfort to be had in this situation would come from trying to elevate as many of my neighbors as possible from their wretched states. I could divide up my wealth equally among everyone and distribute it, that would be fair and it would help some. But I am too selfish to completely impoverish myself in order to provide a small benefit to many people (I must admit this as long as I, in the real world, have plenty to eat and a comfortable home while people elsewhere starve).
Thanks for the follow-up. Here's the heart of the matter, right here. You or I, as human beings, are uncomfortable, and wish to improve the wealth of our society. Good on us, but we're a tiny minority. It will be a faceless corporation which will in reality be supplying the majority of those jobs, and that entity will have a very different idea of what is "best for the business", and is (I assert) much less likely to give two shits about raising the community out of poverty. That's why a minimum wage makes sense - because in general it is NOT ethical to pay people as little as you can get away; and corporations have no ethics that are not imposed on them (not being human like you and I).I would be extremely uncomfortable in this situation.
Out of a sample size of 2, then, 100% of us care about the welfare of others and would not selfishly improve our condition if it meant harming others. This is not much data, so I did an experiment. I looked through my phone's contact list and counted all the people I think I know well enough to decide if they are also like us. By the time I got to about 50, there were none of whom I was certain they would be willing to hurt others to get ahead, and only a few of whom I was not sure. The majority of the people I know seem decent and I believe they are also very uncomfortable seeing other humans suffer. Is your experience different? Do you know a lot of people who, in this scenario, would be comfortable paying a "pittance" to have people mow their lawn and wash their car, not caring that they are trying to "keep their family alive"?You or I, as human beings, are uncomfortable, and wish to improve the wealth of our society. Good on us, but we're a tiny minority.
Exactly as b_b says, I meant "tiny minority" in the sense of the jobs we might provide. Sorry for being unclear, and thanks also for showing my mistake in framing the original postulate as a wealthy person. It's a business that I should have posited, since as you rightly point out, people in general are extremely moral in most circumstance.
I read briandmyers' comment to mean that a corporation, being incorporeal, lacks a sense of justice, and that regulations, in certain cases, can guide the behavior of a corporation to act more like individuals might act toward one another. This isn't to say that this goal is always, or even often, accomplished, but merely that it may be an aim. I, for example, used to work for Dow Chemical. My boss at Dow was an Indian fellow who worked for Union Carbide before Dow purchased them. Both of us were (are) good, caring people. Both companies are soulless and evil, having given the world such gifts are Agent Orange and the Bhopal disaster. The aggregate behavior of the companies did not reflect the morality of the individuals within. Although FWIW my boss thought Union Carbide was an excellent firm, which is a great lesson in relativism, given that the man was dirt poor as a child, and UC helped him get out of poverty, get a PhD in chemistry from University of Michigan, and live a generally good, upper middle class life in America. Bhopal didn't even enter into the calculus of how he felt about them. I can't see it that way, because I don't know what it's like to grow up picking garbage to stay alive.
This is why I'm generally against unpaid internships, especially those that don't seem like education is their priority. I find the situation where one has to live and work unpaid for months or even a year just to have a chance at getting gainful employment to be coercive. We all, left or right, seem to agree that coercion is wrong, but we seem to disagree as to what it consists in. I would say that any market that demands unpaid labor is coercive. One can say that there are other industries that don't demand such situations, but then the free marketer is going against his own assumption that a laborer will find the thing that (s)he is good at and fill that niche. It appears to me to be an undue barrier to entry that automatically excludes less well off workers.
