What you're really saying is that $4/hr might as well be zero. But it's different -- by $4/hr. There is not a brick wall separating rich kids from poor kids, it's a wide spectrum. There are lots of in between kids who could swing $4/hr but can't get away with working for free.
> They will, but its worse for their careers in most cases.
Then why are you advocating forcing them into that? If the choice was $4/hr now for $50/hr later vs. $10/hr now for $10/hr forever, how is taking away the first option supposed to help them?
> Thats why they're restricting unpaid internships - if you want to offer them you can't just offer them to wealthy people's kids.
Except that the wealthy people's kids are the ones whose parents have the influence to get them a paid internship, or at least one of the few remaining unpaid ones after the others are destroyed, so all you're really doing is screwing over the people in the middle.
Let me put it more bluntly - rich kids are the ones taking the unpaid internships. Nobody can survive off of a $4/hr internship. The $4/hr might as well be $.50 an hour.
> In which case, why do they not take a different position that pays more?
They will, but its worse for their careers in most cases. Unpaid internships tend to give much better career progression - you just need to have the money to be able to survive it. Thats why they're restricting unpaid internships - if you want to offer them you can't just offer them to wealthy people's kids.