# Social conservatism v. economic conservatism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541 "2014-02-28T20:15:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/41 "2014-03-01T21:38:40Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I gotta admit, I’m not seeing a debate in the OP, just shaded ranting. I’m on the edge about moving this one. If I don’t see a real debate appear I’m finding this lost puppy a new home. Elections, then? It’s not about elections specifically, but for some reason that is true of a lot of threads I see in that forum. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/42 "2014-03-02T04:30:27Z")
As a Democrat who is socially conservative on some issues (namely abortion and gun control), I have to largely agree with this assessment. The issues that are actually being debated and in question are by and large those related to economics (such as taxes, spending, regulations, entitlements, and health care). Even with regards to the social issue I’m most concerned about (abortion), its unlikely Roe v. Wade will be overturned anytime soon while Democratic policies probably will do more to reduce abortions in the long run while Republican state legislatures prefer to pass laws that get immediately blocked by the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/43 "2014-03-02T04:34:19Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Yes which means the typical social democratic (progressive, liberal in US terms) position does not rest on any consistent logic. The same people are typically at best suspicious of nationalism. But only in a nationalist context would their own money, unless they are pretty low on the economic totem pole in the US, not be better taken from them to distribute to ‘have nots’ in other countries. > > OTOH the concept of ‘the property I earned within a system of the rule of law is mine’ is a pretty pure and consistent position. > > Note though I’m not saying public policies have to be, or ever really are, based on simple consistent positions. Progressive taxation and a welfare state are realities which aren’t going away. The real debate is one of degree, methods, priorities (growth v ‘fairness’, without pretending those always pull in the same direction which they often don’t), etc. > > I think the contradiction though between a ‘post modern’ sort of POV which tends to denigrate nationalism (‘flag waving’) and a view that ‘the 1%’ should pay a lot more, when a significant portion of Americans are in the global 1%, and even more if it’s the global equivalent % of the magic ‘over $250k per couple’ that was harped on so much, is worth considering when the left leaning rhetoric gets too purple and ‘aux barricades’… Most progressives and social democrats are opposed to hysterical, uncritical patriotism not patriotism of all sorts. They do recognize that national boundaries exist and most government policies will be enacted on national lines. > [@](#): > > But one other point about ‘social conservatism (or liberalism)’ is that politics is really not all about economics. This is a mistake made by both sides’ thinkers but the left more, eg the working class GOP voters who are ‘voting against their own economic interests’. Besides the often dubious validity of that claim (it’s at least reasonably arguable that high spending, taxation and regulation will in the long run harm working class people, and those who vote GOP simply realize that) it assumes economics does or should underlie all political sentiments (and everything else in the world) and that’s just not how people work. And Democrats are at least not pointing in totally the wrong direction when they, still often unfairly, call downscale GOP voters ‘racists’. Whatever race may or may not have to do with anything, those downscale GOP voters also despise liberal elites. They hate their values, they think are fundamentally corrupt. Just offering those traditionalist people more govt goodies to be paid for by ‘the rich’ isn’t going to magically change that. It’s a culture gap, just like ‘economics’ is not the only reason Chinese people in China aren’t just Americans with different economic interests. Economics is really not everything. The problem with this is that the Republican elites are not fundamentally different from their liberal counterparts-consider (for example) the sort of sleaze pushed by Ruper Murdoch’s media empire. And unlike the liberal elites, the Republican elites are dishonest enough to present themselves as otherwise in elections. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/44 "2014-03-02T05:11:40Z")
> [@bump](#): > > The problem comes in when you draw the line of the “haves” so low that any middle class or higher person becomes one of them. It’s particularly galling to pay roughly 1/3 of my gross income as taxes, and hear about how the government needs more money to pay someone else because of a myriad of sob stories about racism, disadvantageous circumstances, bad luck, no health care, etc… > > I already pay nearly the equivalent of 2 full time minimum wage earners in various payroll taxes, NOT including sales tax or property taxes; of course I’m for protecting that remaining part of what I earned from the predations of the government and by extension, all the “have nots” who seem bent on taking it from me. > > And yet I’m evil for not wanting to part with more of my hard earned cash because some other asshole somewhere else’s life sucks? [shrug] That’s not economic conservatism, that’s just tax-resentment, every taxpayer has some. Economic conservatism would be arguing that lower taxes are better for everybody including the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/45 "2014-03-02T05:18:10Z")
