Readers write (July 22): The economy, animal welfare, math

Politicians and economists now talk about the "new normal." They're just using an euphemism to describe the elephant in the room that deserves a more honest description. We now have, and will have, a decreased standard of living in this country. Most of us will have less money or purchasing power. Our belts will be tighter.

That reality is not all bad. People are beginning to realize there's more to life than accumulating possessions and having a good time.

Besides, part of the reason the cutback is happening is a more even distribution of wealth around the world. Other peoples are competing with us, and are actually getting at least a sliver of the pie. That competition can be good for us, too. Granted, there are still huge gaps in wealth within those nations, and workers are underpaid, even exploited. But overall, the trend is upward. We will survive. Now more of them can, too.

JIM BARTOS, BROOKLYN PARK

• • •

The July 20 letter about unemployment "Long-term benefits make people lazy" is an example of short-sighted, presumptuous thinking that seems to pervade the conservative ideology, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

The unemployment insurance program acts as an automatic stabilizer. When employment grows, program revenue rises through increased tax revenues, while program spending falls as fewer workers are unemployed. This creates a surplus of funds for the program to draw upon during a recession. In a recession, unemployment insurance tax revenue falls and program spending rises as more workers lose their jobs and receive benefits. The increased amount of payments to unemployed workers puts additional funds into the economy. Thus, unemployment insurance benefits actually serve to enhance the economy rather than deplete it.

The letter is not only factually incorrect; it is the product of the pernicious type of thinking that tears at our sense of community and unity.

MICHAEL HESSE, ST. LOUIS PARK

While reading "Heat relief is coming, but too late for farmers" (July 21), I was reminded of the Albert Schweitzer quote "think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight." The article's focus was primarily on the huge loss of earnings by farmers as the sustained heat took its toll on cattle and turkeys, but seemed to find no objection to the suffering of the thousands of animals involved. We conveniently ignore the living conditions of these sentient animals -- but must realize that, in the most ideal conditions, the lives of those animals that are merely seen as a food source are often horrible. To read of animals dying in extreme heat in overcrowded buildings would bring about a loud outcry and an entirely different focus if those animals were dogs or cats. While the loss of revenue to the farmers mentioned is devastating, the more important issue of our treatment of these animals was not addressed, and an opportunity was missed.

LIZ SNYDER, ST. LOUIS PARK

• • •

MICHAEL W. FOX, GOLDEN VALLEY

You guys still got it wrong (Readers Write, July 19 and 21). I am a mathematics teacher, and I hold an advanced degree in mathematics, so please consider what follows authoritative (the mathematics, anyway).

Using "^" to mean exponentiation, doubling every year would be written A = P x 2^N. For example, if principal (P) of an investment doubled every year (don't you wish), the formula gives the amount (A) after N years.

N is the exponent, not 2. The 2 is called the base. The base could, of course, be anything positive, and the amount would be multiplied by that number every year. A = P x 1.04^N says the amount grows by 4 percent every year.

I know most people are bored silly by this sort of thing, and many run from it in terror, but I'm making the point because the situation is indicative of the sloppy thinking that goes into almost everything that appears on the editorial page. Even today a letter says that people can find work if they will look for it. The writer apparently doesn't know that there's a recession going on, but got published anyway.

• • •

To the reader who expected the Star Tribune editors to validate the facts or opinions in readers' letters: That is not the job of the editors! Doing so would deny readers the opportunity to hear the voices of others -- mistaken, misspoken, misinformed as they may be! Keep that in mind as you read.

MARY K. LUND, MINNETONKA

• • •

I typically compile five of the week's Readers Write packages, a task I began in January. It was easy enough to develop a philosophy for what makes an ideal letter to the editor (insightful, engaging, unique) and an ideal letters package (builds instead of rehashes, reflects the submissions of the day). I aim for those sometimes competing ideals; the degree to which I meet them is open to debate.

•Letters are opinions, and opinions vary in their underpinnings. Some are based in fact, some in selective fact, some in misconception. Is it better to weed out the latter, or to know what (and how) people are thinking?

•We receive, at times, hundreds of letters a day, covering myriad topics from myriad angles. Some readers know their stuff; some make assumptions. In our selections, we try to avoid obvious errors, but we don't know everything, and sometimes we don't know what we don't know. Is it better to avoid all risk in our selections, or is it acceptable to publish and allow other readers to follow up?

As we wrap up the state budget and (possibly) enter the summer doldrums, it seems as good of a time as any to discuss what readers like and dislike about letters to the editor. Write to us at opinion@startribune.com or use the submissions link at startribune.com/opinion, and we'll ... well, we'll select from the responses.

DAVID BANKS,