Not really, but I think what we as photographers need to understand is that most ordinary folks don't understand why they have to pay for more than the cost of the print itself, a better analogy would be music CD's, "why should I pay for more than the cost of printing the CD?", if you know what I mean. They probably keep a printer at home, and know how much it would cost them to print the photo at home.
When you buy a photo, you're buying a combination of a) camera equipment, b) material costs, c) time spent and d) competance.
Your charging for your competance. It's no different than a computer programmer charging for his competance, when you buy a hand made chair, you're not asking why you're paying more than it would cost you in material costs to make it, do you? If you want cheap photos, go to a photo boot, that'll cost you next to nothing, but there's not talent in it.
Once I shot a documentary about the local police force, a policewoman asked me what I charged for a professional portrait, and when I answered she asked me "why do we need professional photographers when you're so expensive?". I answered that "How much do you get paid a year? I'd love to enforce the law with a basebal bat, I'd do it for half what you're charing for it".