Far from "indisputable," the idea that raising the minimum causes job loss is regularly refuted in the best economic research. In boom years or recession, the debate over the minimum wage and jobs is whether the impact is nonexistent or tiny. Oregon's experience suggests the former. The employment prospects of even the most vulnerable workers, young with low education, were not harmed by Oregon's $1.75 increase enacted in 1996. The 40-cent increase in Measure 25 is tiny by comparison, and inflation projections suggest 18-cent increases in coming years.

WW, however, is worried that hyper-inflation will return. What happens if inflation rises to 12 percent, as during wars and oil crises in the past?

Hmmm.... The 1996 initiative raised the minimum wage 12 percent annually between 1997 and 1999, yet did not cost jobs. If stagflation returns, inflation-indexed wages of the lowest-paid workers will be the least of our concerns. Even then, an opportunistic and hostile Legislature should be expected to try to "suspend" the increase.

WW should admit that it didn't do its homework and got this one wrong. Low wages are one factor causing hunger and poverty in Oregon. A higher minimum wage will not end these problems but is a step in the right direction.

Jeff Thompson
Oregon Center for Public Policy
Silverton

FRANKENDORSEMENT
I was so disappointed to see you take a No position on Measure 27. The first part of your explanation cited a few of the important reasons for a Yes vote, even noting that Monsanto has been funding the $6 million-plus campaign to defeat it. And then you succumbed to their propaganda.

Do you really think that if this measure gets on the 2004 ballot, worded to exquisite perfection, that Monsanto will not be there, again spending its millions to sabotage it? Don't you realize that they are terrified of an informed public? What they stand to lose is enormous, nothing less than a loosened grip on their huge portion of the world's food supply, which is why they are pushing so hard this first time.

Do you really think that Monsanto gives a rip about Oregon farmers? Small farmers have been losing ground for years in this country because they can't compete with the huge farms that produce Roundup Ready (i.e., genetically engineered) crops. And think about this. With more than 33 countries worldwide already labeling their GE foods, wouldn't Oregon small farmers who export conventional crops have an advantage? Only crops grown with GE seeds are disadvantaged.

Lastly, although you agree that "the time for GE labeling has come," you don't endorse the measure but instead want it to get "enough votes to prod federal policymakers to craft a national labeling law." Given all that is currently on the national agenda, do you really think labeling GE foods is going to get anyone's attention anytime soon?

Susan Freidfer
Northeast 109th Avenue

Editor's Note: Our endorsements can be found here.