This was an unusual paragraph in which I disagreed with every sentence. I hope you won't mind if I respond point by point. Do you not trust the worker to determine what benefit they get from a working arrangement, and whether it is worthwhile? Isn't volunteering a laudable form of unpaid work that can provide benefits unrelated to education? The cost of rent or food might compel someone to work more or accept comparatively less advantageous working arrangements, but most people do not consider such facts of life to be coercive. Who is doing the coercing? Many people feel compelled to spend many years and a lot of money on education so they can earn a better living in the future. Are they also victims of coercion? I have tried to define the word, but have not seen you do the same. In particular, I would like you to explain how someone who voluntarily accepts a working arrangement, and is free to abandon it the moment any better alternative becomes available, is a victim of coercion. Who is doing the coercing? The "market" does not demand anything; the market is a place where people meet to offer and make exchanges. "Demand" in an economic sense is nothing more than being able to say what you are willing to exchange for something. Starbucks demands $2.40 in exchange for 16 ounces of coffee. Some people demand 16 ounces of coffee in exchange for $2.40, and a deal is made. Some people don't want coffee that much, or already have plenty of cheap coffee or tea, so they "demand" a price of zero. Nobody is under any obligation to give them free coffee. No one tells the journalism major to pass on the internship at Condé Nast and work as an astrophysicist instead, since it pays better. The assumption is that the laborer will try to find best opportunity available, given their skill set and other realities. Your position suggests that we prohibit people from considering one possible means for gaining work experience, without considering whether they have a better alternative. The worker can already choose to decline an internship if they have a better option. If they choose to accept it, and you step and prevent the arrangement, your behavior is clearly coercive and, in my view, a barrier to entry that particularly applies to the less well off who have fewer alternatives.This is why I'm generally against unpaid internships, especially those that don't seem like education is their priority.
I find the situation where one has to live and work unpaid for months or even a year just to have a chance at getting gainful employment to be coercive.
We all, left or right, seem to agree that coercion is wrong, but we seem to disagree as to what it consists in.
I would say that any market that demands unpaid labor is coercive.
One can say that there are other industries that don't demand such situations, but then the free marketer is going against his own assumption that a laborer will find the thing that (s)he is good at and fill that niche.
It appears to me to be an undue barrier to entry that automatically excludes less well off workers.
Frankly, the more I've read about unpaid internships, the less clear I am on my stance on them. I wonder way more why people take them rather then why they exist (which is obviously because of the former). The fact that so many unpaid internships exist is proof that there is a supply problem in a number of fields. I won't back off my statement that unpaid internships are huge barriers to entry, but I'll qualify it to say that were I running a business, I wouldn't personally offer unpaid internships. The evidence that I read seems to suggest that offering a low-to-fair wage for these jobs actually attracts higher quality, more diverse groups of candidates than unpaid positions, and that the interns are more likely to stay on with your company after the fact. What's the point of training a worker to work for someone else? Like with may subjects, the older I get, the less I feel I understand them. I think there's a disconnect between entry level workers' expectations and reality. I think that if more kids got themselves educated, then very few would take a job with a media company that offered to pay them 0. I think the situation I find unjust is that it appears that taking an unpaid internship often doesn't increase one's job prospects, even though they're marketed that way. As is often the case, the more the worker can rebalance the information scales in their favor, the better. Sadly, educating oneself is not often a priority for too many people. Business owners have an obligation to follow the law, and currently the law says that for a job that is not mostly educational in nature, the minimum wage applies. Seems like a fair compromise. Sorry I can't be more argumentative.
"Hi, Mr. b_b, I am not old enough to legally work, but I would love to pick up balls on your golf course and clean carts and just hang around and learn about the golf business because I dream of owning my own course one day. Also, someone told me that 'The ability to make decisions for oneself is among the most important things that makes us human' and I decided that staying home and watching TV is a waste of time." "Scram, kid." Of course offering higher wages attracts higher quality workers. That's the whole point. You get what you pay for, and better-qualified workers will compete for richer compensation, pushing others out. I thought you were worried about "less well off workers"? "The chief practical negative of minimum wage is increased unemployment among the most vulnerable workers, who would most benefit from greater access to employment." The numbers have improved since the last time I checked, but the pattern is still the same: Compared to what? If you are saying one's future job prospects would increase more if one got a paid position instead of taking an internship, I think that's reasonable. If you are saying one's future job prospects would increase more if one remained unemployed, I doubt it. If an unemployed person has to choose between an unpaid internship and a similar but paid position, I don't think we need FLSA to nudge them in the right direction.were I running a business, I wouldn't personally offer unpaid internships
The evidence that I read seems to suggest that offering a low-to-fair wage for these jobs actually attracts higher quality, more diverse groups of candidates than unpaid positions
The number of unemployed youth was 2.8 million in July 2015, down from 3.4 million a year earlier. The youth unemployment rate was 12.2 percent in July 2015, 2.1 percentage points less than a year before. Among the major demographic groups, July unemployment rates were lower than the prior year for young men (12.7 percent), women (11.7 percent), whites (10.3 percent), blacks (20.7 percent), and Hispanics (12.7 percent). The youth jobless rate changed little for Asians (10.7 percent).
