Saturday, October 30, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
LETTERS: An economics lesson on ballot Question 6
To the editor:
Tuesday's editorial opposing ballot Question 6, which would increase the minimum wage, was right on concerning the elimination of entry-level jobs. Perhaps the experience of someone who lived through an increase will add to the clarity.
When I was in high school, I got a job as an usher in one of six movie theaters in the downtown area of my hometown. There were 11 of us, plus a chief usher and an assistant. We were a mixture of teenagers and older men between jobs or working two jobs. There was constant turnover. Approximately once each month, an usher would leave and immediately another would be hired.
By the end of my first year, I had received four raises and a promotion to chief usher. I was charged with making schedules and assignments for the 13 of us. Early in the second year, the assistant manager called me to his office to tell me that the legal minimum wage had been raised by the exact amount of my four raises. He said it was unfair, but he was unable to give me a raise. All 13 of us were to make the same hourly rate.
Within a month, another usher left, but, although the assistant manager had a list of applicants, he told me that no new usher would be hired. Now we had 12 jobs. No one was fired. No one was laid off. No one went on unemployment. But a job was lost and it was clearly the result of the increase in the minimum wage.
In the months that followed, six more vacancies were created but not one new usher was hired. Because I was the seventh to leave, I cannot say for certain how many more jobs were lost. I also cannot say for certain what happened in thousands of theaters across our country or what happened in other industries. But I can say with certainty that seven of 13 jobs in my workplace were lost and that it was a direct result of the increase in the minimum wage.
Later, I took 30 college courses in economics (and a 10-lecture course by Alan Greenspan, now chairman of the Federal Reserve) and then taught economics at a university for 20 years. I have yet to encounter a refutation of the theory that if the price of a good or service (e.g. wage) is raised, and all other things remain constant, there will be a tendency for the quantity demanded of that good or service to fall. In the absence of any knowledge of economic theory, common sense could lead one to the same conclusion.
The practical and theoretical arguments should make it clear that raising the minimum wage will cause the loss of jobs. But it is a moral argument that usually prevails, and therein lies the problem.
On one side is the altruistic and collectivist moral philosophy of Plato, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx and today's left-wing and right-wing socialists stating that society, or "the common good," or the "public interest," or the nation has rights, and individuals should and must live and work for that collective good.
On the opposite side is the egoistic and individualistic moral philosophy of Aristotle, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson ("unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") and Ayn Rand ("only individuals have rights").
When voters choose sides on Question 6, whether they know it or not, they will be basing their choice on one philosophy or the other.
RICHARD C. HEALY JR.
LAS VEGAS
Warrior Cheney
To the editor:
You know what's rich? Dick Cheney, a tough-talking La-Z-Boy warrior who never even made private ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service") calling Sen. John Kerry an "armchair general."
ROBERT E. GLADD
LAS VEGAS
Job creation
To the editor:
I am constantly amused by politicos (on both sides) who talk about creating jobs. As an example, we hear how Bill Clinton created 10 million jobs. Sen. John Kerry first stated that, if elected, he would create 20 million jobs. As in most matters, he has now backed off that number.
In actual terms, I have created as many jobs as Bill Clinton did -- zero. Any president can recommend policies that may have the effect of creating jobs in a minimal way. If Bill Clinton had the power to do so, he would have created 40 million jobs. Why did he not do that? If creating jobs were as simple as waving a magic wand, why would President Bush not do the same thing ?
In point of fact, any president has no power to do so. Even more ridiculous is the statement by John Kerry that he will "create better paying jobs." It is my impression that many people will believe this baloney.
RICHARD J. MUELLER
LAS VEGAS
`Missing' munitions
To the editor:
The real story about the non-story regarding those "missing" munitions in Iraq is that even after the story was exposed as a fraud, Sen. John Kerry continues to denigrate our military and president.
Sen. Kerry should be apologizing to both President Bush and our soldiers for jumping on every opportunity to exploit negative reports of our attempts to give freedom to the Iraqi people.
This "missing munitions" story should tell voters a few things about Sen. Kerry: He will say anything to get elected; he doesn't care who he hurts as long as he wins; he spits out accusations with no facts to support his venom; he refuses to apologize and admit he is wrong, even when he clearly is wrong; and, worst of all, he is nothing more than a Monday morning quarterback who uses hindsight and misinformation to hurt those who have sacrificed the most for our country -- just as he did during the Vietnam War.
KEN KOESTER
LAS VEGAS
Right-wing nonsense
To the editor:
I expect right-wing nonsense from the Review-Journal, but when did the Bush-Cheney campaign set up shop at the newspaper's opinion page?
In your effort Wednesday to absolve President Bush of all responsibility for the 380 tons of missing explosives at Al-Qaqaa, you accused The New York Times of overstating the case against the president for failing to secure ammo dumps across Iraq -- part of his overall failure to have a plan for a post-war reality in the country.
You pointed out that the 101st Airborne was in Al-Qaqaa and didn't find any weapons at the dump. From that fragment of information, you concluded that the explosives were removed before U.S. troops arrived. A vast left-wing conspiracy was afoot.
Baloney. Turns out the 101st didn't find anything because they weren't looking. They hadn't even been told what Al-Qaqaa was. The commander of the unit that visited Al-Qaqaa, Col. Joseph Anderson, told the Times, "We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission."
And the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that the explosives did indeed vanish after Saddam's fall -- a direct result of President Bush's incompetent handling of the conflict in Iraq.
The United States is ready for a president who can admit his mistakes and correct them when facts suggest he should. And Las Vegas could use a morning newspaper half as good as The New York Times. It doesn't have one now.
LAURA ELDRIDGE
LAS VEGAS
Fur promotes cruelty
To the editor:
While Heidi Knapp Rinella reports that animal fur is "nostalgic," "wonderful" and "beautiful," she neglects to mention that, endangered or not, millions of animals are trapped, drowned and beaten to death in the wild and strangled, gassed or electrocuted on fur farms every year ("Back in style: Retro styles, technological advances spark new interest in fur," Monday).
Some fur farmers have been caught killing minks by injecting an insecticide into their hearts! This crude method of killing causes animals to convulse for up to 10 minutes before they die.
In the 21st century, people can choose to be cruel or kind. With so many fashionable, comfortable leather and fur alternatives available today, there is no excuse for wearing any animal skins. We are not survivalists.
Please consider exploring the horrors of the fur industry instead of perpetuating the idea that wearing the skins of murdered animals will make you more beautiful.
CANDY MIZZONI
LAS VEGAS
Landlord tax
To the editor:
I would like to commend the Review-Journal for exposing the back-door property tax increase that city of North Las Vegas officials are trying to get passed.
This $50-a-month fee that city leaders want landlords to pay to fund "health and safety" inspections of properties is yet another tax increase they thought would go unnoticed. To show their desperation, they are willing to violate the rights of people who do not own property. Sounds like something from the 1800s, when only property owners could vote.
This proposed ordinance should give us all pause. The thought that city officials in North Las Vegas were willing to go to such an extreme to get more than $1 million a year from property owners, even if it meant infringing on the right to privacy and dignity of the residents, is just astonishing.
To hear the city manager say so arrogantly that landlords should consider the fees part of the cost of doing business makes me think of the old mob movies, where gangsters demand money from anyone on their block.
The city manager needs to understand the block belongs to taxpayers. He better realize that fast or get packing and find another job that pays more than $100,000 per year somewhere else.
EUGENE SLOANE
NORTH LAS VEGAS
