Posted on 04/06/2010 8:11:56 PM PDT by JohnRLott
Which is what I'm arguing for. Others here are arguing that interns shouldn't get paid for their work. I've never argued that they should get equal pay to regular employees. Just that they should be pay the market value of their work.
And dang near 2/3rd of the posters here thought that was a Communist or Leftist idea! Which tells me there are a lot of people here at the Free Republic that really aren't all the free-market oriented... or conservative, for that matter.
You seem to misunderstand many of our positions, and I believe willfully so.
You claim to be the “silent voice of the free market”, but you refuse to allow the real silent voice to be heard - the hundreds, thousands, and even millions of transactions that take place on a daily basis. The agreement to take an unpaid internship is merely one of those transactions. It is a transaction based on the perceived value earned by each individual in the agreement - the employer and the employee.
But you, instead, would substitute your own will and opinion for that of the actual participants. THAT is what makes your opinion collectivist.
At the companies I have worked at, both as a “co-op” engineer in college and as a professional, pay their interns. That is more the rule than the exception in engineering (I will assert this, but will also admit it is opinion - I have no statistical data to back it up). There are apparently some professions where unpaid interns are the norm.
But you would disallow free choice to enter into such a situation by fiat - because of your Randian need to measure all worth in only dollars and sense. Your equation of voluntary work arrangements for no pay with slavery are ludicrous - the slave has no choice, and the volunteer does not hand over the deed to him or herself when they agree to the unpaid internship.
The primary coin of the unpaid intern’s remuneration is knowledge. Apparently, you do not value this - not nearly as much as those who are willing to work for it without monetary reimbursement besides.
It appears to have the same worth in your eyes as free choice - none.
When I see so-called “free market” arguments against free choice, I see statism at work. The issue in your mind, apparently, is that you cannot see any situation where a person’s labor is worth no more than the experience and knowledge gained by performing that labor. Instead, the government should set an arbitrary compensation level.
That doesn’t sound all that Randian to me.
What if the true market value of the work they perform during their internship is zero or negative?
When you consider the cost to the company of providing supervision and training, for some jobs the value of the employee in the first month or two, while they try to get up to speed, is often zero. I know that when I deal with new young hires, they are generally of negative worth for the first few months. That gets fixed once they finally figure out which end is up, and they start being productive.
The internship process is a way to discover which potential new hires is likely to be productive, in a way that avoids the potentially costly and emotional dismissal process for those that don't work out.
And that's where you are making an assumption. I want the free market to pay a monetary value to their work... and then pay them that value. Why you insist on thinking that means I want *MY* opinion as to their work value be their salary, I'll never know.
But then you go onto say:
But you would disallow free choice to enter into such a situation by fiat - because of your Randian need to measure all worth in only dollars and sense.
Which means you can view my 'Randian' ideas... as collectivist (as show in your first quote). That backs up my assertion that many 'conservatives' here have no clue what a free market is... nor do they care.
Then businesses will not hire them. Business isn't charity... they exist to make profit. If a prospective employee doesn't help that, then the business doesn't hire them.
When you consider the cost to the company of providing supervision and training, for some jobs the value of the employee in the first month or two, while they try to get up to speed, is often zero. I know that when I deal with new young hires, they are generally of negative worth for the first few months. That gets fixed once they finally figure out which end is up, and they start being productive.
This sounds like the argument between the way the Navy promotes personnel and how the AF/Army promotes personnel. The Navy will immediately authorize the member to wear their new rank, give them the responsibilities, but not pay them until the date their fiscal system can afford it.
Whereas the AF/Army will not allow the person to 'sew-on' their rank... or officially give them the responsibilities of it... until their fiscal systems can pay them.
I favor the system that only grants you the rank when you see the pay. And it sounds like you'd favor the opposite.
The internship process is a way to discover which potential new hires is likely to be productive, in a way that avoids the potentially costly and emotional dismissal process for those that don't work out.
True enough, nowadays... unfortunately that was supposed to be the interview process. That, and from my experience, it's usually the first couple of months working for a new company where they have the option to terminate your employment should you not work out. Regardless, they do pay you for the work.
Let me rephrase my observation into a direct question, because you obviously cannot grasp the difference between money and recompense.
Do you believe barter -trading one thing of value for another thing of value - is immoral and should be illegal?
Here’s a nice YouTube explanation of the free market by the highly regarded conservative, Walter E. Williams. (Excerpts from the speech “The Entrepreneur As American Hero”)
It actually answers the question you raised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUL152yGVGI
But... let’s ask some questions to that question...
Do you believe that money is not the acceptable medium of exchange for goods and services? Do you believe it to be inadequate? Why did our ancestors invent it in the first place?
That’s what I figured - you can’t answer the question.
Money is the predominant mdeium for the exchange of goods and services. It was invented to standardize values.
But money, despite your fervent wishes, is not the sole medium for the exchange of goods and services.
In current times, money is little more than government declaration of value - there is nothing specifically guaranteeing the value of a dollar.
So, let’s try one more time to see if you have any degree of intellectual honesty.
Do you believe barter is immoral and should be illegal? A yes or no answer will work just fine.
The video answered your question. Did you watch it?
YouTube is blocked from my current location.
Besides, that is Walter William’s answer.
What is YOUR answer?
To be sure, if the government is ‘worried’ about these poor, abused, interns — you know the REAL reason has to do with lost taxes & fees to the government.
You also might wish to consider that Ayn Rand promulgated the gold standard in her writing - no government fiat money, just plain old gold.
What’s wrong with a gold standard? At least our money holds it’s value... regardless of whatever fashionable political trend holds sway.
Here’s the link to his text version of the speach.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/Jan00.pdf
And another on the value of greed.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/Oct00.pdf
You would argue that knowledge is an acceptable alternative to money. I argue that society does not value anything unless there is a price attached. Labor or knowledge, both are valueless unless there is money earned from it.
By arguing that we shouldn’t pay interns for their work, you are, in essence, denying them entrance into the free market. For money is the medium of exchange in it. No money = no entrance into the market.
And yet you can’t live without fiat-money valued internships...
Care to answer my question about barter for yourself? Or are we done?
“Debating” an opponent who evades even simple questions is pointless.
Sorry, but that is not correct.
Money is a standard measure of value.
It is not the ONLY measure of value.
The free market is a free-willed exchange of value.
You clearly are unwilling to answer my simple question about barter. You are being intellectually dishonest by not doing so - because barter is the very basis for unpaid internships, much as it is the basis for the exchange of standardized value tokens (money) for a specific good or service.
We’re done - I’ll not spend any more time on such a dishonest debate.
It is not the ONLY measure of value.
Riiiiight. Try buying your groceries with a wallet full of 'knowledge'. Tell me how that works out for you. I'll be waiting. (or buying them with live crickets, or monkey pelts)
As for barter. It worked only before the invention of currency. After that, it's necessity disappeared... and so did barter. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant, just as irrelevant as whether I'd like to send my mail via homing pigeon.
Good article, thanks for posting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.