Not really as I see it: implication does not work that way. If you will excuse a brief explication that might be obvious: "p -> q" =/=> "q -> p". '{individuals already privileged} can {work for free}' does not imply that '{everyone who works for free} is an {individual already privileged}'.
If you are looking for a money quote, it seems to be this one (the first response from Joanna):
> I don't know that it's a question of desperation, you have to have a certain amount of money to work for free.
But really it would be pretty "weaselly" (to borrow your term of art) to use this when it has been qualified by the author in the immediate next post, wouldn't it? And why would we want to do that when we are the party of solidarity!
> ... that
> doesn't jibe with the stated fantasy (or, in your words, sensible point)
> that all -- wait, I mean, most -- unpaid workers are idlers drawing from
> their trusts.
Yes that characterisation is indeed a fantastic reinterpretation of the sensible point. :-)
> But your quite right that the exact demographic make-up of the free-working
> population is a peripheral issue, although you yourself manage to miss the
> mark.
> <...> Because people aren't working
> for free, as Joanne would have it, as a lark in lieu of taking a
> post-graduate European tour, <...>
I do see that you have your eyes squarely on the mark! Perhaps once you come across individuals who are indeed working for free because they can afford it, as at least some of us have, you might feel differently about the point. Take for example, open source software: people who write open source software (that is not part of their paid work, and is distributed for free), almost always have the security of a day job... and a fairly high paying one at that. That's an example of when free work is a true luxury.
If there is a segment (of people) and process (of organisations and practices that replace workers with those for whom such work is not a necessary source of survival e.g: children of working adults who mow lawns for pocket money), how significant is it? I don't know. You write:
> It isn't in fact "a matter of isolating and thus stripping workers
> with some “privileges” (healthcare, collective bargaining capabilities, job
> security, so on)". Free-work is just another invidious, if in the scheme of
> things fairly unimportant, consequence of a much larger socio-economic
> reconfiguration (partly aimed at "stripping workers with some 'privileges'")
> that has been decades in the making -- and this is essentially true only to
> the extent that said reconfiguration can be blamed for the increasing
> scarcity of non-service white-collar jobs.
I would like to understand this better.
--ravi