Suppose you had a system at work that allowed you to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of your coworkers. You could log on at any time and leave an opinion that would only be viewable by your boss and his bosses.

And imagine that you could be as unprofessional as you liked. If you think your coworker is an obstructionist idiot with fake credentials, you can express your opinion in those words. Management in this hypothetical world wouldn't want anyone diluting strong opinions with business jargon.

The idea would be to weed out employees who do a good job of concealing their treachery, toxicity, and incompetence in front of management. And in some cases it would force managers to do what they had been avoiding, namely getting rid of the bad seeds.

Obviously the system would be abused to some extent. You would have employees trying to settle personal scores, and paranoids falsely accusing coworkers of stealing and lying. But that probably happens just as much without this system. The point of the system is to gather input from more sources than just the crazies who tend to speak up.

You could call it a ratting system instead of a rating system. Would it make the workplace a better or a worse place to be?

Regular readers know that my wife Shelly and I are building a home. We were warned that we would be overwhelmed by all of the decisions. I was ready for this, I thought.

For most of my life, including my school years, I worked two or three jobs at the same time. The exception was when I was getting my MBA at night while working during the day. I thrive on complexity. How hard could it be to design a house? You pick some doorknobs, choose your favorite color for the paint, and off you go.

Allow me to invent a new word to describe my feeling at this moment: Holyjeezamafuginkripes.

We're more involved in the details than most homeowners. That's part of the fun. And it has been a delight so far. But at the same time I have come to understand the true meaning of overwhelmed. To illustrate, take just one category out of several hundred decisions we need to make: paint.

Your standard paints have what is called VOCs, or volatile organic compounds. That means they release their particles into the air forever, even after they are dry. Scientists think that a high level of VOCs is very bad for you. (Yes, you are almost certainly breathing high VOCs in the room you are in right now.)

The good news is that paint companies are now making zero-VOC paint. But you can't easily do color matching with the zero-VOC paints, so you won't get the color you really want, except by luck. It's a crap shoot. And if you want to faux paint a wall, the glaze isn't low VOC. And what about the stain on your cabinets? And what exactly is the level of VOCs that is acceptable, given that different states mandate different maximum levels? And do these zero-VOC paints work just as well? And are the mandated low levels because of the release into the atmosphere during spraying, or do you really need those lowest levels to protect the inhabitants? And who has the answers to those questions? I have asthma, dammit, and I need to know!

Now imagine that you want as many as three colors per room. And each color has to be compatible with the door color, the furniture, the rug, the countertops, the floor, and your daughter's nail polish. And imagine that it is impractical to see all of those elements at the same time in one place before you decide. Oh, and the natural light in any given room completely changes how your paint will look.

But my point, and I do have one, is that I wonder how this concept of being overwhelmed works in a context of negotiations. I can tell you from my own experience than once you have too many choices to make, you start getting flexible fast, just to survive.

So imagine that you have a meeting in which you want to convince someone to do something your way. One good strategy might be to weaken the other person's resolve by overwhelming him with less relevant choices before the important one is presented.

That's what car dealers do. By the time the consumer is done considering all of the many options for a potential car, he is already overwhelmed before negotiating price.

In summary, if you want your business nemesis to agree to one thing, make him consider ten things first. It will seem as if you are generously offering your nemesis control over many choices when in reality you are a manipulating bastard or bastardess.
Men are story tellers. Women are schedulers.

That's the sort of overgeneralization that drives people mad. I suppose that's what attracts me to writing it.

First, let's all agree that there are plenty of exceptions to this or any other generalization. Perhaps you are one of the exceptions. Obviously there are plenty of great female authors and plenty of great male project managers. But that won't stop me from generalizing.

When I find myself in a conversation with a man, he often tells a funny story about something that happened to himself or someone else. Or he asks me a question that elicits a story from me, however brief. Or maybe one of us will tell a joke, which is a form of a story. Maybe one of us will mention a favorite movie we've seen recently, which is a reference to a story. And when men ask questions in conversation, it is generally to better understand the other person's story.

Women, on the other hand, sometimes appear to be telling stories, but they are actually recounting past events in the approximate order in which they happened. Men's stories usually have identifiable beginnings, middles, and often surprising ends. When women describe past events, men are often left wondering why the beginning of the story started a full day before the parts that seem relevant. Women are sharing feelings, and for that you don't need a neat story format. What matters is the sum of the experiences.

I'm not implying that one approach is better than the other. Obviously a neatly organized story is the best way to convey a joke, whereas a description of recent events, in approximate order of occurrence, is a perfectly good way to share an emotion. And sharing emotions is probably more important than jokes. But I wonder if this gender difference is also related to how men and women store information as memories.

For example, I can remember forever any situation that fits into a typical story form. But a woman can remember the dress she was wearing three birthdays ago, presumably because it made her feel a certain way.

Do you organize memories as stories or as emotions?

I assume that most of you have heard about the so-called Ass Bomber. He was a terrorist who tried to kill a Saudi Deputy Interior Minister by putting a bomb up his ass and detonating it when they met. Unfortunately for the terrorist, the bomb was only big enough to kill the Ass Bomber himself.