it appears that taking an unpaid internship often doesn't increase one's job prospects
If you are saying one's future job prospects would increase more if one remained unemployed, I doubt it. The only large survey I'm aware of (and I'm not an expert here by any stretch) indicates that there isn't a statistically significant difference in finding a job after college between those who have had unpaid internships and those with no work experience. This itself isn't an argument against not paying interns, but it is an argument to young people about not subjecting themselves to them. The potential caveat of that study is that they don't show the numbers by field. It could be that unpaid positions are more likely to be offered in field with high unemployment to being with, which supply and demand should dictate. In engineering, where I had my college internships, unpaid positions are unheard of. I got $14 an hour as an intern in 2004 at Dow Automotive, and my classmates told me I was getting fucked.Compared to what? If you are saying one's future job prospects would increase more if one got a paid position instead of taking an internship, I think that's reasonable.
Four months after that article appeared, the National Association of Colleges and Employers responded to "misapplication" of their survey conclusions, emphasizing that they only looked at intern-to-hire data prior to graduation, not after, and (as usual) more research and analysis were needed. In particular, they observed "that NACE does not have sufficient information about the individual students and their job searches to adequately explain" why the unpaid interns did not exhibit the same improvement in intern-to-hire statistics. The controls for gender, ethnicity, and academic major did not clear it up, and they do not know if "something distinctive about the places and kinds of jobs for which students with unpaid internships applied (e.g. not-for-profit vs. for profit organizations)" might explain the difference. There is a lot of variation in the places and kinds of jobs that offer unpaid internships, according to an informative report from Intern Bridge, another source for the Atlantic article. Some highlights: • Women are more likely to take unpaid internships (77%) "because they tend to be more involved in social justice, environmental, and social service issues." • Students with family income below $80,000 participated in unpaid internships at 46% compared to 40% for students with family income above $80,000. (While some complain that unpaid internships exploit the poor and give little benefit, others complain that only wealthy people can afford to consider them, so the experience and networking benefits of unpaid internships go to them.) • Unpaid internships are more common at non-profits (57% of internships unpaid) and government (48%), while for-profit companies have 34% internships unpaid. • Smaller firms have higher levels of unpaid internships (55% for those with fewer than 100 employees). The largest companies, with over 5000 employees, offered fewer than 20% of their internships as unpaid. • The largest proportions of unpaid internships were found in government (here stated as 54%), health (62%), non-profits (63%), and arts/entertainment/broadcasting (68%), while companies in the utilities, transportation and manufacturing sectors provide less than 17% of their internships unpaid. NACE concludes that "Unpaid internships can be legitimate, valuable extensions of classroom learning, if properly constructed." Thanks for keeping up with the conversation. I am not as clear on the value of unpaid internships as I may sound, arguing for their virtues. Maybe they are not that helpful. What I am unclear on is the confidence with which some people condemn voluntary working relationships that are not highly paid (in salary). You are one of very few people I have seen acknowledge the benefits that accrue to really desperate people who accept working conditions that most Americans would consider undignified and beneath them, and I think that is an important perspective to include in the it's-not-perfect-so-ban-it discussion.there isn't a statistically significant difference
Thanks b_b for putting this out, I too am curious to see what people think. Labels have their role, but as I expressed in my argument, they often leave out more than they denote. Applied to people, they can be especially reductionistic. The L-word, in particular, is in some circles tantamount to a curse word, or at least deserving of curses (poetic and evocative as the damning may be). So, thoughtful web, what do you say?
