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?