I think it's time to start a little snipping here.

snip...

>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.

On this we are in 100% accord.

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.)

Well, I can't see myself agreeing that the fact that there is exploitation in more than one career area, denies the fact of exploitation in any one area.

>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.
>>
>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?


I guess I stated it badly. I was thinking in two separate areas and somehow not connecting them properly. You are correct. Market manipulation becoming pervasive should not be able to justify itself as true market value.

I do have to ask though. $11.00 an hour. I assume that there is, in the US, as in Canada, a 'poverty line'? Where exactly is that line, and is it realistic?

Alan