HPRgument Blog — April 26, 2010 12:56 pm

Serfs Up! Unpaid Interns and the Culture of Dependence

By Sam Barr

I’m posting the column that was scheduled to run in this week’s Harvard Independent… until the issue was canceled. This is an elaboration of my views on the unpaid internship debate, which has been a hot topic on the HPRgument lately. See Max’s initial post and my response.

Serfs Up! – Unpaid Interns and the Culture of Dependence

The Obama administration has resolved to crack down on for-profit employers who take advantage of their interns, neither paying them nor offering relevant training and experience. Arguments in favor of this decision abound. Of course employers should pay for work from which they gain—otherwise we’ll enable their inefficiency. And everyone will benefit when employers try to get their money’s worth by training interns to contribute in substantive ways. Finally, the prevalence of unpaid internships hurts students who can’t afford to take

Well-dressed serfs

them, and who therefore have a narrower range of possible experiences than their wealthier friends.

But my preferred argument against unpaid internships is this: when you’re getting up to 20, 22, even 25-years-old, like one unpaid colleague of mine last summer, it’s time to cut the cord already. At some point, rich kids need to stop relying on their parents to bail them out—to stop capitalizing on the fact that, in Mommy and Daddy’s minds, they’re too big to fail.

Ironically, this culture of dependence can be traced to the same sources as the better-known culture of greed. Among a certain segment of the economic and educational elite, a generation of high-achievers has been raised on inflated conceptions of their own brilliance and importance—lavished with SAT tutors, private college counselors, personal trainers, and prescription-happy psychologists. Even those who have been deprived of such luxuries know what I’m talking about: the overwhelming expectations of families, friends, and teachers; the drive for “success” without taking care to define the term; the sense that we’re going to do something great—down the line, eventually, not soon enough.

It’s obvious how all these things conspire to lead us into temptation, attracting us to careers in which “success,” if defined economically at least, can be most immediate. Less obvious, perhaps, is how these same cultural factors—the self-importance, the dreams of a golden future—can serve to justify not making any money at all. From the student’s perspective, present-day dependence can be excused by the anticipation of future fortunes—after I go to law school, after my talent is recognized, after my work is published, after my big break. From the parent’s perspective, paying for rent in Williamsburg seems a rather modest cost compared to four years (or perhaps 20?) of private-school tuition. Why stop the gravy train now, when Junior is so close to breaking through?

The idea that Junior ought to live within his means, earn his keep, and learn how to manage a budget is a foreign one. To force a decline in the comfort and style to which he has grown accustomed is thought unconscionable. Last month, The Crimson’s James McAuley lent his support to profligacy among Harvard’s economic elite, praising it in the name of “honesty.” “Our wealthier peers,” he wrote, “should have no qualms about exercising the spending habits with which they were raised and that many of them will resume practicing immediately upon kissing Fair Harvard goodbye.” McAuley wants to liberate those who, out of respect and decency, have refrained from flaunting their wealth in the face of their classmates. As one letter-writer alleged, McAuley assumes that all rich people secretly want to “rent stretch-Hummers and spray Dom and Henny on us poor plebs.” And he wants them to feel good about doing it.

But if you’ve got it, does it really follow that you should flaunt it? College students of an earlier generation didn’t seem to think so. Roughing it used to be a source of pride. It was once kind of cool to live in unglamorous neighborhoods, gather in cramped flats, search for deals on microwavable mac-and-cheese, and frequent dollar draft nights at local dive bars. For spring break, our parents went on road trips in old junkers. Their kids jet off to Mexico or the Caribbean.

McAuley praises honesty, yet it’s anything but honest to spend someone else’s money as if you earned it. College graduates should make their own way in life, relying on their talents and energies to attain the living standards they desire. And college students should prepare for this struggle by earning money in the summertime. To do otherwise is to perpetuate class privilege, and a lazy sort of privilege at that. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, but we shouldn’t just get a piggyback ride.

