Your March 29 edition carried an editorial lambasting President Obama for proposing a higher minimum wage ( “Obama vs. 500 economists” ). It cited a letter from 500 economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, opposing the proposed increase. On the basis of that letter, you accused the president of economic ignorance. You dismissed his Council of Economic Advisers, who support the proposed increase, as “toadies.”
Your editorial created the misleading impression that economists as a group oppose higher minimum wages. You could have told your readers that another group of more than 600 economists, including seven Nobel Prize winners, have signed a letter supporting the higher minimum wage.
Your slur against the Council of Economic Advisers was beyond the pale. In every administration, the Council of Economic Advisers consists of three distinguished economists drawn from the nation's top universities. You have insulted three public servants who are highly accomplished in their field, who know vastly more economics than your editorial writers ever will and whose only sin is disagreeing with you.
The writer is an associate professor of political science and instructor of economics at Penn State Fayette Campus, Lemont Furnace.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Watson in 33rd
- Gross in 45th
- Justice incomplete
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Wolf is the right choice
- Deepening divide
- Don’t fall for Wolf’s tax scheme