This raises many interesting questions. At the top of my list: Why did the Ass Bomber think that killing the Deputy Interior Minister was worth shoving a bomb up his own ass? Sure, I could see if it was the Interior Minister himself, but the deputy?

I think Saudi Arabia played this wrong. Instead of telling the state controlled media that the ASSassination attempt failed, they should have reported that the Deputy Interior Minister was dead, and so was everyone else in the building. And they should have said there was no way to stop this sort of brilliant attack. Within weeks, every member of Al Qaeada would have shoved a too-small bomb up his ass and detonated it in a market or mosque. The innocent bystanders would be startled and perhaps a little bit slimed, but otherwise unhurt. Terrorism would have a quick and amusing conclusion.

The other thing I wonder is whether the original Ass Bomber was the victim of a practical joke. I can imagine that conversation:

Ass Bomber: I wish I had an evil scheme to kill someone who is marginally important.

Joker: Maybe you could shove a bomb up your ass and surrender to the authorities.

Ass Bomber: Would that work?

Joker: Absolutely. It's the best idea ever.

Ass Bomber: How would I get a bomb up there? It's a little tight.

Joker: I know a guy they call Large Bruce. I think he can help you out. It might take a few weeks of continuous practice.

Ass Bomber: I don't now if I could do that.

Joker: Because you hate Allah or what?


I hear a lot of chatter about the rich getting richer. That sort of talk is a generalization of course, since obviously there are rich people who get poorer, some go bankrupt, and a few do the full Madoff. But as generalizations go, it's true enough.

I wonder how people would feel if instead of saying "the rich are getting richer" we said "the smart are getting richer." Would it be just as true, as far as generalizations go, and would it make you feel the same when you heard it?

Capitalism rewards hard work, risk taking, luck, and intelligence. But are all of those elements equally important?

Hard work is common to all income levels. I would argue that hard work has the weakest correlation to wealth because it rarely does the trick on its own. You also need intelligence, risk taking, and luck.

Likewise, risk taking generally only works in combination with intelligence, hard work, and luck. In fact, you could argue that risk taking is just a facet of intelligence, especially when it works.

Luck and intelligence can each work alone to produce fortunes. But after the initial fortune is made, only intelligence helps grow it. Luck reverts to the mean. People who win lotteries rarely continue to get richer. But smart people routinely parlay small fortunes into larger ones.

So if we are looking for the best substitute for "the rich are getting richer," I would argue that your best fit is "the smart are getting richer." It's a generalization, of course, with plenty of exceptions. But it seems true enough. The interesting question is whether it has the same emotional impact as "the rich are getting richer."
In response to my math question from yesterday, some of you wisely pointed out that medical insurance costs have to plateau at the point where they become literally unaffordable.

This made me wonder about the trajectory of medical expenses. On one hand, you can imagine that technology will lower the cost of routine medical treatment. The cost of existing drugs will drop as they go off patent protection. And maybe gene therapy will, in time, end up being inexpensive relative to traditional medicine. One can hope.

On the other hand, scientists keep coming up with new and expensive medical procedures, and new and better drugs. For example, the surgery that gave me back my ability to speak is relatively new. So you can imagine a world where POTENTIAL medical costs rise indefinitely because science keeps coming up with ways to fix medical problems that might have otherwise gone untreated.

My prediction is that medical insurance will cover more and more procedures, but if you consider all of the things that can be covered, it will be a smaller percentage. In other words, if insurance currently covers 90% of what you might need, someday it will only cover 70%, because that's all the public can afford. But that might represent far more medical procedures than your insurance covers today, so it might not seem so bad.

As some of you pointed out, a person's health insurance should start out cheap when you are young, and increase every year as you age. So if you want to take a crack at yesterday's question by altering the cost/year assumption, I'd be interested in that result.

Here's a little math problem. Let's see who can solve it first. The question is this: How much money would you need to give to a 21-year old today, in a lump sum, so he can invest it and pay for his lifetime of healthcare?

Your assumptions are as follows:

-        Life expectancy: 85

-        Health insurance currently costs $6,000 per year

-        Healthcare costs rise 10% per year

-        Investment income averages 4% per year after taxes

-        You can spend your principle too, so you have zero left at death

Feel free to add any assumptions I left out, except for assuming a higher investment return. You would invest your healthcare money in something safe, such as municipal bonds.

Over the past 20 years or so, most of China's leaders have been engineers. I'm embarrassed to say that I was not aware of this until recently. Suddenly, everything makes sense.

For years I have marveled at the fact that the Chinese government could be so practical. They didn't seem bogged down by the superstitions and sideshow passions that you so often see in other governments. China's leaders make decisions like engineers. For example, every time I hear someone yapping about how China harvests organs from executed criminals, all I'm thinking is That's a practical way to get spare parts.

China's leadership isn't big on religion. And apparently they don't see any upside in war. They handle their money wisely. They put a lot of energy into building infrastructure. And they care more about stability than human rights. In other words, they value efficiency over feelings. It's exactly the way you'd expect a bunch of engineers to run a country. Obviously this approach has served China well.

