LETTERS: RJ needs to reveal new owners
Unidentified owner
The desire of the new owners of the Review-Journal to remain anonymous is a violation of public trust. Their expectation that the newspaper keep their identities hidden is chilling.
It is disrespectful to the community. It tarnishes the hard-earned reputation of the newspaper built by the talented men and women over the last century. It makes it difficult for your current reporters to shine light into other dark corners, and it makes it impossible for your readers to trust what those reporters uncover.
As a second-generation newspaperman and a former editor at the Review-Journal, I'm aghast.
As a reader, I cannot support this unprecedented charade. I am canceling my subscription.
Mark Whittington
Henderson
Training wage
Your editorial on Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson again brought up the idea of a training wage or reduced minimum wage for minors ("Carson's campaign," Nov. 29 Review-Journal). But such a move opens the door to a number of terrifying consequences and displays a great deal of naive thinking.
Reducing youth employment is a great goal, but this is not the way to accomplish it. To begin with, it's based on the premise that minors don't need as much of an income as an adult. This overlooks many low-income families supported by a juvenile — families that wouldn't be able to pay utilities without everyone earning an adult's wage.
Also, is it realistic to think that as soon as a worker turns 18, the employer will happily double that employee's wages? More likely, that employee will be let go in favor of someone much cheaper. We know this because it happens every day. Look at how many temporary workers national retailers have in place to avoid paying benefits.
And a lower wage based on experience rather than age is even worse. Ageism is one thing, but who decides what "experienced" is?
No matter what rubric you use, setting up a tiered minimum wage will hurt people. This is a state that has a long and shameful history of civil rights issues, and for unethical employers, a training wage would be a brutally effective loophole. More than just my fears of a slippery slope, it's very sad to see that the editorial board is putting its support behind a goal that's slowed progress for years — namely, how can we get away with paying workers less?
David Barker
Las Vegas
R-J's evolving values
I got a good belly laugh from Ron Moers' letter about the newspaper starting to lean left and, even more, not catering to its readers ("Evolving slant," Sunday Review-Journal). I always thought a newspaper's job was to tell the facts, not cater to a bunch of extremists in either direction.
Donald Trump is a joke. The Pentagon has said his comments present a national security risk, Israel wants nothing to do with the guy, and Britain is about to ban him from its country. If the Review-Journal becomes the Trump Gazette, I'm betting it loses far more readers than if Ron Moers and others canceled their subscriptions due to the paper's current direction.
Tim Weaver
Henderson
Paper's evolution
Regarding Ron Moers' letter, he needs to speak for himself about the evolving content of the Review-Journal ("Evolving slant," Saturday Review-Journal). My perception is that the newspaper has become more interesting and diverse, with the impact being that I dislike it less and less, and, dare I say, actually like it. Las Vegas is a diverse city, and the Review-Journal is evolving to reflect this fact.
Kevin Wilcoxon
Las Vegas
