Minimum wage increase would help working Arizonans

I found Tuesday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat editorial concerning the minimum wage to be an astounding misrepresentation as well as a misunderstanding of the real economic impacts the minimum wage increase in Arizona would likely have. If you look at the sorts of jobs and corporations that are likely to move to Arizona, you would find none that would be significantly impacted by the increased minimum-wage law. The growth sectors in the American economy are in information technology and biotechnology firms, and these firms are unlikely to be paying any significant portion of their workforce below the proposed minimum wage of $6.75 an hour – even janitors earn a rate above that level. Any minimum-wage manufacturing or textile industry that is seeking to relocate would go to Mexico or the underdeveloped East Asia region, where wages are already far below the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. What would have the potential to be impacted would be the food service industry, and it is unlikely places that do pay minimum wage (McDonald’s, Taco Bell, etc.) would fold and move out of Arizona – at worst, we might expect them to have to cut back on operating hours. In the future, I hope that your editorial board will avoid this sort of overly simplistic analysis, perform at least cursory research on subjects that they deem fit worthy of opining and perform on a standard that we’ve come to expect of such a fine journalistic edifice.

Jacob Knutson
public administration graduate student

Prop. 107 would strengthen Arizona

I ask the student body to consider carefully the decision placed before them when voting on the Protect Marriage Arizona amendment, Proposition 107. Prop. 107 is about strengthening Arizona by protecting marriage, period. Ask yourself the following questions. Which scenario is more likely to strengthen Arizona: a husband and wife committed to raising a good family, or two individuals with very little commitment at all? Which scenario is more likely to benefit children: A husband and wife who honor the sanctity and privacy of the intimate relation between them, or two individuals who choose to let their sexual interests define their relationship?

I should think that anyone would choose the first scenario in each case. The thing that defines that first scenario is marriage. Does it make sense to allow any other relationship the same status or the same importance? Marriage between a man and a woman has the greatest potential for providing a stable foundation for society. If Arizona should choose to vote against Prop. 107, this will send to the world the message that Arizona does not care to preserve this important foundation. I don’t care what your other reasons for voting against Prop. 107 may be – the message sent to the rest of the world would be that Arizona doesn’t want to protect marriage. Please consider this carefully. I encourage you to vote “”yes”” for Proposition 107.

Bruce Pixton
optical sciences graduate student

Opinions board endorsements unbalanced

I would like to offer my congratulations to the opinions board of the Daily Wildcat. You have successfully done what nearly every institution of media has done before: endorsed an entire line of Democratic candidates and provided inaccurate information and lousy opinions and assumptions cleverly disguised as facts.

Fully endorsing Jim Pederson on the basis of little more than unmerited dislike of Jon Kyl is sad. You are clearly jumping on the liberal bandwagon and forgetting to realize that Jon Kyl has been called one of the most effective senators by numerous sources and has earned the respect of not only Republicans but also independents and even Democrats.

Furthermore, border security is probably the most important issue to consider in this election, because the lack thereof has had a trickle effect on everything else that is wrong with our state (education, health care, etc.). Even if the statement “”immigration is the only issue (Randy Graf) is ready to tackle”” were true, it is at least encouraging that he is ready to tackle it. Gabrielle Giffords has yet to state a clear-cut proposal on what needs to be done about the illegal immigration crisis. Gabby likes to say nice things about “”wanting a decrease in class size and more access to Pell Grants.”” Well, hello, that is what we all want, right? Now let’s hear how she is going to get us to that point. At least Randy Graf’s “”pithy sayings”” actually outline some kind of plan.

Just because a politician wants world peace does not mean he knows how to achieve it. Imagine electing me for student body president because I came out and said “”I think every student at UA deserves free basketball season tickets!”” I would surely hope that someone would see that as a desperate ploy to get votes and question my plan of action. Falling for Giffords’ pretty, idealistic sayings shows a true lack of intelligence.

Bethany Fourmy
pre-medicine junior