The bad news for China is that their up-and-coming leaders have backgrounds in law, economics, and history. In time, the lawyers will start passing lots of laws that individually make sense while collectively strangling the business sector in red tape. The economists will all disagree with each other, and the historians will be planning for the past. So China is pretty much doomed. But they had a good run.


Before you complain that I'm a socialist who wants to take away your freedoms and your money, what follows is just a thought experiment. I start with the premise that the government of the United States, against all odds, declares universal healthcare a basic right.

Obviously no one has figured out how to pay for universal healthcare in a way that society can swallow. So today's thought experiment imagines that ALL options are on the table except raising taxes, just to make this interesting.

As President Obama has pointed out, there might be some savings involved with covering everyone. At the moment, two-thirds of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. If that problem goes away, society saves a bundle.

If we assume a so-called single payer option goes into effect, which means the government offers an insurance program in competition with private insurers, we could eventually see some drops in prices. If you prefer keeping your private insurance company, the only change you would see is a lower bill.

A big benefit of universal healthcare insurance is job mobility. At the moment, lots of people stay at suboptimal jobs because switching jobs would mean losing healthcare for themselves or their families. That's a huge drag on economic efficiency. I suppose wages might creep up if people feel more freedom to job hop, and there would be some extra training involved for all the fresh meat, but on balance I'm guessing job mobility is a boost to the economy, and potentially a big one.

Another economic benefit from universal healthcare coverage is that doctors can catch problems early, before they become more expensive to treat. That's a winner all around.

A big downside of insuring everyone is that in the short run there wouldn't be enough doctors to go around. One solution is to recruit qualified doctors from overseas. If they can pass the same tests as American doctors, they're in. I have to think we'd have plenty of doctors in that case. Then the shortage becomes the problem of other countries.

Next, we legalize doctor-assisted euthanasia, under strict medical guidelines. A disproportionate amount of healthcare costs go toward the last few months of life, when the patient is getting very little bang for the buck. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the option for himself.

Then we require junk food to be labeled like cigarettes, and make it a national priority to decrease our exposure to unhealthy food. People still have to eat, so perhaps the fast food outlets could make the same profit from offering convenient food that is healthy, even if it isn't as tasty and addicting. The government could bully or legislate unhealthy foods out of our diets if it needed to.

Next, the government could start to push the benefits of exercise. And I don't mean the hand-waving they do now. I mean a serious push, until couch potatoes start feeling like flag burners. Exercise could become a matter of national pride.

The government could tax cigarettes into the realm of novelty. Remember, this is the imaginary world of the thought experiment. If universal healthcare is mandated, and you don't want to wait ten months to see a doctor like you do in Canada (allegedly), then society has to make some hard choices.

The government could also require your doctor to treat patients by e-mail, as my HMO already does. That probably saves 10% on patient visits right off the top. Once hi def cameras are more ubiquitous, you should be able to e-mail photos of your bruises and suspicious moles to your doctor too. And I have read that there is a lot of progress in various types of home medical monitors that can send info to your doctor. That should help.

Imagine also that employers who offer health insurance have to treat cohabitation just like marriage. If you're shacking up with someone, you have the option of being on their insurance plan, no further questions asked. Employers currently don't discriminate against married employees even though their families cost extra to insure. This simply extends that benefit to non-traditional familes.

I can also imagine a loosening of the rules for what a Nurse Practitioner can do without a doctor's direct supervision. Between the Internet and a Nurse Practitioner, patients can eliminate a lot of doctor visits.

Most of what I mentioned here is thoroughly impractical because of lobbyists, morons, bad leadership, superstition, and our addictions to unhealthy behavior. It's just interesting to imagine what universal healthcare would look like if it were a constitutional right and raising taxes was off the table.

I saw an article recently about states that have favorable taxation for retired people. I wonder if buying first-floor condos in those states would be a good investment, since demand will be rising.

And I wonder what other types of investments make sense as the baby boomers retire in numbers. Let's ignore the obvious ones, such as the companies who make rest homes, funeral homes, pharmaceuticals, canes, walkers, and Depend undergarments. I'm looking for the next level of cleverness. That's what I expect from my readers.

For example, I can imagine artificial grass becoming a boom business, both because of water shortages and because it takes mowing out of the equation. The fake grass these days looks convincing, and the prices are coming down. Replacing your lawn when you're about 60 might be a good investment, making it easier to retire in your current home.

Lately I have been hearing a lot of buzz about the game of bocce. The game has been around forever, but suddenly it's hot. I think that has a lot to do with the fact that you can do it at any age, and at any level of sobriety. And it's generally cheap. If there's a pure play in bocce, I'd take that bet. It's like catnip for the over-50 crowd. And the grandkids can play too.

Cruise lines seem like a good gamble. They make it easy to vacation on a budget, especially if you're not too active. And retirees are the ones who can most easily take a 3-week cruise.

Do you have any other non-obvious ways to make money from the boomer retirement bulge?

Showing 751-760 of total 1062 entries
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog