To be honest, I don't really see these kinds of comments criticising young organisations that likely have access to limited amounts of funding to be helpful. I think there are some valid issues to be discussed, but I'd much rather see them discussed at an ecosystem level. Sure, it's less than ideal that low-paid internships provide an advantage to those from a particular class, but it's also easier for wealthier people to gain a college degree as well, I think it'd be a mistake for us to criticise universities for offering college degrees. At least with these internships, you're being paid something, as opposed to accruing debt, so they're actually much more accessible than the comparative.

But I suppose this doesn't address my real objection which is that there are people who are willing to work to make the world better and an organisation that is willing to provide them with some financial support to make it happen. In return, these people gain the opportunity to develop new skills and if these interns are particularly talented, they are likely to be referred on to further opportunities. They might even change the course of someone's career: someone who was just going to go into the business world might end up having a highly impactful career instead.

So I guess it just feels like that given how many benefits there are, we should have a really high bar for standing in the way of things. And I don't really feel that this is met here. There's so much that is horrible in the world, but we have the opportunity to change that. And if that involves a large number of 1000 EURO/month internships, well, that seems like an incredibly low price to pay.

I think this is a real concern. But a few observations to add:

• Points 1 and 2 appear to be somewhat in tension. The strongest argument for penalization in point 2, to me, is that EAs from a lower income background are unable to participate in an internship that has a significant value in career advancement. However, point 1 is based on the assumption that the role does not have such a value.
• I'm inclined to give somewhat more grace to new, lean organizations than to established & well-funded organizations on this issue. I believe upstart nonprofits generally pay even less than nonprofits generally, and that may be a consequence of the funding situation those organizations often face. 
• Therefore, I'm not sure it is appropriate to put too much of the burden of being better than other industries (cf. point 3) on cash-strapped organizations. To the extent that there are ecosystem-wide goals here (like promoting meritocracy rather than privilege), it may be more appropriate to evaluate them at the ecosystem level rather than primarily at the organizational level. It may be possible to achieve those goals while giving newer, leanly-funded organizations more of a pass.
  • If it really is critical to have all entry-level positions paying a certain floor wage, then funders probably need to offer grants specifically for that (or size their regular grants accordingly and include a restriction against paying anyone less than the specified floor).
• In some non-profits -- certain types of religious work come to mind -- the worker is expected to fundraise part or all of their own salary. This system has its problems for sure, but it's not obvious untenable to offer partially-funded positions with the expectation that candidates would need to find grants, do fundraising, etc. 
  • Of course, the organization or someone else would need to provide appropriate support (e.g., in the US, one can generally get tax-deductibility for this kind of thing if jumping through the right hoops).
• None of this is intended to imply a view that the offered salary is acceptable; I think it probably is not. But I wouldn't, for instance, endorse a position that any salary under €2,317.83 per month is per se exploitative.^[1]