Photo credit: Institute of Politics

Related posts:

Obama Mad Libs
Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Google Sells Out
Breaking Down The Super Committee
  • Cathy

    Well, I’m not so sure about the historical argument, Sam. Harvard Student Agencies used to have a thriving business in chartered flights to Europe. Harvard students could literally phone in and rent a plane to Paris for the weekend…

    And as for the bit about the need to be weaned from parents’ money, I guess I’ll take a relativist standpoint. People have different relationships and agreements with their parents, and deal with growing up and standing on their own two feet in different ways. A lot of kids I know take paying jobs over the summer that they’re not excited about just because they don’t want to ask their parents for the cash. They might share your sense of ethics. But why try to exert some kind of uniform moral judgment on all people? Especially if, as you said, a few thousand dollars is nothing for the parents, and the internship is something that the kid really wants to explore?

  • Sam Barr

    Hey Cathy,
    Perhaps my focus was too much on parents and kids, and not enough on the institutional and political issue of whether we should encourage or discourage unpaid internships.

    I frankly don’t get the relativist line. If it’s true that a lot of kids take jobs they’d prefer not to because of financial concerns, I say, good for them! I don’t feel uncomfortable that that’s morally superior to sucking on your parents’ teats indefinitely. Obviously it becomes worse to rely on your parents as you get older. That is, it’s less bad for an 18 year old to take an unpaid summer internship than it is for a 25 year old to take one and still expect to live a decent life style courtesy of Mom and Dad.

    And that’s the issue. I don’t want kids to go into finance just so that they can be independent. You know I don’t think that. But if you’re going to do public service or something like that, and I think you should, then you shouldn’t expect to live it up like you’re doing finance. There’s virtue in setting your own agenda and making your own living in whatever you choose to do. If living the high life is so important to you, do finance. (But don’t expect me not to judge you.) If you want to do public service, do it! But you don’t get to do both just because your parents are rich.

  • Sam Barr

    Whoops, I said I was going to shift the focus back to the political question, and then failed to do it.

    My point here is that these two things can be true at the same time: 1. people’s choices within a certain institutional paradigm are defensible, and 2. the paradigm ought to change and give them a new set of choices. Your point, as I understand it, is that we shouldn’t condemn parents and students for making the choices they do when unpaid internships are so prevalent. And you may be right.

    But my point is that they shouldn’t be so prevalent, and so the question becomes how to get rid of them. Part of that is changing the law, that is, the institutional paradigm as I so pompously call it. But another part of that is changing the culture that has been built up sort of parallel to the institutions, and that is the culture of dependence. I admit that dependence seems to me just an obvious moral wrong, and if you disagree and want to take a relativist stance, that’s one thing. But I think you can still endorse my basic claim, which is that unpaid internships are so prevalent partially because a lot of parents and students are okay with dependence, and so, if we want to get more students in paid internships, then we need to work on not just the institutional angle but the cultural angle.

    Of course, you could still deny that we should want more students to get paid internships (perhaps you worry about lessening the overall supply of internships) in which case this conversation would revert back to where it was a few weeks ago, when we were arguing over the economics of the whole thing, rather than the culture and ethics of it. In any case though, I think the culture and ethics of it are worth talking about.

  • http://leeclarke.com Lee Clarke

    The “culture of dependence” is a good idea, and has more indicators than a general acceptance among the rich that working for free is ok. These other indicators suggest the COD is a general phenomenon. One indicator is the helicopter parent, more technically known as “over-parenting”; another is giving *every* child on some sports team a trophy. I’m sure there are other indicators. At the same time, we should not forget the variations in meaning that can attach to what look like the same behaviors: Richie Rich may depend on Mommy and Daddy because of a sense of entitlement while Suzie Sixpack does so because of limited opportunities to do otherwise. Both are “boomerang” kids, but for very different reasons. On helicoptering:
    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/11/17/081117crbo_books_acocella?currentPage=all

  • Pingback: The Times’ Silly Article on “Elusive” Internships « The Harvard Political Review

custom writing