Readers Write: (April 20): Defying death, stadium subside, wages, the kindness of strangers

The April 12 article "Defying death," about Silicon valley billionaires trying to extend their lives, raised some alarms in my mind. Who among us has not sat next to a guy in a bar who complained that there has been no good music written since the '60s? Now imagine that same guy sitting on the same bar stool for 150 years, making the same complaints all the while? It's grim. And imagine the average age of the country creeping ever upward until 90 percent of the population watches Fox News? Catastrophic. We may be able to trick our bodily tissues into staying youthful, but our minds, the collection of traits that make us individuals, are formed in our youth and don't change substantially until dementia sets in. Sure, we accumulate personal memories and intellectual trivia throughout our lives, even picking up new skills now and then, but the fundamental characteristics that define our personality are created early. Even the ability to hear certain sounds in speech is frozen in our youth, which is why adults learning a new language can have a devilishly hard time trying to hear distinctions that are obvious to the native speaker of a language.

I am certainly in favor of extending good health throughout a person's life span, but if we extend the life span significantly, we'll end up with a culture frozen in amber — a world full of old minds in young bodies.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges is looking out for taxpayers interests ("MLS stadium divides Mpls. City Council," April 16), but that's not the whole story. The city of Minneapolis is in the business of hosting events in the publicly owned Target Center, Target Field and Vikings stadium through the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority and AEG Facilities, etc. Assuming that the proposed soccer stadium gets built privately at 100 cents on the dollar with no subsidies, it will compete with the city's entertainment business for non-soccer events. When entertainment revenue goes down or a stadium needs renovation (such as $80 million for Target Center), taxpayers are responsible — we the shareholders. Which raises the question: Why does our government spend time and resources for no profit to taxpayers when there are more essential services that better serve us — community policing, affordable housing, small business, etc.

If now a major sports franchise is willing to privately finance, manage and own the long-term profits and losses of a stadium, why cannot the city of Minneapolis stop protecting bad past bets and agreements, sit down with Minnesota United, collaborate for a few months and help shape the tax strategy and zoning environment for a good long-term solution and go back to delivering the essential services we elected them to deliver?

• • •

In the 1990s, the Star Tribune reported that sports team owners were among the largest campaign contributors to both political parties. Campaign contribution reporting rules were then changed so we couldn't track the money. A politician said there were ways to get around the requisite taxpayer referendum, and there were. Sports team owners got taxpayers to fund their stadiums. The Star Tribune reported that my outgoing Minneapolis City Council member was among a number who shredded their files on leaving office. Carl Pohlad donated $1 million to the downtown city library, and got tax breaks for that charitable contribution.

Did politicians sell our tax dollars to sports team owners in exchange for campaign contributions? Why wasn't the law passed by Minneapolis voters requiring a referendum enforced by the city attorney? Our politicians understand how to shift costs from the sports team owners onto taxpayers, and they've done so regularly. Across the state, our 100-year-old sewage and plumbing infrastructure is going to need replacing, and bridges need upgrading. Why not attend to business and find those scarce dollars to upgrade Minnesota infrastructure instead of enriching the top 1 percent with tax forgiveness and free infrastructure?

I am so tired of listening to people who have never had to sign paychecks for employees telling me how much I should pay my employees. Jon Tevlin's April 15 column ("Employers, not taxes, should pay living wage") is symptomatic of what is wrong with the progressive movement. I have been paying "fair wages" determined by the market place for nearly 50 years and I have always retained workers, because I am fair.

First, let's look at how progressives define a "living wage" — supporting a family of four with one person working 40 hours a week. As Tevlin says, that would be $16.34 an hour, totaling $33,987 a year. At face value that seems reasonable, but the problem lies in the premise that one only needs to work 40 hours a week. In my entire working life, I have never only worked 40 hours a week, and I have a college education. Why should someone who does not even have a high school education expect to work only 40 hours and support a family of four? Where did the magical number come from? From bureaucrats who have never had to sign a paycheck.

Market forces should determine what an hour of work is worth. Minnesota is now at 3.5 percent unemployment, which is basically full employment. I am already seeing wages start to rise at the lower levels.

The "living wage" proponents are trying to say that the minimum wage should be $15 an hour, like Seattle has just passed. Keep an eye on Seattle. Could it become another Detroit, run by progressives for 40 years until it declared bankruptcy? Remember, in the 1950s, Detroit had a manufacturing base that was the envy of all, just like Seattle is the envy of technology today. Interfere with market forces at your peril.

On a recent Saturday, I was enjoying a family dinner with my wife, eldest daughter and 3-year-old grandson. We were eating in a large chain restaurant that is both adult and kid friendly. As we ate, we adults were discussing world affairs, local domestic violence and a handful of other dreadful events happening around us. I got to thinking about what kind of world our precious grandson was growing up in.

This incredibly generous and genuine woman randomly did something nice for my family and me. I am now inspired to do something similar — paying it forward, as it were. My grandson got a small lesson on how we should be to one another. Thank you!