LETTERS: Raising minimum wage a good move
To the editor:
After reading Glenn Cook’s column about minimum wage, I felt the need to respond with some additional facts (“Raising wage lowers boom on teens,” April 26 Review-Journal). I agree the original purpose of minimum wage was a training wage; however, given the length of the recession, move-up and middle management positions not being created and businesses reclassifying employees as part-time to reduce impacts of the Affordable Care Act, minimum wage is no longer just a training wage.
Of our workforce, 3.3 percent are working full time at minimum wage and require welfare services to cover basic living costs. If an employer is not paying enough for employees to cover basic costs, then every other business is paying increased taxes to cover the welfare services that these employees need. It costs taxpayers approximately $1,500 to provide $300 in assistance to a minimum wage worker — that’s a huge bill so some businesses can enjoy cheap labor.
Opponents claim increasing the minimum wage will destabilize Nevada’s economy, when the reality is only about 22,000 Nevadans make the minimum wage. To be clear, the unemployment rate is due to an economy that is slow to recover from a recession — we need better-paying jobs for the unemployed and underemployed, not more minimum wage positions. The average age of a minimum wage employee is 29 years old. A strong economy with good-paying jobs is the answer to the minimum wage discussion.
But in the interim, raising the minimum wage helps a real social and economic crisis that other businesses must pay additional taxes to cover. We might not agree on the solution, but it’s important that everyone have more facts. I agree with Mr. Cook that the minimum wage should not be a permanent wage for an employee; however, we cannot ignore those who for one reason or another have stayed at minimum wage due to economic factors out of their control.
PATRICIA FARLEY
LAS VEGAS
The writer, a Republican, represents District 8 in the Nevada Senate.
Social Security opt-out
To the editor:
Regarding Ken Hamm Sr.’s letter (“Seniors and Social Security,” April 26 Review-Journal), I have spoken to many senior citizens in groups I belong to and have offered a solution that not one person was against. Allow seniors (or anyone) the option to opt out of collecting the Social Security benefit.
I know dozens of wealthy seniors who would be willing to opt out as long as there is always the ability to opt back in if their situation requires. The key to this, though, is that it be voluntary. Nobody wants to be told to do this; rather, they want to be given both options.
I believe you’d be shocked at how many are willing to do this. Those who are wealthy and get a bad rap really aren’t monsters; they’re just protective of what they’ve earned.
GREG SCHERR
LAS VEGAS
Show us the money!
To the editor:
I just read of another multimillion dollar impact to the local economy, from the Floyd Mayweather Jr.-Manny Pacquiao fight (“Saturday night alright for fighting,” May 1 Review-Journal editorial). We see these stories all the time, but we never see who exactly is benefiting from this economic impact.
It sure isn’t the taxpayers, because city and county leaders are always clamoring for more taxes. Whose pockets are getting lined?
BILL L. WILSON
HENDERSON
