(MONEY Magazine) – Readers responded with enthusiasm to our March coverage of the American workplace. They were intrigued by "You Can Make Six Figures Working at Home" and fired up by In Your Interest, which advised investors to "stop chasing after companies that are saving money by laying off workers and start switching to firms that spend money training their employees." For humane as well as economic reasons, those who wrote in were pleased to learn of two important studies. One showed that the average downsized company's stock was up only 4.7% after three years, compared with a typical 34.3% increase for similar firms in the same field that didn't reduce staff as much. The second found that firms increasing training budgets after announcing layoffs were twice as likely to report improved profits and productivity as ones that didn't. Nevertheless, most mail opposed the brainchild of former professor Robert Reich, now Secretary of Labor: to use tax breaks to reward companies that provide worker training.

THE MARCH ISSUE'S IN YOUR INTEREST column was excellent, but it is quite obvious that a majority of CEOs couldn't care less about what happens to their employees. They negotiate megamerger deals that dump millions into their own coffers, but the workers--the hearts and souls of the companies--are treated so inhumanely that yesterday's robber barons would feel at home in these board rooms. When the new firms come into existence, the modern robber barons always find a problem with the bottom line and--in the name of "good business"--correct it by terminating workers. Highly skilled men and women find themselves collecting unemployment or in worse circumstances. To the moguls who suck up companies and spit out workers, "good business" has nothing to do with right or wrong, or ethics and morality, because the perfect bottom line fills their own bank accounts to overflowing. With their wealth and power they do not concern themselves with the basic ingredient that makes our nation great--the common good. This is neither fair nor right, and it is definitely not good for the nation's business. MARK L. EISENSTADT Endicott, N.Y.

THE PROPOSAL BY SECRETARY OF LABOR Robert Reich to reduce taxes of companies that spend money to train their workers is an example of one reason our tax laws are such a mess. Social engineering by tax legislation has always fallen prey to a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has ever worked in government: the law of unintended consequences. Rarely do these attempts accomplish what they set out to accomplish and, worse, they usually produce effects that never occurred to the people who devised them. KENNETH WIMMEL Bethesda, Md.

BURSTING A BUBBLE

YOUR MARCH ARTICLE ABOUT RUNNING a business from home provides important recognition of a growing workplace trend. However, your cover of a woman in a bubble bath, accompanied by the words "How to earn $100,000 working at home," may mislead readers. People who earn $100,000 or more annually at home would make the same kind of money wherever they worked because of specialized knowledge or training. Examples might be investment advisers, lawyers, psychologists or skilled sales representatives. But new technologies do continue to make it easier for more of us to earn a living at home. That's the real story. RICHARD EKSTRACT Chairman, Home Office Association of America New York City

AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PARENTS ARE choosing the home-based business option. Working at home clearly gives them more flexibility and balance in their lives. KAREN GIBSON Oklahoma City

YOUR COVER SHOWS A PERSON IN A TUB using a cordless telephone. This is a hazardous and potentially lethal situation. Any electrically powered device should be kept away from water to avoid the risk of electrocution. JEFFREY L. POLLOCK Philadelphia

GRATEFUL FOR MONEY'S GUIDANCE

I AM A VERY SATISFIED SUBSCRIBER TO MONEY. I retired several years ago and live very comfortably on the income from the many investments I have made based on MONEY's feature articles and columns. My stocks and stock funds did significantly better than the S&P 500 last year, thanks to the information that your magazine has provided. And I am talking about a portfolio that I manage myself, which grew almost 50% last year. I have had no previous investment training or experience. Your magazine has helped make this endeavor fun as well as successful. But I do have one quibble regarding February's MONEY Rankings of mutual funds. I have made it a practice to keep this annual section on my desk all year long, using it regularly for reference. Last year, the fund rankings were printed as a separate pullout section. This year, I had to tear out the pages, and staple them together, which neither looks as good nor is as easy to reference. I urge you to return to the pullout format. BARBARA SILVERBERG Berkeley

BUYING STOCKS WITHOUT A BROKER

OCTOBER'S WALL STREET NEWSLETTER provided a list of companies that sell their stock directly to individuals. This option is a real bonanza for those of us who can invest only a small amount at any one time; it also enables us to avoid broker fees. I have purchased stock in seven of the companies on your list: Exxon, Mobil, Montana Power, Procter & Gamble, Texaco, U S West and Wisconsin Energy. I have heard that they and other companies offer this direct-purchase option because people who utilize it tend to hold the stock for a long time. Apparently, companies like their stockholders to do that. I know that is what I intend to do. HARRY J. DONAHOO JR. Darien, Ill.

DON'T OUTLIVE YOUR MONEY

IN THE MARCH MONEY NEWSLINE report "How to Handle the $1 Million in Your Future," you provided a guideline as to when to take your pension money in a lump sum or to accept an annuity. You said that if the annuity's interest rate were higher than the rate on 30-year Treasuries, one should choose the annuity. However, many people are retiring younger and living longer these days and will have to rely on their retirement income for a long, long time. A rate of 6.5% would be higher than the March 1 30-year T-bond rate of 6.36%. But many retirees should plan to live for 25 or 30 years after they stop working, and locking their assets into a 6.5% rate could be disastrous. Just a few years of high inflation would seriously erode the purchasing power of their annuity. Equities, with their superior long-term returns, not fixed annuities, should form the cornerstone of their portfolio. SUZANNE RAGUE Beaverton, Ore. CORRECTIONS

--January's "100 Top Schools in Towns You Can Afford" erred in reporting the percentage of Chicago's Lisle School district's students who took the ACT and their average score. The correct numbers: 82% of the district's students took the test and scored an average of 22.3.

--March's "Meet the Steady Eddie Funds" incorrectly stated that Fidelity Equity-Income II fund charges an up-front sales fee. The fund carries no sales fee.