I disagree with the writer on the issue of the value of a minimum-wage increase (“Minimum wage hike makes good cents,” June 14, Page 1).

Your paper has recently been a forward-thinking provider of insight into the financial need for a number of professions in our area: firefighters, EMT, police and nurses. I am reluctant to include teachers who already have a direct line of access to the taxpayer.

Why stop at a minimum wage of $15/hour? Why not $50/hour?

We all struggle to pay the mortgage, utilities, insurance, fuel bills, etc. Are we wanting the taxpayer to subsidize bad luck, bad choices, a growing desire for higher standard of living?

I don't know if this is progressivism, or some other type of -ism. The governor likes the increase of the minimum wage, as do all progressives, as long as someone else is paying the bill. This thinking is following the law of diminishing returns — the more you invest, the less you get in return, with a hand out asking for more.

A final example I would make is mass transit. More subsidies from the state due to poor ridership, bad routes and poor management, just to keep the doors open. If you are in a rural area of the state, you are subsidizing with your tax dollars metro areas of the state to stay open. Again, the law of diminishing returns, progressives in action.

Ray Borkoski,

Ford City