If I equally disagreed with both at least I appreciate the utility of a fiscal conservative being concerned about my tax money over a social conservative being concerned about my bedroom habits. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/46 "2014-03-02T05:36:46Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Americans are a lot stronger and much more resilient than politicians will lead anyone to believe. Nobody will still starve in reality simply because people will create dynamic systems to prevent it the same way they did during the Great Depression and WWII. Human nature hasn’t changed since then. Some did starve then, I think. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/47 "2014-03-02T05:42:03Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > OTOH, gigantic government programs are starting to bankrupt us and there is no end in sight. The best response the economic liberals can give is that we can afford the interest payments - for now - but that is about the same situation as a spouse that runs up credit card debt and claims that you afford the minimum payments so there is no issue. It is completely irresponsible. [That’s not exactly it.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Economics) > [@](#): > > 1. **America the bankrupt:** National debts don’t work like your personal debt. For example, people don’t buy your debt to prop up your currency. Yet for some reason a lot of writers tend to think of the national debt in the same terms as a bank loan, with angry creditors and everything. When this trope is invoked expect to see a consortium of angry foreign dignitaries banging on a conference table that they want their money back. In reality, if countries actually acted like this, the global financial system would probably collapse pretty spectacularly and everyone would be screwed. This trope is not specific to America, but for some reason Americans are exceptionally paranoid about the National Debt, particularly when the Chinese are buying it up, and now not buying it anymore. Oddly enough, America’s National Debt isn’t even that bad by international standards. Also, the US national debt is in terms of dollars, and the government can create as many dollars as they need to pay off the debt. Everyone would be paid the amount owed, but the new dollars would lead to inflation. The key here is that governments usually owe substantial portions of their debt to ‘themselves,’ i.e. either the government owes money to different branches, or those branches hold their assets as bonds and treasury bills instead of money; by owing money to yourself, you usually don’t charge yourself interest (beyond inflation) and you theoretically can’t default on money you owe yourself. This is how Japan can have gross debt worth over 100% of their yearly economic output and have little economic effects: 70-80% of its debt is owned by the Japanese Central Bank. In the United States, around 35-40% of the government debt is owed to itself, mainly to the Social Security Administration. Also, debt owned to foreign entities makes up MUCH less of the debt than people seem to think: as an example, China owns only 6% of the total US debt. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > The other liberal economic retort to the debt crisis is that the U.S. can never run out of money because the treasury can always order more. I don’t know any liberal who says that. Technically it’s true, of course, see above, but we do have a politically independent Fed to control the money supply. And inflation is not always a bad thing, you know, it can be a sign of a growing economy as deflation is a sign of a depression; it’s only bad if it happens too fast or because of increased real external costs to the national economy, e.g., petroleum in the '70s. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/48 "2014-03-02T06:27:29Z")
> [@iLemming](#): > > Given the current government there, Australians would argue conservatives are wrong both societally _and_ economically. > > With cuts to everything from education to health care and manufacturing jobs being, literally, shooed offshore (all in the name of debt reduction – something the nation is well within its acceptable limits for), coupled with policies explicitly designed to vilify refugees, going as far as (again, literally) towing them back to whence they came (encroaching the sovereign waters of its neighbours and causing diplomatic spats in the process) _and_ the resolute refusal to sanction gay marriage, not only in the face of overwhelming public opinion for same sex union (80%+), but also in spite of the fact the current serving prime minister’s very own sister is herself gay(!)… most rational, thinking, human beings can probably see why. > > If you want to see what a ruling Tea Party would look like in the U.S., take a cursory glance over at Australia’s current government and witness the splendour. :smack: If they’re that unpopular, why are they in power? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/49 "2014-03-02T06:34:09Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > On top of this, I’d say _nothing_ has values or morals unless we decide we want them there. We don’t have to apply morality to economics, but we don’t have to pretend it’s a law of nature, rather than a choice, either. Well, economics is the operation of a set of impersonal forces like supply and demand, even if those forces are the aggregate sum of individuals making free economic choices within a certain range of options. But economic **policy** is always a choice, and morals are relevant to it, as to any policy choice. