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
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only