Just one thing to add...

>>>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.

I don't think I expressed my point correctly, because I meant for number 2 to be read in unison with number 3 (which is why I used the "...")

>>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.

So, the only thing I would add to clarify my point is this: as much as I think that the minimum wage is too low, it is what we as a country have agreed upon as "The Line." As such, I think it's hard to argue, given that fact, that any offer over that line represents exploitation. Someone could argue back "but it's over the legal minimum wage!" and whether I like it or not, that's a good (legal but maybe not ethical) point.

(I didn't include "child labor" in my sample list under point number 3 but certainly it's another example of illegal behaviors that I would include under my disclaimer.)