> If the wages are lower across the industry, it means consumers get lower prices. You're totally ignoring the consumer side of the equation.

You're totally ignoring the most probable outcome - reductions in costs lead to higher dividends paid to shareholders. Consumers continue paying the same price.

You're both arguing about something irrelevant. Whether low wages result in lower prices or higher dividends doesn't matter. The point is that a worker and an employer have decided on what each believes is a mutually beneficial relationship. Unless someone is forcing them at gunpoint, we should respect their free decisions.

When an imbalance of power exists in a relationship (cf employer - employee), no free decisions exist.

Now, employer - union, maybe.

If demand for a skill exceeds supply, isn't the imbalance of power in favor of skilled employees?

If these guys are working for free, then your argument is predicated on a falsehood.

You implied that employers always have the power in the relationship. I'm pointing out that it can go either way. Obviously people working for free must be in a weak negotiating position.

Even still, nobody's forcing them at gunpoint. Presumably they chose a an unpaid graphic design internship because they value the experience. They could have chosen to work elsewhere for pay. As long as they are not being forced, are not being deceived, and are choosing according to their own priorities, it's their decision.

> So what? Why is lowering wages a bad thing? If the wages are lower across the industry, it means consumers get lower prices. You're totally ignoring the consumer side of the equation.

This is incredibly naive. There are many good reasons for deregulation, but propagating arguments like this just gives libertarianism a bad name.

Consumers are already paying $10k to get volunteer teachers. That doesn't sound consumer friendly.