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/50 "2014-03-02T12:07:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I always wonder what conservatives mean when they say “indivuduals should be held accountable.” Are you saying that if a person doesn’t go to school, it’s OK if they can’t find a decent job? I mean, OK in the sense that you are fine with them being on food stamps and so forth? Or do you consider food stamps a palliative that they don’t deserve and would rather see them starve? What about a woman who has kids but no father for those kids? Should her children go hungry? Should she be homeless? What, exactly, is “accountability” in your book? The traditional conservative or libertarian view is that people would feel a greater urgency to go to school, study a relevant major or otherwise train and develop job skills if there were fewer safety nets in place. That is the definition of “moral hazard”. It’s not an issue of “being ok”. It’s an issue of not being qualified for the “decent jobs” because you didn’t prepare yourself. So by default, you get stuck with the “crap jobs”. Which, by the way, still need doing. Should those crap jobs be performed by the architects and engineers and doctors who spent years or decades educating themselves and building a valuable skill set? > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Americans are a lot stronger and much more resilient than politicians will lead anyone to believe. Nobody will still starve in reality simply because people will create dynamic systems to prevent it the same way they did during the Great Depression and WWII. Human nature hasn’t changed since then. To a large extent, WWII was the “dynamic system” created as a response to the Great Depression. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > My question to economic liberals has been and always will be, why don’t you advocate balanced budgets, no deficit spending outside of emergency situations, and a program to pay down the national debt? That is the ONLY responsible way to run a long-term economy. There are no emotions involved in those decisions. The kindest thing to do for everyone involved is to not let the whole nation collapse as similar ones have throughout history because of emotional rather than rational concerns. Certainly out of control debt is a concern. But as as BrainGlutton pointed out, running a national economy and deciding monetary policy is more complex than simply balancing the national budget like a housewife planning a trip to the grocery store. Traditionally, austerity measures have had the opposite of desired effects by increasing unemployment and reducing overall economic growth. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/51 "2014-03-02T15:55:22Z")
Part of the problem is that the word “conservative” means something different in politics than what it means in general. A true conservative wants things to stay pretty much as they are (including, possibly, a bit of backtracking to things as the used to be.) Conservatives prefer policies that are proven by time and are suspicious of policies recommended by theory. As an economic conservative (to some extent), I’m disappointed that political conservatives aren’t well-described by the above, economically. As a social liberal, I’m disappointed that they ARE well-described by the above, socially. A true conservative would be careful and avoid risks, and as such, would be committed to ecological conservation and alarmed by the remotest possibility that the scientific consensus on AGW might be correct. Instead, political conservatives are more concerned with maintaining “business as usual” despite the risks, thanks to a focus on short-term economics. ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_Raygun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c67d28/32.png) [@Ronald\_Raygun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_Raygun)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/52 "2014-03-04T11:05:13Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Our agreement breaks down at the end however because I am one of those evil economic conservatives. I don’t believe that morality should play a determining role in economic issues at all because economics itself has its own laws that don’t have values or morals. They just are and we have to work within them to get the optimum results. There may be some room to fit in values and morality in at the end if there is a choice between to nearly equal strategies but it shouldn’t be a primary focus. I strongly disagree with this. I’ll draw a parallel with physical science. There’s no room for morality and values in physical law. The laws of the universe are what they are, regardless of how we want them to be. However, while it’s not up to us to determine what physical law is, we do determine science policy. The toxicology of anthrax is amoral, but I think it’s immoral (for the sake of argument) to pursue research in weaponizing anthrax. Similarly, there’s no changing the mathematical laws of economics, but that’s not the starting point. The starting point is to determine what sort of economic distribution is just, and then to see if attaining that distribution (or something close to it) is economically feasible. Is optimizing our collective wealth good enough? What if that distribution is such that it leads to extreme income inequality? Does income inequality matter if the inequality came about in a “legitimate” manner? What about questions of moral dessert? Economic freedom? We first answer these questions; then we move on to economics. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/53 "2014-03-08T01:20:39Z")
