Wage stagnation might not really be happening
To the editor:
Please let me thank you for noting The Economic Policy Institute’s essay, “College degrees are not the solution to stagnant wages.” I certainly believe the Institute’s writers are very correct to question, in the broadest and most general sense, the value of traditional college degree programs as a stimulus to the advancement of individual and collective prosperity. The praiseworthy efforts of the General Assembly, exerted by many individual members and over a great number of years, have now positioned South Carolina to attract employers whose needs may very well be more directly and efficiently served by the State’s justly renowned Technical College System.
The Institute’s description and analysis of current employment conditions may call for a much closer and more objective examination. This states, in relevant part, “Graduates since 2000 have confronted suboptimal labor conditions, resulting in stagnant wages.” I believe that assertion may be a very great simplification.
Let us consider that in the past 16 years, the portion of total compensation represented by non-taxable employee benefits of all types has increased, and is not included in calculations of average wages per hour. This effect tends to understate wage growth, and is amplified by the use of the Consumer Price Index to restate historical wages to a current value. The CPI overestimates inflation by ignoring technical improvements in the quality, longevity, availability of consumer products. For similar reasons, the Institute’s hypothetical 2016 graduate will typically spend a smaller proportion of his ‘stagnating’ entry level pay on basic necessities.
While I applaud the Economic Policy Institute’s willingness to reexamine the economic value added by certain types of higher education, I suggest analysts and writers of every ideological stripe might devote less ink to the elusive specter of “wage stagnation.” Because it might not be happening.
— Dale M. Rhodes, C.P.A., Richmond, Va.
Animal bill is misdirected in intent
To the editor:
After reading Dr. Patricia Hill’s opinion (5/6: S.C. pets need animal welfare bill), I felt compelled to point out some issues which she failed to address. There are portions of the bill which should improve care to our pets, such as record-keeping and labeling of medicines.
The portion of the bill which restricts what services nonprofits can perform and who can purchase these services is clearly in the best interest of the individuals pushing this bill. It is a blatant attempt to cut out competition and limit the free market. This bill is being co-sponsored by Sen. Danny Verdin of Laurens and he chairs the committee that reported it out favorably to the Senate. Senator Verdin’s brother and father are veterinarians.
Restricting where mobile animal clinics can operate and where pet owners can purchase services is certainly not in the best interest of pets or their owners. If Dr. Hill and the individuals sponsoring S. 687 are genuinely concerned about animal welfare and not the bottom line for private veterinarian practices, perhaps they should put more energy into a statewide animal abuse registry and stiffer penalties for individuals who abuse animals.
— Claire Nettles, Landrum, S.C.
Lawmakers shouldn’t restrict nonprofit animal services
To the editor:
This letter is written in response to the commentary article, Hill: South Carolina pets need animal welfare bill, as published in the Statehouse Report. Sir Walter Scott dubbed it correct in his poem.
Oh what a tangled web we weave | When we practice to deceive
South Carolina needs animal welfare legislation but not SC Senate bill 687 that seeks to restrict tax-paying citizens with income above the government-defined poverty level, the opportunity to solicit veterinary care from non-profit entities.
S.C. Senate bill 687 casts itself as a proponent of animal welfare. It is not. Has Dr. Hill ever been on a rescue mission as a private citizen to find an animal that has been abused, abandoned or starved to the brink of death? I would venture to say she has not. Otherwise, she would be more prone to be against S.C. Senate bill 687 since it would prohibit her from being a Good Samaritan and obtaining veterinary care at affordable rates.
S.C. Senate bill 687 is being sold deceptively to the constituents of S.C. by legislators in the Upstate who have close family members in private veterinary practice. I had a face-to-face conversation with one of the Senate bill’s co-sponsors who dared to ask me, “How would you feel if your business was being affected?” and stated veterinarians were taxpayers. “Mr. Senator, citizens like me are also taxpayers.” Any private veterinary practice that is threatened by a nonprofit should focus more on redefining their business plan and marketing efforts.
Stating that nonprofits are being overwhelmed with providing care for those who can afford private practice care is egregious. Our legislators should NOT restrict any services for animals by nonprofits. So, how do these nonprofit veterinary entities get their funding? Monies come from donations and those who use their services, knowing that part of the fee is going to be used to help other animals in the community that are homeless and on the verge of being killed at a local county Animal Control.
It is these same citizens patronizing these nonprofit entities that S.C. Senate bill 687 seeks to limit access to in order to promulgate the income of the special interest groups. Nonprofit veterinary entities depend on providing services to all the constituents of S.C. regardless of income. This enables them to continue to save other abused/neglected animals that are in desperate need of rescue. True animal welfare needs to come before protecting the profits of a handful of private veterinarians who feel threatened. People should be allowed to choose where they obtain care for their pets and not Dr. Pat Hill or the South Carolina Association of Veterinarians that is driving this legislation. I urge the tax-paying citizens of South Carolina to stand up and make their voices heard.
— Lisa Bush, Sumter, S.C.
Send us a letter. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information.
- Send your letters to: feedback@statehousereport.com
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!