Readers write: Have things changed since the '70s and '80s?

Letters to the editor for the February 7, 2022 weekly magazine. Readers discuss growing up in the 1970s, moral qualms about the corporate world, and more. 

|
Staff

Remembering the ’70s

Just wanted to drop a line to say how much I enjoyed the Dec. 27 cover story, “Bell-bottoms and inflation: The ’70s are back.” I’ve been fascinated to see conversations in the media about “malaise” in the United States, echoing President Jimmy Carter’s infamous address to the nation.

What heartens me are the memories of growing up in that period, hearing the complaints ambient in the press and wondering why everyone thought the times were so rotten. Kids like us saw opportunities to make things better, not an era of retrenchment. Our reference points were the here and now, not romanticized memories of yesterday’s dreaming. Indeed, the decades that followed were – for better or worse, perhaps – a rather fun era, hardly the end of the road so many were expecting. They set us on an unambiguously upward trajectory and enabled us to draw closer as a world than we could have imagined in the ’70s.

It is hard to believe that others aren’t thinking similar things today, too – preparing for a better future and assured by the understanding that if you can imagine things getting better, they most certainly can. 

But I admit that for the moment, I do wish someone would seize the moment and bring back the Chevrolet El Camino.

David D. Brown
Austin, Texas

Moral economics?

Economics 101: More college classes bring moral debates to the surface,” from the Dec. 6 issue, reminded me of two lessons I learned in my youth.

Before I had selected a university major, in the early 1980s, I took introductory finance, thinking I might pursue a business degree. In one of the first classes of the semester, the instructor asked the class what the primary objective of a chief financial officer was. The answer: maximize stockholder profit. Surely that must be incorrect, I thought to myself. I raised my hand and challenged the professor’s assertion. Product improvement? Customer satisfaction? Employee satisfaction? No, none of that mattered, unless it improved the return on investment.

Several years later, I was the employee of a publicly traded company. Management had established “process improvement” reviews in all departments – justification for layoffs. We employees learned that 100 of our colleagues would be sent packing. Later that day, I read in the newspaper that the CEO would “exercise his stock options.” He pocketed millions in additional dollars because the stock price jumped as soon as the layoffs were announced.

I have since left the corporate world, but the injustice still makes me angry. I hope that the next generation of economists and chief financial officers will include in their analysis and advice the impact on others who are just as hardworking and deserving as the stockholders.

Rusty Wyrick
Ghivizzano, Italy

Beauty and simplicity

The Dec. 27 article “For designer William Morris, beauty was no luxury” is simply exquisite. There is no other way to describe it. April Austin is a writer of great talent. She has brought Morris to life and focused our attention on the higher need of humanity to include beauty and simplicity in our everyday lives. 

This article on Morris captures the spirit of the man and the spirit of reporting on him. It’s as far removed from a dry dissertation as one could possibly get. The article has enriched my day and my thinking, and for that reason I will be revisiting it. Thank you so much!

Auriel Wyndham Livezy
Lake Forest, California

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Readers write: Have things changed since the '70s and '80s?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Readers-Respond/2022/0202/Readers-write-Have-things-changed-since-the-70s-and-80s
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe