>>I have to disagree at least minimally. I take your point, and ordinarily, I'd agree. If one puts a job out to tender amongst those competent to know the worth of the work, then yes, the market is dictating the value of the work.
>>
>>On the other hand, if one preys on the desparate, the market, far from dictating value, is, in fact, being manipulated. Not the same thing at all.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>
>
>I'd agree with your statement that "if one preys on the desparate, the market, far from dictating value, is, in fact, being manipulated" when it applies to price fixing, government intervention, monopoly manipulation, and the like. But I don't believe that "desperate" includes cases where skills are not as in-demand as they folks might like them to be.
>
>Or did I misunderstand your point?

No, I think we're on the same page. Perhaps we are at cross purposes in the term 'market value'. I don't believe that market value is really an issue in this situation.

In a case like this, I think that it's not so much a question of the skills being 'in demand' or not as much as the fact that there are people out there who can be confident that they can offer whatever minimal amount they like, and know that somebody will take it.

A person can always be found to do just about anything for just about any amount of money if he/she is desperate.

I don't feel that means necessarily that VFP skills suddenly have a market value of $11.00; rather I think that someone with possibly less scruples than most, decided to try it on, and got away with it.

If $11.00 becomes the norm, then I suppose I'd have to agree that we're seeing true market value. I really don't believe that's what we're seeing here.

Alan