tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post4121574543036349251..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: Must be nicePhoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-80480819414229494382017-09-11T10:22:35.460-04:002017-09-11T10:22:35.460-04:00Well, so long as no one is arguing that college is...Well, so long as no one is arguing that college is like work and students *deserve* to be paid for their efforts, the scholarship question remains categorically different. Scholarships can be endowed for all kinds of reasons - need, academic ability, athletic ability, trombone-playing ability, size of nose, etc. Scholarships are free gifts, not earned wages.Miss Self-Importanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04477849823290773026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-92017387702730137292017-09-10T22:54:33.752-04:002017-09-10T22:54:33.752-04:00Yeah - we're in agreement here, and have for s...Yeah - we're in agreement here, and have for sure been down this bloggy road before. (I even mention that WWPD post in my book!) *I* don't think even the richest most privileged person should be obliged to work for free, or to stay out of the workforce. To give back in other ways, yes. By not working/not taking pay? No. (The financier who takes a dollar salary or whatever - how could that possibly, possibly, apply in a case like that of the stay-at-home mom? Her husband works, so she's entitled if she does as well? And that's presenting itself as a *progressive* argument? It was one of the oddest things I've seen argued on Twitter which is saying something...)<br /><br />The only *slight* fuzziness here is in the notion of certain compensation being more in the need-based grant category. As in, it makes sense when college scholarships are need-based, and the existence of need-based scholarships doesn't somehow make light of the work done by students whose parents can and will pay in full. But... I don't think this extends to the workforce. I don't see how it could. Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-73046354137710872962017-09-10T21:03:10.878-04:002017-09-10T21:03:10.878-04:00Oh, ok, I did read that article. But this woman in...Oh, ok, I did read that article. But this woman in particular, aside from her personal financial viability as a spouse of a high-earning husband, can't pursue her dreams internship-free b/c you need to make connections and edit and write stuff to succeed in journalism, which no one will let you do from your couch unless you've <i>already</i> achieved your dreams. <br /><br />I think we discussed a version of this argument back in the day of the Great Unpaid Internship Controversy, and the conclusion then remains true: work merits pay. To demand that the rich (artist) should work without pay so that the poor (artist) can get some extra crumbs is just as harmful as expecting the young and/or poor (recent college grad) to work without pay for the sake of "networking" and "experience" and other intangible and often nonexistent rewards. In a liberal democracy, everyone - rich and poor - should expect to <i>both</i> work and be paid for it. I suspect that most exemptions to this rule will only end up harming the poor, even if they appear initially to help them, since they will demean the moral value of work and pay as something that only the poor need, while the rich can get by without it.Miss Self-Importanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04477849823290773026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-34324633345828759452017-09-10T18:44:37.434-04:002017-09-10T18:44:37.434-04:00The Twitter discussions I'm alluding to here w...The Twitter discussions I'm alluding to here weren't about asking the rich not to work, but rather asking them not to take the paltry stipends available to students/artists without family money. Reason being, they can just pursue their dreams stipend-free. (One was inspired by [this article](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/at-48-and-with-my-three-boys-growing-up-fast-im-the-new-office-intern/).) I'm not sure anyone is arguing that the rich shouldn't work. <br /><br />But... yes. Whether via higher taxes, starting business (or, to keep this arts-centric, funding publications, etc.) or both, if the aim is finding ways for the rich to make it so that everyone has more, suggesting they just sort of disappear doesn't really add up. I think, though, this gets back to the question of who the rich people are in this scenario. Someone rich enough to take a low-paid internship without needing to wait tables at night to pay for this is likely not able to swoop in and buy the politics-and-culture journal of their choice.Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-15356737726287783032017-09-10T17:01:36.443-04:002017-09-10T17:01:36.443-04:00Is there any economic theory behind the suggestion...Is there any economic theory behind the suggestion that it would be good for the rich, or anyone actually, to voluntarily refrain from working? Would it make anyone more productive, or wealthier? Or is the thought based on the assumption that the economy only contains a fixed (and permanently insufficient) number of jobs, such that taking one means that someone else is permanently denied work?<br /><br />If anything, we should advise the rich to use their "privilege" to start businesses, since that creates jobs, rather than telling the people with the most capital (of every kind) to withdraw from the labor market altogether. Miss Self-Importanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04477849823290773026noreply@blogger.com