Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

To all you people who bused tables, worked at convenience stores and stocked shelves to pay your way through college: Suckers! I am sure that the quarter tip I left on the bar helped as I racked up student loans. ("Big student loan forgiveness plan announced by Biden," StarTribune.com, Aug. 24.)

Todd Ruppert, Minnetonka

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Don't rule out a hybrid

Thank you for running Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez's opinion that "It shouldn't be this hard to buy an electric car" (StarTribune.com, Aug. 23). As someone who has recently shopped for an electric vehicle, I so relate to his frustrations. EVs are expensive. There are too few to go around. In the Twin Cities, some dealers are charging $5,000 premiums over the manufacturer's suggested retail price. Happily, my wife and I ended up ordering a very nice Chevy Bolt electric utility vehicle for $33,000, still a lot, but far below the median price for all new cars in the U.S. (about $42,000). Alas, we will wait for months for delivery.

I take exception, however, to Lopez's implication plug-in hybrids (plug-in electric vehicles, or PEVs) are not climate-friendly enough. If you are going out to buy a new car and cannot find a suitable EV, please consider buying a PEV! A regular hybrid starts in gasoline mode, then switches to electricity as the car warms and the battery is charged. But a PEV puts you in electric mode immediately and keeps you there until you run out of electricity, and only then switches to normal hybrid mode. If your daily drive is less than the battery's range, with a PEV you can go for months without burning gasoline.

Also, can we bury the canard that electric vehicles just substitute gasoline for coal? While it would be nice to have solar panels to charge your electric vehicle, 60% of Xcel Energy's electricity in the Upper Midwest is already carbon-free and is getting cleaner all the time.

Stuart Henry, Minneapolis

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Taxes won't deter

The spirits industry fully supports the public health objective of combating harmful drinking and encouraging moderation among adults who consume alcohol ("The high cost of state's alcohol abuse," editorial, Aug. 17). However, the suggestion that raising taxes may be a key to reducing abuse is misguided.

Research shows alcohol abusers are not deterred by higher prices. A better approach is focusing on evidence-based programs to combat abuse rather than imposing tax hikes, which will unfairly raise the cost on responsible consumers and harm hospitality businesses trying to rebound from the pandemic amid a host of new challenges, including inflation and staff shortages.

Saddling local businesses with higher taxes will severely hamper the significant economic contributions they make to the state, which includes creating jobs, boosting tourism and generating much-needed revenue.

The overwhelming majority of Minnesotans who choose to drink do so responsibly, and important progress has been made in the state on reducing harmful consumption. According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health, binge drinking among adults in Minnesota has declined 6% from 2016 to 2020, and underage drinking is at an all-time low in the state.

There is more work to be done, and the emphasis should be on targeted and effective intervention programs to combat alcohol abuse. It's also important for adults to discuss alcohol with their health care providers to determine what is right for them based on individual factors such as health conditions and family history. Adults who choose to consume alcohol should follow the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommends limiting alcohol to one standard drink per day for females and two per day for males and notes that some people should not drink at all.

Amanda Berger, Washington, D.C.

The writer is vice president of science and health for the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S.

VACCINATIONS

Remember HPV

Thank you for the editorial about the importance of being up to date on polio and other vaccinations (Aug. 19). It is great advice as many parents are getting their children ready to go back to school.

I would encourage the parents of middle-school kids to make sure their kids get the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine. The American Cancer Society recommends this shot for boys and girls age 9-12. It can prevent six different cancers, five which don't have any tests for early detection. Anyone who hasn't got this shot by age 13 can "catch-up" if they get the shot before age 26.

If you have questions, make sure to ask your children's doctor. Prevention is always better than treatment.

Matt Flory, St. Louis Park

FOUR-DAY WORKWEEK

Let's go for it

In the Science+Health section of the Star Tribune on Aug. 21 was a reprint of a Washington Post article titled "Can four-day workweeks help fix the climate?"

To answer the headline's question: Maybe. Maybe not. If a dedicated environmentalist spends the fifth day of what was their workweek doing climate-friendly volunteer work (like cleaning up parks and planting trees), then yes. If a cabin owner heads Up North to the lake every week because they always have a three-day weekend, maybe not. (I use these examples knowing full well that most cabin owners are also quite environmentally conscious individuals.)

So, whether a shorter workweek will be good for the environment is an open question, and one that should have little to do with whether or not to adopt a four-day workweek. The main reason why we should adopt a four-day workweek is quite simple: Because we love our three-day weekends! Like Labor Day coming up.

The 40-hour legal standard for a full-time workweek should be reduced to 32 hours, and the cultural standard of five days reduced to four. We should do this with no cut to workers' paychecks. This will give everyone an extra eight hours each week to spend on activities of their own choosing. So much better than heading back to the salt mine for another day of grueling meaningless tasks!

As we move forward with studies of the four-day workweek and find there is a negligible impact on productivity, thanks to the beneficial impact of automation and artificial intelligence, that should appease the economists.

Meanwhile, educators, psychologists and medical professionals will not need to be convinced, because the social benefits of spending the extra day of leisure with family, friends and neighbors will be apparent.

We should all jump onboard the four-day workweek bandwagon. Take it up with your boss. Talk to your union shop steward. Call your representatives in St. Paul and Washington. Try writing a letter to the editor. With lots of bottom-up pressure, we can make this happen!

John Crea, St. Paul

The writer is author of "Recalibrating the Labor Market: Second Edition," a book advocating the four-day, 32-hour workweek.