I agree with Ronald, except when Congress tries to legislate away reality rather than trying to mitigate it. For example, the law of gravity has no morals, and many people die because they interact with the law of gravity in unfortunate ways. The best way to solve this problem is to minimize the opportunities of citizens to run afoul of the law of gravity. If politicians addressed the issue the way they do economic issues, however, they’d simply outlaw gravity. That’s what politicians do when they try to set prices or wages, or ban gouging(another way of saying “We hate supply and demand”). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/54 "2014-03-08T01:35:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I agree with Ronald, except when Congress tries to legislate away reality rather than trying to mitigate it. For example, the law of gravity has no morals, and many people die because they interact with the law of gravity in unfortunate ways. The best way to solve this problem is to minimize the opportunities of citizens to run afoul of the law of gravity. If politicians addressed the issue the way they do economic issues, however, they’d simply outlaw gravity. That’s what politicians do when they try to set prices or wages, or ban gouging(another way of saying “We hate supply and demand”). Congress doesn’t outlaw gravity, but it does require that their be guardrails in places where people can slip and fall long distances. Setting wages doesn’t work, but setting boundaries does. Economic conservatives oppose guard rails because they reduce the area where people move, and no one will ever fall, and if they do it’s their fault anyway. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/55 "2014-03-08T01:39:28Z")
Setting a wage doesn’t set a boundary. A wage is just a price, and price is just information about market conditions. There’s no guardrail here, rather there is just an attempt to outlaw reality. If we did this with gravity, we’d say, “Only people who can survive a fall from three stories may fall off of buildings.” That’s exactly what you do with a minimum wage. You say, “Only people whose work is worth X amount may work.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/56 "2014-03-08T04:44:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Setting a wage doesn’t set a boundary. A wage is just a price, and price is just information about market conditions. There’s no guardrail here, rather there is just an attempt to outlaw reality. > > If we did this with gravity, we’d say, “Only people who can survive a fall from three stories may fall off of buildings.” That’s exactly what you do with a minimum wage. You say, “Only people whose work is worth X amount may work.” No, but setting a minimum wage is a boundary, which is what I was talking about. And we are actually telling businesses to get it together to define jobs whose productivity is above the minimum wage, since allowing them to pay almost nothing allows them to structure their businesses to be very inefficient, which doesn’t help the economy. I added that since economic conservatives in general don’t seem all that concerned about making sure workers make enough not to starve. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/57 "2014-03-08T04:48:35Z")
If you ask even liberal economists about the minimum wage, they’ll tell you it’s a poor tool for improving the lot of poor workers. The Earned Income credit is far better. People’s work is worth what it’s worth. If society believes people should make more than their labor is worth, then society should pay for it through taxes. This idea that businesses should bear that cost is stupid, because businesses can just choose not to bear the cost of certain types of labor at any price. I worked in fast food through two minimum wage hikes. Did our labor costs rise? Nope. We just used less of it. We were all expected to keep labor costs to 25% of sales. So I guess we don’t really need a dishwasher anymore. Drivers can wash dishes. We don’t need anyone to prep. The daytime manager has time to do that, even though he’d rather not. Cutting pizzas? Drivers can cut their own, and if no driver is in the store the manager can cut them. How about phones? Well, we used to use three people, but now we can use two and the manager can assist if a call comes in and the other two are already occupied. Now your point that this makes things more efficient is well taken. I actually prefer a higher wage/fewer workers system. But this also creates a more entrenched lower class of unemployables. