Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Other workers would demand well above the new minimum wage

To The Daily Sun,

This is in response to Dave Pollak's Aug. 26 letter in The Sun.

I see at least one other person has been thinking about the "can't raise a family on minimum wage" trap and the consequences thereof.

The pluses of raising the minimum wage appear to outweigh any negatives at first, but that's because it's easy to ignore or to purposely minimize the negative effects. Too many seem to think minimum wage should be able to support a family. Considering that it was never meant to do so, never meant to be a so-called 'living wage", pushing it to become that is a huge mistake and will hurt more people than it will help.

First, minimum wage is supposed to be primarily for entry level jobs, or for second jobs to raise a little extra money. (Yes, I know there are minimum wage jobs that are not, but they are in the minority.) It never has and never will be able to support a family of four, as so many of the minimum wage social justice warriors claim.

Raising the minimum wage might help some people, but it will also lock out more people from the job market than it will help. While Mr. Pollak mentioned a $10.10 minimum wage, others have been pushing for a $15 minimum wage. Considering a majority of the people working minimum wage jobs are between the ages of 16 and 24, what would be the consequence of such an increase in the minimum wage? Most of them would lose their jobs because, quite frankly, the jobs they're doing aren't worth that much. (I could make the same argument for the $10.10 minimum wage.) Others would never be able to find their first job because no one is going to want to pay an inexperienced worker with no work history that kind of money for what is to all intents no longer an entry level job. An already high teen unemployment rate would skyrocket and it would be even worse for minority teens.

Second, most of the working poor aren't making minimum wage. For the most part they're earning well above the $10.10 minimum wage mentioned by Mr. Pollak.

Third, artificially raising the cost of labor always hurts more than those it was supposed to help by increasing the cost of doing business across the board. Those higher costs will ripple through the economy, increasing the costs of goods and services in general. When it's all said and done, those receiving the wage increase may find themselves further behind, as the raise helps for a short period of time, but is then canceled out by the increased costs of goods and services later down the road. This is assuming, of course, that they haven't been priced out of the labor market and replaced by computerized systems. (McDonald's is already working to replace some of their people with ordering kiosks in the their high cost markets because they're less expensive than humans, never show up late, never goldbrick, and never demand pay raises or time off.) This is particularly true during times of economic weakness, something we have been experiencing now since 2008. You don't artificially increases costs during economic down times because all that does is further weaken the businesses trying to survive.

Fourth, wages across the board would be affected as some are indexed against the minimum wage. Other workers would demand well above the new minimum wage if they were making well above minimum wage prior to the increase. An example: Say the minimum wage is increased to $15. Someone already making $15 an hour would feel they should now be making more, perhaps $25 an hour. After all they were already worth above minimum wage before the hike. Those making $20 would feel they should be making $30 an hour for the same reason, and so on. In the end, did anyone really benefit if all it did is shift all wages upwards, and with it the cost of goods and services? Someone who was making $7.25 an hour and now being paid $15 an hour would appear to be better off, at least on paper. But they may find that after everything settles out the $15 wage doesn't let them buy any more than their $7.25 an hour job did, and perhaps they won't be able to buy as much as they could prior to the hike.

If the minimum wage social justice warriors really want to help, then perhaps they should be pushing a two-tiered approach, with a separate minimum wage for entry level jobs aimed at teens. (I realize the SJWs might scream about exploitation of those teens by "greedy business owners", but better they get work experience at a lower wage than no experience at all because they've been priced out of the market.)

Dale Channing Eddy

Gilford

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 388

Misognyist xenophobe Trump continues his wrecking-ball tour

To The Daily Sun,

Welcome to another edition of Tea Party Potty Tricks where we keep the best of the stupid in the news. According to Pew, white American evangelical Christians think they experience more discrimination than Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists or Jews. You're kidding, right? With that in mind we give a shout out to all those poor persecuted Bible-thumping Confederate flag wavers for showing us who is white trash without needing a conversation.

Misogynist xenophobe Donald Trump continues his wrecking ball tour across the nation while Bernie Sanders is packing in record crowds in major arenas. Last week, 28,000 showed up in Portland, Oregon's Moda Center. Trump may be able to make as much noise as 28,000 people because, after all, he is huge, but in the latest polling reported by The Hill, Bernie Sanders trounces the billionaire with a third grade vocabulary by 20 points.

Speaking of ethnocentric flotsam, we here at the Center for the Study of Absurdity offer a big hats off to Bob Meade and Linda Riley for winning the coveted Loo Award for general ignorance and bigotry regarding immigration and race. With race baiters like Steve Earle and Don Ewing in the running, we know Professor Cracraft must have had a tough time.

Another fake right wing scandal is falling apart. (Don't they all?) According to State Department spokesman John Kirby, "We have said in the past, Chris, that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private e-mail account here at the State Department." Kirby noted that things have changed since her tenure "but at the time she was not violating policy." Poor Steve Earle and Linda Riley. Maybe they should start a gardening column.

Pat Robertson has escaped from the looney bin again and is clearly off his meds. Pat claims that the stock marked trouble this week is due to an angry God punishing America for Planned Parenthood. He said that about 9/11, too. Religious crackpots will say anything. Speaking of religious psychos, Ben Carson has out-Donalded both Trump and Ewing by telling Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu, a favorite of anti-immigrant crazies that he was open to drone strikes on our soil in order to combat unlawful immigration along the southern border. Drone strikes! He who has the most anti-immigrant foam at the mouth wins! With the fascist-leaning Tea Party and what is left of the GOP, the most free-wheeling, uninhibited, and brazen stupidity wins.

Did you hear the latest? David Duke, white supremacist, Holocaust denier, and one-time KKK leader has endorsed Donald Trump. Priceless! But there's more! Daily Stormer, America's most popular Neo-Nazi website has announced its support for Trump because of his willingness to call Mexicans out as criminal rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. Clearly, Don Ewing has allies in the lowest of places. Now for ice cream. A while back it was noticed on one of Trump's campaign posters tweeted that the marching soldiers in the lower right hand picture were Wehrmacht Nazi SS troops. No kidding. An aide was blamed for making the alleged "mistake". But we here at the Center have some ideas of our own.

James Veverka
Tilton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 587