Gotcha. I disagree on a few points, but I think it's semantics as much as anything else. But, I will elaborate in-line....


>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.


Agreed. This argument is in line with my own support of minimum wage as a preferable alternative, in an economic system, to strict right-of-contract (Justice Thomas would disagree with me pretty virulently here). To my mind, a system with safeguards to avoid utter exploitation of desperate people is *strengthened* by those safeguards, because it keeps the corresponding political/social system at a more even keel over time.

Having said that, I don't think that the $11 an hour represents this level of exploitation. I am well aware that minimum wage in most parts of the country is a joke because it is soooo far below realistic needs. But, others on this thread have pointed out a number of careers with similar salaries as the $11 per hour extraploated over a year. As a result, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the $11 is in the "exploitation" range. (As an aside, it seems to me that most people are having an issue with the fact that an $11 rate seems to indicate that programming is worth as much as some "lower level" jobs, and not that it raises a spectre of masses of shoeless programmers begging for bread.)


>
>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


The only thing I wonder in regard to this last two statement is how it jibes or not with an early comment you made:

>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.


Here's my question/problem... you seem to be indicating that the person offering $11 is preying onthe desperate and therefore manipulating the market. But, then you say that if $11 becomes the norm, that isn't the case. But, certainly, someone has to be the *first* person to offer $11, right? Is he/she manipulating the market because $11 is not yet the norm?