Slavery de-humanizes an individual, making them less than the 'master'. The 'master' assumes authority over an other free, sovereign human. Since all humans are born on this planet, all have the equal rights to be here and equal rights to live in freedom as they see fit. Slavery is the opposite of freedom: the assumption that another human can take away your freedom because he says so. Which is complete non-sense. Just my 2 cents.
Who amongst us isn't "bought and sold" based on our abilities? I think the key difference here is the word "forced." I have an option as to whether I decide to work tomorrow. It could be that I work for a company that mistreats me, abuses me and degrades me but I choose to show up. Having that choice makes all the difference. Also, there's nothing wrong with unpaid interns.Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
-wikipedia
Exactly. You have a choice, after all. If your skills were valuable enough to be worth paying for, someone would pay for them. They're not paying for your skills because either you don't have those skills yet, or there is a superfluity of those skills in the marketplace. In either case, it means there is a long ladder to climb, with many other people alongside and ahead of you. But it's up to you whether you persist, or choose a different, easier ladder. It's not slavery.Also, there's nothing wrong with unpaid interns.
Really? Isn't that why we outlawed slavery? Because those with power used it to exploit those without? There are myriad examples of people not getting paid for work while others profit from it (i.e. the labor is valuable, but the worker lacks the resources to harvest value from it). Did the cotton picker's value to the labor market suddenly increase after the 14th Amendment was passed?If your skills were valuable enough to be worth paying for, someone would pay for them.
If someone's work is worth much more than they are being paid, the textbook says that in a free society a competing business has an incentive to profit by luring the worker away from the current employer with a higher wage. Here is a slightly modified version of istara's statement: "If your skills were valuable enough to be worth paying for, someone would be willing to pay for them." In this form the statement is not merely true, but tautological. How else would we know your skills are valuable except that someone is willing to pay for them? Surely not simply because some outsider who is not willing to employ you says so. None of this guarantees that any particular worker maximizes their potential income, any more than a given business necessarily maximizes profit. In a free society workers have the opportunity to maximize their income, by selling their labor at the best price they can get. [N.b. by "paid" I mean "compensated financially or otherwise."]Really? Isn't that why we outlawed slavery?
Someone around here said that slavery was outlawed because the most basic human right is the right of self-determination. Not simply because slavery is unpaid.
Well, you ignored my next statement, "Because those with power used it to exploit those without". Kind of a difference. Exploitation happens in many ways, and not just forcible slavery. If your skills are valuable, either someone is going to pay for them, or they are going to steal them; it only depends which method is more expeditious.
I don't understand what that statement contributes. We all agree that slavery was properly condemned, it hardly matters why.If your skills are valuable, either someone is going to pay for them,
and everybody benefits,or they are going to steal them
and we call it theft, and it is coercive and wrong by definition.
You have the power to go and train in something useful and desirable. No one is stopping you. No one has a whip to your back to force to to the office every day. Equating internships with slavery is just nonsense. And an insult to the many millions of people throughout the world who are still actually enslaved today.
I'm not equating the suffering of slaves to the suffering of an intern at Harper's. But to argue that the reason one might not get paid for work is that their work is worthless to the market is the only "nonsense" here. My point is that there are plenty of examples throughout history where this is not a correct statement.
I've not read this entire thread, so I apologize if this has been covered by others but, don't you agree that compensation or "gain" can come in many forms? Not the least of which are knowledge, ability, future prospects and industry connections? It seems to me that this is what is received (ideally) in lieu of cash compensation.
The problem is the amount of "choice" you really have. Would you have a few billions dollars in your bank account would you make the same choice? Ok billions are a tad much, let's take the other alternative: If you were paid a mere hundred buck for the same work, would make the same choice? Ok. We're going nowhere. The point is not about the amount of money. Is that the huge majority of people doesnt work by choice. The only one they got is between one company and another. It's kind of a forced choice where company have the upper hand, and can basically force intern to work for free: Not this particular intern (he can always choose to sell homemade pizza on the road). But interns as a whole. They can always find one ready to work for free. As they can always find a thenewsgreen ready to work for them, if you happen (I wish that for you) to make ton of money out of your music.