My argument is that progress made by asking people to work for less than what they are worth for a large institution like the government who has the resources to pay people a fair wage, is wrong on first principles.
If your entire operational model relies on taking advantage of others, asking people to make huge personal sacrifices because you don't want to properly fund a program, there's something wrong.
It's the classic "ends justify the means" argument.
Doesn't that rule out intern positions too? Apprenticeship relationships? Formalized pay grade schemes like the military's? Collective bargaining? Minimum wage laws? "Cost of living" wage adjustments for location?
You're making this kind of absolutist argument that to my eyes is just ridiculous on its face. Different people want different things, and are willing to accept different raw salary numbers for them. The whole point of having an employment market is precisely to allow different people to make these choices and come to an appropriate equilibrium.
If you personally don't want to work for the government for lower pay than you could get in the private sector, that's fine. But that's not a principled argument about wage structures, it's just your choice. And empirically, it's not everyone's.
Interns and apprenticeships should be paid too. They should be paid a market rate that is enough to live comfortably on.
Not sure how you can argue against the simple fact that people need to be paid a decent, fair wage. At all levels of your career, including your first job. A startup doesn't get a pass just as the government shouldn't get a pass for "mission based" worked. Everything and everyone has a mission, but that is separate from the fact people need to be paid (& treated) fairly.
If your entire operational model relies on taking advantage of others, asking people to make huge personal sacrifices because you don't want to properly fund a program, there's something wrong.
It's the classic "ends justify the means" argument.