Minimum nonsense
A headline on Friday's front page:
"Pay boost takes fast track : Senate OKs minimum-wage increase; House likes idea."
I'm not reflexively and vehemently opposed to minimum wage laws like some of my fellow conservatives. Maybe it's from having supported a family on a minimum wage job for a brief period in the 1970s -- something that could not be done nowdays. I don't think minimum wage laws do a lot of good, either.
What I am opposed to is the silly propagandizing of the type expressed in that headline. The sub-headline is fine. "Senate OKs minimum-wage increase..." That's telling what happened without any spin. But the headline could just as well have said "Job cuts take fast track." A boost in the minimum wage will cause some people to get more income and some to lose their jobs, and will have in-between results for others. A carefully calibrated minimum wage increase could well do more good than harm. But somebody who thinks it means increases in income for everyone who is already already at the minimum is trying to fool people or is very ignorant. Such a person is not going to be much help in finding the right balance.
The Gazette IS capable of doing things right when it tries, though. Sunday's paper had a big, two-page article with photos, maps, and charts about the controversial gravel mine proposal in Richland Township. It gave the facts with no spin that I could discern.
For selfish reasons I hope it doesn't happen. Saturday's bike ride took me right through the middle of the 853 acres that would be dug up. I like it the way it is now. But I also like the way the newspaper explained the economic realities of highway building. (I'd be fine with fewer highways, myself. Maybe the newspaper is giving the construction side fair play because it has been on the side of highway building and destruction of the countryside between Kalamazoo and the Indiana state line. It wants the rest of US-131 turned into an expressway.)
"Pay boost takes fast track : Senate OKs minimum-wage increase; House likes idea."
I'm not reflexively and vehemently opposed to minimum wage laws like some of my fellow conservatives. Maybe it's from having supported a family on a minimum wage job for a brief period in the 1970s -- something that could not be done nowdays. I don't think minimum wage laws do a lot of good, either.
What I am opposed to is the silly propagandizing of the type expressed in that headline. The sub-headline is fine. "Senate OKs minimum-wage increase..." That's telling what happened without any spin. But the headline could just as well have said "Job cuts take fast track." A boost in the minimum wage will cause some people to get more income and some to lose their jobs, and will have in-between results for others. A carefully calibrated minimum wage increase could well do more good than harm. But somebody who thinks it means increases in income for everyone who is already already at the minimum is trying to fool people or is very ignorant. Such a person is not going to be much help in finding the right balance.
The Gazette IS capable of doing things right when it tries, though. Sunday's paper had a big, two-page article with photos, maps, and charts about the controversial gravel mine proposal in Richland Township. It gave the facts with no spin that I could discern.
For selfish reasons I hope it doesn't happen. Saturday's bike ride took me right through the middle of the 853 acres that would be dug up. I like it the way it is now. But I also like the way the newspaper explained the economic realities of highway building. (I'd be fine with fewer highways, myself. Maybe the newspaper is giving the construction side fair play because it has been on the side of highway building and destruction of the countryside between Kalamazoo and the Indiana state line. It wants the rest of US-131 turned into an expressway.)