>>I think it's time to start a little snipping here.
>>
>
>Agreed!
>
>>snip...
>>
>>
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.
>>
>
>This is an interesting point of debate. In order to judge whether a situation represents exploitation, should you look within a career field, or should you look at the situation regardless of career fields? Certainly, the definition of a poverty line (see more on this below), and the related point of exploitation, will vary by many factors, geography being a major one. But, is exploitation relative to prior salary? I'm not sold on this idea.
I am not sure relative comparisons are valid in any case. To judge whether a situation is exploitation, one should only have to look at that particular situation. Whether or not others elsewhere are or are not being exploited should not have a bearing. It's the old "if I don't do it, somebody else will" argument. I have real problems with that sort of thing.
I met a friend of a friend a few years ago who was making $225k a few years ago, right out of college(!), drawing cartoons for entertainment web sites (no, I am not kidding). Today, I hear from our mutual friend that he is making $22 k for the same. 10% of what he made six years ago! Is he being exploited, or was he simply spoiled by the higher salary in 1997?
I certainly would never argue that a drop in value is necessarily 'exploitation'. An unrealistic drop, on the other hand...
When I changed careers about 11 years ago, I took a 33% drop in salary. Did I feel exploited? Not really. Disappointed? Yes, of course. We'd all like to continually move our spending power up, but realistically, I was now an untried developer in a field that was new to me, and I felt quite fortunate that the drop wasn't even greater.
Seems to me your friend may have been living on unrealistic expectations in the first place. Was the job he was doing really worth the $225k? Or was he riding a lucky wave. Should he have expected it to go on forever? The world just isn't like that, I'm afraid.
>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?
>Uh-oh... don't get me started! <bg> The US Census poverty threshold for 2002, for a family of four with two adults, is $18,859. Is this a low number? A high number? Well, that all depends on WHERE in the united states you live. I had a prior career in statistics, and these aggregate macro numbers drive me crazy (in all types of fields). $18,859 means one thing in Tampa, Fl, another thing in New York City, and a third thing in Vintown Ohio.
That suggests that in fact, there is somewhere in the US that a family of four can live, if not comfortably, at least without discomfort, on US $19,000. Is there?
Want to know how bad the economy is in New York City? 20% of New York City residents live below this poverty line. But just about anyone will tell you that the poverty line quoted above is laughable for New York. So, more likely, there are many many more people in New York living in poverty. Pretty high numbers!
>
>So, how does all of this impact on our discussion of market manipulation? Well, it's more complicated, for sure, than we can discuss in these snippets. And, we've each made some good points. My final summary of my own points would go something like this:
Oh, I think we've progressed beyond a discussion of just market value/manipulation by now.
>1) $11 seems really low, relatively speaking, for US-based programming work;
>2) ... but, if the client gets a worker at this rate, and is happy enough to keep employing him/her at this rate, than I can shake my head all I want, but in the end, by definition, $11 is in the range of acceptable hourly rates for programming work. (As is $225 an hour!)
Here is where we run into problems. That line of reasoning suggests that sweat shops are also acceptable because persons (children often) can be found to work in them, and it works out quite nicely for the 'employer'. No, sorry, there has to be line that gets crossed at some point. Is that line at $11.00 for a programmer? Maybe not, but it may be getting near.
Also, as Jim Nelson pointed out, a large part of the problem is 'globalization'. As long as companies can find persons somewhere who are willing to work for less and less, the value of the work becomes more and more devalued; to the point that in some sense it might well be considered market manipulation.
3) ... I don't believe that contracting a willing programmer for $11 an hour represents market manipulation. I've heard your points on this, but in the end, I just disagree. Now, if we had evidence that various large companies were working together to drive down prices; or if the government was mandating prices; or if the hourly wage fell below legally mandated minimum wage; then, I'd feel differently.
I guess overall, I don't honestly disagree. I just think maybe economically, the job market is treading on dangerous ground.
And finally...
>
>4) Nearly everyone in the US lives too far beyond his/her means. I know one programmer (not VFP) who made $50k in 1992, $300k in 1998, and is now back at $50k. I feel for him, because he may soon lose his house. But, in all honesty, part of me feels that if you immediately up your standard of living to match a sudden rise in income during a boom, you deserve what you are getting on the way down. "Who knew?" he once asked me. "Well, I knew..." I replied. It nearly ended our friendship but he needed to hear it.
Again, I don't disagree. The same is true here. Credit has taken over completely. Can't afford it? No problem, just buy it on time.
For the record, here (Cdn funds) is the table for 2002 from "Canadian Council on Social Development" based on statistics from 'Statistics Canada'. To get some idea of the relationship to the US, multiply by .67 for US dollars.
Before-tax Low-Income Cut-Offs (LICOs), 2002
Family Population of Community of Residence
500,000+ 100,000-499,999 30,000-99,999 Less than 30,000* Rural
------ -------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- -------
1 $19,261 $16,521 $16,407 $15,267 $13,311
2 $24,077 $20,651 $20,508 $19,083 $16,639
3 $29,944 $25,684 $25,505 $23,732 $20,694
4 $36,247 $31,090 $30,875 $28,729 $25,050
5 $40,518 $34,754 $34,512 $32,113 $28,002
6 $44,789 $38,418 $38,150 $35,498 $30,954
7 + $49,060 $42,080 $41,788 $38,882 $33,907
post-transfer household income.
urban areas (under 15,000).
Source: Prepared by the Canadian Council on Social Development using
Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut-Offs, from The Daily, February 5, 2003.Alan
