[ed209]

That depends on how you class "for free". Most people think free = not being paid money.

I'm actually looking into working for the whole of July for no monetary compensation. But in return, I expect to learn something from whoever I work with/for.

Most of the time money is good. You can exchange that for many things in life. But sometimes, knowledge is better to have as you can exchange that for (even more) money.

And from an employer point of view, you should not be judged by the size of your pay cheque, but by how much value you actually add to a company.

[jmduke]

>> Most of the time money is good. You can exchange that for many things in life. But sometimes, knowledge is better to have as you can exchange that for (even more) money.

This is a false dichotomy. With some very rare exceptions, you do not choose between monetary compensation and experience: you need -- and should get -- both.

[ed209]

I agree completely, other than calling them rare exceptions. You can't quantify the rarity of these opportunities until you know how big the gap is between your current knowledge and what you'd learn.

The bigger the gap, the less money you are likely to make but the more you'll learn. If you get paid nothing, you're basically there to learn (to the value at least the salary you would receive).

[showsover]

Especially when starting out.

[justinsteele]

I've learned the most in paid positions. Companies that value their employees with monetary compensation are far more likely to value learning and successful experiences than a company who decides you are worth $0 to them.

[davemello]

>> But sometimes, knowledge is better to have as you can exchange that for (even more) money.

Thanks ed209, that's great, and exactly what I was getting at.