To the editors:

God give me some compassion for the likes of Stephen Sachs, whose pontifications show he will quickly get a job at the nearest conservative think tank (Opinion, “Nonsense on Stilts,” Jan. 18).

Instead of noting that the $11 to $22 per hour minimum wage estimates are “unreliable” because the higher figure doubles the lower, a human being with an ounce of feeling and understanding of what it costs to feed and clothe a family would note: “Gee, the lowest figure exceeds what both custodians and security guards earn here! Even the very lowest estimate!”

I am sickened by the lack of understanding—yes, we can make this an expository writing exercise (“What are ‘Rights,’” by Joe Undergraduate), or we can try to ameliorate an exploitive system in which all of us are implicated.

Steve, this is about basic math (oh dear, a “crude demand” for “more money”), something your newspaper has some problems with. Witness last year’s Crimson poll question, “Would you support a living wage if it meant your tuition would go up?,” which very coyly implanted the idea of that outcome, despite the $100 million operating surplus and the fact that the recommendations’ cost was estimated at around $5 million. That still gives us $95 million to play with, folks.

I’m angry at young people with no notion of what poverty is treating the whole matter as an intellectual exercise. Fact: Full-time custodians at Harvard earn such a low wage they are eligible for food stamps. How much more basic does the math have to be?

You also treat Larry Summers with kid gloves. He had a deadline to meet, and he’s provocatively not meeting it—without asking for an extension. If you do that for your papers at the end of the term, what happens to your grade?

Sorry for the old moral outrage. Just do the math. And remember that the people who serve your food and clean your toilets are not animals, but human beings like you.

Andree Pages ’77

New York, N.Y.

Jan. 18, 2002