We Get What We Pay For

There has been a lot of discussion and letters about your series on “illegal” people working jobs in the United States. Although I don’t agree with the points of view shared, I understand the side that says “close the border,” the side that says “open the border,” and all the variations in between.

What I would like to share is this: We—all of us who want to pay the lowest cost for any item; be it lettuce, DVDs, flat-panel televisions, computers, or anything that may require processing of forms (medical included) or customer service agents—need to look in the mirror and know that we are the issue.

People want to pay the minimal amount for their stuff. Companies must look for ways of delivering our stuff for the lowest cost. It may mean hiring customer service agents, programmers and engineers in India. It may mean manufacturing facilities where labor can be obtained for the lowest cost in Asia or Mexico. It may mean Mexicans coming across the border to work in our fields, factories, or as domestic help.

People are happy to blame companies or corporations for this. But who owns these companies? You, me and one or more of our neighbors own these companies. Whether they are public or privately held, someone owns each and every business in the world. And what do we expect from the companies we own? We expect profits and growth.

An example is Wal-Mart. This company is owned by thousands of people either through direct stock or through mutual funds. As owners, people have voices that can be expressed through stock voting rights or by not shopping in this place of business. It is our responsibility to make these choices and own the results.

I do what I can by buying very little and when I do buy I try to do it with as much consciousness as possible for me. It doesn’t solve any problems, yet I think it may reduce some of the damage in some very small way.

Michael Doud | Pacific Grove

Charity is for Chumps

Your article [“Americans: Generous or Chintzy?” Dec. 8-14] gives the impression we are chintzy, when in fact the opposite is true. In part this is caused by the notion that aid is unequivocally good for the recipient. Not so. It usually is just the opposite.

Africa is a great case in point. Clothing donations have put the clothing producers and sellers out of business there! In addition, history is always a good lesson. Remember all the large donations that lifted America from its pre-revolution poverty to its place today leading the free world? Oh—there weren’t any. What we had instead was a system of government that respected property rights, allowed business to flourish, protected inventiveness, and stayed out of the way.

What does the typical Third World nation have? A ruthless dictator, confiscatory taxes and tariffs, a corrupt bureaucracy that punishes business and businessmen, and the lack of property and individual rights. Charity will never solve those problems, and without them solved, the Third World will remain in its present dismal state.

Roger Holliday | Monterey

Give Credit Where It’s Due

I haven’t ever responded to a review I received. I understand that a review is subjective, that the reviewer states his or her opinion and nothing more or less.

The reason I decided to respond this time, however, is about Ryan Masters’ review [“Wind in the Willows,” Dec. 8-14]. It’s not that I disagree with his review, that is his opinion. The reason for the letter is that he describes many of the characters by costumes, down to the color of Toad’s shoes, and yet never once mentions the costume designer.

In most reviews, if the technical designers do receive a mention, it is usually lumped into one paragraph, explaining the appropriateness of a look rather than mention of what those elements actually brought to the performance. I realize that my job as a designer is to support the piece, support the directors’ vision and give “life” to the characters in a look. I’m sure that even Mr. Masters will agree that theatre is a rare art that requires true collaboration and that in the case of “Wind In the Willows” all the design elements do support the actors, and without them it would have been a completely different show.

Kathrine Ogletree | Salinas

The Cost of War

George Bush Nov. 23: “We think of our military families who will have an empty seat at the table this Thanksgiving.” I know of two military families who sat with empty seats. Their grinding pain is perpetual. The president had the company of his daughters. The commander-in-chief sent troops to their deaths for oil, for power, for empire, as specified in the prewar Project for a New American Century. All his original excuses have been discredited. So what does Bush think of military families of those killed in action? Are their dead children just the cost of doing business? Does he consider that perhaps they died for no good reason?

The polled public says overwhelmingly that if Bush went to war without justification, he should be impeached. He’d be getting off easy. The administration should be tried for war crimes.