I would love for someone to explain to me why it is a good idea for the Federal Government to dictate that small and large cities, states and employers alike should pay a uniform minimum wage no matter what the economic situation. Small towns throughout the U.S. have a tough time keeping jobs and people. It is harmful to them no matter whether the wage is raised to $10, $12, $15 or $50 per hour. My guess is the rent in small town U.S. averages less than $500 per month, while I read the average rent in San Francisco is $4,385 per month for a two bedroom apartment. Therefore, a two income household in a small town making $8 per hour would pay less than 20 percent of their gross income for rent which is affordable, while a two income household making $15 per hour in San Francisco would pay over 80 percent of gross income, which is absolutely unaffordable. Even if the wage was raised to $50, it is unaffordable. Why would we further punish small towns in order to pretend that you help people in San Francisco or other high cost places? That is as logical as dictating to 100 percent of the people in the U.S. what kind of health insurance to buy.
I feel sorry for teachers, policemen, firemen, garbage men, and other low and medium wage workers in high cost areas. No matter what they raise the minimum wage to, they will not be able to afford the average house or average rent close to San Francisco. The problem is the high priced cities themselves. They have to figure out how to lower costs instead of destroying jobs by raising the cost to hire people.
—Jack Hellner, Springfield, IL
