|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
They would?
Those are examples where the entry level would naturally be well paid.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought MMM's point was that the intern is receiving $12/hour in training value and is working for free. heart surgery training costs a lot more than $12/hour. So, a volunteer heart surgeon is very well compensated. That seems silly to me.
Where MMM's logic fails is that he assumes a paid employee does not need to be trained. If training the employee costs $12/hour, then it costs $12/hour. If you also have to pay the employee $10, then the function of that job actually costs you $22.
The logic fails further when you realize that "training" is irrelevant. We're talking about unskilled labor, which means something that can be taught in less than 3 days. What internships provide is "experience", which is different, and cannot be quantified as a cost to the employer.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well, they don't, but yes the belief is that they do. Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.
Internships are only legal if the employer gets "no immediate advantage" by employing the intern. That's some loose language that can equate any unpaid position to slavery. of course free labor is an advantage!!
I think what it specifically refers to is a competitive advantage. In other words, if Firm A can sell it's products cheaper than Firm B because Firm A employs unpaid interns, and Firm B pays it's employees, then the unpaid positions at Firm A are illegal.
the other successful challenge to unpaid internships is that they are unfair to poor people. In order to benefit from an unpaid internship, you have to be able to afford to work for free.
|
Reply With Quote