Minimum-wage Scrooge missed the larger picture

It was the day before Christmas and David R. Henderson, research fellow at the Hoover Institute ("Dollars and Sense: Good Intentions Can Still Be a Job Killer," Dec. 24 Forum), inadvertently revealed the specter of Scrooge standing behind his opposition to raising the minimum wage. He boasted that the Economic Policy Institute, a proponent of raising the minimum wage, was actually on his side in stating that employer costs will be cushioned by "higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism and increased worker morale."

Sounding like Bob Cratchit's crotchety boss, Mr. Henderson offered that the only way an employer could accomplish these cost savings would be by "working the employees harder and firing those who miss work" and "training less." It apparently did not occur to him that better-paid workers are more productive because higher income is correlated with better health, resulting in better attendance. He also failed to see the relationship between better pay and less turnover, which saves recruitment and training costs.

Mr. Henderson bemoans the fact that voters in six states approved an increase in the minimum wage, joining 23 other states that have done so through legislation (with Pennsylvania being the most recent). This trend is a welcome sign that his brand of Hooverism is on the wane as the people who keep our economy going -- by caring for our children and elderly parents, serving us where we shop and cleaning our homes and buildings -- are finally getting some measure of economic justice.

ROBERT J. FEIKEMA
Squirrel Hill

---

Can't afford crumbs?

People like David Henderson make me sick ("Dollars and Sense: Good Intentions Can Still Be a Job Killer," Dec. 24 Forum). He and his ilk sit in their ivory tower think tanks, along with a nice salary and benefits, and make pronouncements about how an increase in the minimum wage is going to hurt workers. Woe to all of the low-paid workers who will lose their jobs and those (especially black, a concern for racial equality here?) who will never be hired.

He then proceeds to support his beliefs with opinions from other selected, well-paid economists -- beliefs, I might add, that he undoubtedly arrived at through diligent study of those very same economists who are long on theory but have never worked in the real world at $5.15 per hour.

We always find that it is the well-off who immediately step forward to argue that crumbs from the economic table we cannot afford, but record-setting bonuses for Wall Street financial firms, obscene salaries for corporate executives and tax cuts for the wealthiest are good for the economy.

The number of people earning below the official poverty level has been steadily increasing for a number of years now, so I would argue that there is a direct connection between the morally and economically bankrupt policy of depressing worker wages through just such a thing as blocking a minimum wage increase.

HENRY W. JONES
Moon

---

It does make sense

David Henderson's anti-minimum wage piece ("Dollars and Sense: Good Intentions Can Still Be a Job Killer," Dec. 24 Forum) was riddled with errors and misrepresentations. First and foremost was his contention that economists generally oppose raising the minimum wage. A number of leading economists -- including five Nobel laureates and six past presidents of the American Economic Association -- recently issued a statement saying that raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour would positively benefit the labor market, workers and the overall economy and would not produce the adverse effects that critics such as Mr. Henderson claim. The statement was signed by more than 650 economists.

Similarly, not only is there no consensus among economists that raising the minimum wage will cause job loss, but some studies have actually found that increases in the minimum wage have led to increases in employment (see, e.g., Card and Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment," American Economic Review. Vol. 90, No. 5). This is due to the simple fact that when low-wage workers get a raise, they spend it, which benefits the economy and adds jobs. The 1990-91 and 1996-97 federal minimum wage increases were both followed by periods of lower unemployment in the low-wage labor market.

Finally, while Mr. Henderson correctly states that increases in the minimum wage tend to result in increased worker productivity and reduced training costs, he incorrectly attributes this to "working employees harder" and "cutting training," when in fact it is most likely due to enhanced employee loyalty and decreased turnover.

Working people shouldn't have to rely on public assistance to make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a moral issue that makes economic sense.

ROBERT DAMEWOOD
Mount Washington

---

Tell us past results

I am no economist (unlike David Henderson), but I find it fascinating that in virtually none of the articles about the negative consequences of raising the minimum wage do the economists, social scientists, politicians and other naysayers rely on past history. Why is that?

The minimum wage has been raised before, but we are not told about the results for the economy, small businesses or the poor. Did all the predictions of the collapse of the economy and the catastrophe for the poor and for small businesses come true or not? If the naysayers could point to a depression or a recession or inflation or an increase in poverty or a drop in the Dow or any other sign of a downturn in the economy in the past, their argument would carry much more weight.

The economists and other naysayers are very good about making predictions for the future (e.g., "Economists' consensus estimate is that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would destroy 1 percent to 2 percent of youths' jobs."), but shouldn't they be held accountable for past predictions? (Did that happen the last time the minimum wage was raised?)

Until that time, I will support an increase in the minimum wage on purely ethical grounds and leave the economists to forecasts that we seem to remember as long as we remember weather forecasts gone wrong.

BEV SMITH
Wheeling, W.Va.

---

Denote their value

I was intrigued by David M. Shribman's Dec. 24 column "Not All Presidents Deserve a Coin," about American presidents who deserve or don't deserve to have their portraits on our coins.

But separating the deserving from the undeserving might be too harsh a judgment. Instead, the presidents' merits could be represented by the denominations of the coins on which their likenesses appear. We have had dollar-worthy presidents, penny-worthy presidents and many nickel-, dime-, quarter- and half-dollar-worthy presidents in between.

I suggest that when George W. Bush's term is up, his image be engraved on the wooden nickel.

ROBERT L. WOLKE
Mount Washington

---

Absurd about Israel

Robert A. Kushner's smear of former Secretary of State James Baker as being anti-Israel and his absurd declaration that Israel had "nothing to do the mess in Iraq" are outrageous ("Why Involve Israel?" Dec. 27 letters).

Anyone with any common sense or the slightest knowledge of the events leading up to the invasion knows that one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, U.S. troops are in Iraq is the current administration's "unabashed pro-Israel bias" (see Norman Moses' Dec. 27 letter "Unreasonable Bias").

As subsequent events have proved, Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, but he did pose a threat to Israel because of his grants of $25,000 to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber. It was widely reported prior to our invasion that the famed Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, predicted that U.S. troops would be welcomed into Baghdad with rose petals.

If the complete facts of how the United States got sucked into Iraq ever get revealed, it would not be surprising to learn that Mossad had a lot to do with all the other lies about Iraq's WMDs and ties to Osama bin Laden.

ELSE SCHILLER
Penn Hills

---

Flags should fly at half staff until the end of this unnecessary war

While I do believe it is appropriate for the American flag to be lowered in respect of the death of former President Gerald Ford, I also believe that our flag should remain lowered until the end of the war.

This would not only be a visible sign of respect for our troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice but also would be a constant reminder to "we, the people" that our country is at war ... albeit an unnecessary war imposed on us by the Bush administration. It's a war that has now taken more lives than 9/11, disgraced us around the world and has cost an unspeakable amount of money that could have better been used for national security and programs that benefit the American people and others around the world.

D. ANN LINDSAY
Upper St. Clair

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.

---