When I last worked for minimum wage, I received the princely sum of $1.25 an hour. The current minimum is $7.25 or 5.8 times what I was paid. Based upon my own totally unscientific analysis, I have to conclude that I was much better off in 1971 than I would be now.
My personal livability scale is based on two simple measurements: beer and gasoline. In 1970 I could purchase five draft beers at almost any bar in town, or could purchase five gallons of gasoline at the “cheap” station. In order to live in the same grand style I did then, my minimum wage would need to be about $15 an hour.
I now own a small business that has created six full-time jobs, with plans to hire at least two more this year. We pay a minimum of $10/hour for temporary day labor and $12/hour or better to our full-time people. Even with this terrible burden, my wife and I are in the top 2 percent of taxpayers.
If you cannot afford to pay more than $7.25/hour, you need new management, not cheaper labor.
— Richard Snyder, Fort Worth
Life, death decision
Mike Norman is “dead” wrong. (See: “News of ‘abnormal’ Muñoz fetus dims hope,” Friday) In horrifying fashion, pro-life zealots emulate Baron Frankenstein in their single-minded pursuit of a twisted rendition of the right to life.
Marlise Muñoz died after surgery, a devastating loss for her family made immeasurably worse by the intrusion and interference of self-aggrandizing pro-lifers outwardly dedicated to “less government interference.” Insisting life begins at conception, they now revise the definition of death.
They extend “personhood,” wrongly ascribed to non-viable fetuses, to a woman who has been declared clinically dead by medical doctors, the ones whom society has legally, collectively, historically authorized to make such pronouncements, including assigning time of death.
Norman referred to the woman’s dead-body being on “life support.” Does the ability to use machines to coarse blood through hollow tubes in a vessel constitute life after one is legally declared deceased? May the living legitimize the practice of using dead bodies as fetus incubators against the pre-determined wishes of another living person and those closest to her?
In supporting this heinous practice, they piously ignore the victim’s expressed desires in favor of second-guessing what she might, could or should have done before her death, stubbornly overruling her after death because she didn’t put it in writing. Really?
— Robert Moore, Fort Worth
Should the interstate highway system, the Golden Gate Bridge, LaGuardia Airport, the post offices, Social Security, Medicare and umpteen other beneficial entities be eliminated?
Everything the government does is a “failure” according to some folks.
— Joe Holmes, Arlington
The liberal mind
Regarding the Friday letter, “Conservative mind,” from Gary Hicks — well, this is the Liberal mind:
• I don’t brush my teeth, therefore I’ll look for a government program to pay for my dental care.
• I disobey the laws because basically they don’t apply to me. And if I get arrested, the taxpayers will provide free legal aid.
• I’ve saved nothing for my future, because I can live off taxpayer money and the success of the hard working my entire life without turning a tap.
• I don’t answer to God; the government is my God, and my daddy!
This nation was started to get away from a government that was over-bearing and over taxing its citizenry. Maybe you should read a little history, you might learn how and why this country was actually formed.
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.”
— Cherita Goodman, Mansfield
I consider myself independent, but his assessment of conservatives misses any sense of reality.
The only portion of his illogical rant I will correct is why our forefathers came here; not to escape conservatism, but to escape from government interference in free speech and religion, oppression, high taxation, and other extreme socialist views, quite similar to what we have today in our Democratic-controlled Senate and White House. Can you say “dictatorship”?
— Jim Stark, Mansfield
Letters should be no longer than 200 words and must have a full name, home street address, city of residence and both a home and daytime telephone number for verification.
Letters endorsing candidates in the March 4 primary elections should be no longer than 150 words and must be received by 5 p.m. Feb. 23.
Regular mail: Letters to the Editor/Elections, Box 1870, Fort Worth, TX 76101