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/58 "2014-03-08T22:50:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you ask even liberal economists about the minimum wage, they’ll tell you it’s a poor tool for improving the lot of poor workers. The Earned Income credit is far better. People’s work is worth what it’s worth. If society believes people should make more than their labor is worth, then society should pay for it through taxes. This idea that businesses should bear that cost is stupid, because businesses can just choose not to bear the cost of certain types of labor at any price. I worked in fast food through two minimum wage hikes. Did our labor costs rise? Nope. We just used less of it. We were all expected to keep labor costs to 25% of sales. So I guess we don’t really need a dishwasher anymore. Drivers can wash dishes. We don’t need anyone to prep. The daytime manager has time to do that, even though he’d rather not. Cutting pizzas? Drivers can cut their own, and if no driver is in the store the manager can cut them. How about phones? Well, we used to use three people, but now we can use two and the manager can assist if a call comes in and the other two are already occupied. > > Now your point that this makes things more efficient is well taken. I actually prefer a higher wage/fewer workers system. But this also creates a more entrenched lower class of unemployables. Why do you think there is an exact correlation between wages and productivity? Check out the unpaid intern thread. Here is a class of people paid nothing for their work, which definitely has some value. In the case of more workers than jobs, employers can get away with paying much less to workers than their contribution. In times of shortage, companies pay more. If you doubt this, I suggest you try to hire a new technology PhD. Bidding wars for scarce talent can elevate the salaries of new and unproven hires above that of well performing veterans. Of course it is trivially true that workers are worth, in some sense, what the market pays. But then minimum wage workers are worth exactly the minimum wage. Paying less than the contribution of the worker to the company is profit, not survival. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/59 "2014-03-09T17:10:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you ask even liberal economists about the minimum wage, they’ll tell you it’s a poor tool for improving the lot of poor workers. “Price ceilings” and “price floors” are the Econ 101 explanation, but in reality, it’s a bit more complex than that. It depends on a lot of other factors like the elasticity of both the labor markets and the markets for the products and services being sold. Also, companies need a certain number of workers in certain positions to function at all. Drivers washing dishes are drivers not out delivering orders. The reason minimum wage is a poor tool for improving the lot of the poor is that, as you pointed out, it really doesn’t make their labor any more valuable. A better tool is to enable them to learn skills that are more valuable. Now some might argue that this sort of thinking has created a glut of college-educated professionals and basic market economics suggests that would drive down salaries. Even if that were true, the difference is that well-educated people with technical skills have a greater ability to come up with creative, more entrepreneurial solutions that ultimately create more (and better) jobs for more people. > [@Voyager](#): > > Why do you think there is an exact correlation between wages and productivity? Check out the unpaid intern thread. Here is a class of people paid nothing for their work, which definitely has some value. Because intern work has little to no value. Or maybe a better way to think of it is to compare it to college. College students have to perform work (in the form of their studies), but they have to PAY to do it. From an economics standpoint, college students are there to receive knowledge and education, but don’t yet have anything to offer. Unpaid interns have just enough to offer to justify receiving the benefits in terms of experience and education of working at their target company. The company can get anyone to file or sit at the front desk. The interns are unpaid because they chose a field where so many people want to join, they are willing to work for free. Not to mention, internships are supposed to be TEMPORARY. That said, I don’t believe in the unpaid internship and wouldn’t work one. Other than maybe someplace like Goldman Sachs or Mckinsey, but they pay their interns anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/60 "2014-03-10T00:48:40Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Because intern work has little to no value. Or maybe a better way to think of it is to compare it to college. College students have to perform work (in the form of their studies), but they have to PAY to do it. From an economics standpoint, college students are there to receive knowledge and education, but don’t yet have anything to offer. Unpaid interns have just enough to offer to justify receiving the benefits in terms of experience and education of working at their target company. The company can get anyone to file or sit at the front desk. The interns are unpaid because they chose a field where so many people want to join, they are willing to work for free. > > Not to mention, internships are supposed to be TEMPORARY. > > That said, I don’t believe in the unpaid internship and wouldn’t work one. Other than maybe someplace like Goldman Sachs or Mckinsey, but they pay their interns anyway. Legally unpaid internships are supposed to have no value to the companies. Practically, if they did have no value companies wouldn’t be falling all over themselves to get interns. And our interns did add value, but since we pay them it is okay. Sure the jobs are temporary - but so are many jobs for which you get paid, as all consultants and freelancers know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541.md?page=4)