I am writing in response to Jeffrey Holst's letter ("Raising minimum wage a bad idea" SN 1/31) concerning his position on the proposed $2 increase in the minimum wage. He argues that his education provides him with authoritative proof that it will lead to higher rates of unemployment. Unfortunately for Mr. Holst, he has ignored the possibility that the increase may raise the morale of low-income workers and help them to deal with both rising inflation and the falling value of the dollar abroad.

Any first-year economics student knows that the current nominal $5.15 minimum wage is equal to only $4.38 when adjusted for inflation. I will concede the point that, in the short term, it may have a detrimental effect on small businesses. This doesn't address the problem that the minimum-wage worker is getting shafted under the current wage legislation.

I believe that state Democrats are attempting to solve the problem inherent under our current system. I think that a more logical approach is necessary, and that the minimum wage should by fixed to the rate of inflation. Employers would not have to deal with sudden increases in wages that force them to lay off their workforce.

Jobs that pay minimum wage are vital to the survival of our economy. Mr. Holst inadvertently points to the real problem, when he states, "If you make $5.15 per hour, chances are you have not had the opportunities that I have had." What is wrong with this situation is that some people, such as congressmen and first-year law students, get all the breaks because of the nepotism and the "good ole boy" systems that run rampant in our society, while others, like minimum-wage workers, have to deal with the reality that no matter how hard they work, they will still fall behind.

This legislation is not a ruse by the Democrats; it is just a possible solution to help minimum-wage earners deal with the fiscal policy in this country over which they have no control.

Trevor Davies
political science and prelaw senior