Wow, does that tag like look like something written up by a marketing guy for a discount store or what? But that’s not what this is all about. It’s about really shopping smart and taking advantage of sales to buy the things you want and need.

Where I’m Coming From

First, I need to make something clear: I’m not a shopper. I don’t read newspaper ads, looking for the best deals on this and that. I don’t spend hours every week hopping from store to store to save a few bucks. I don’t clip coupons. I don’t have the time or patience for any of that.

And I should also point out that Mike and I are a family of two with just two pets. No kids, no huge meals. Although we might spend as much on food as a family of four, it’s because we like good food. We tend to lean toward quality and the things we really like rather than quantity and settling for second best.

We’re not broke — we’re both still gainfully employed in this f’ed up economy. But like many smart people out there, we’ve seen the writing on the wall. Who knows what could come next? Who knows whether Mike’s company can stay afloat in these troubled times? Or whether people will still be interested in treating themselves to helicopter tours. I’ve already seen a sharp drop in book sales — the real source of my income.

That said, it really irks me to pay more than I have to for the grocery items I like or need. I’m talking about everyday staples, like paper products (toilet paper, paper towels, tissues), coffee, milk, butter, etc.

What I’ve been doing for years now is buying the items I need in quantity when they’re on sale or when I find them somewhere else at a really good price. Here are some examples.

Coffee

I like Eight O’Clock Coffee. It’s an Arabica bean with a light roast. It’s more robust than Dunkin’ Donuts coffee, which I liked before I left New Jersey and could no longer get here in Arizona. (It’s now available in Arizona; I tried it again and was disappointed.) But it’s mellower than Starbucks or any of the other boutique coffee brands — although I’ll take Starbucks Breakfast Blend in a pinch. I buy it as whole beans and grind it at home as part of my coffee-making ritual. Nothing like a good cup of coffee first thing in the morning, huh?

My local supermarket sells a 12-0z bag (whatever happened to a “pound” of coffee?) of Eight O’Clock coffee beans for $7.59. I think that’s outrageous. But every once in a while, it goes on sale for $4.99. That’s more like it. I buy enough to last until the next sale, saving about $2.60/bag or 21¢ per ounce. Not bad. But recently, they’ve been having these really kick butt sales on the coffee, selling it for $3.89 per bag. That’s about half price. Each time I find it at that price, I buy eight or ten bags.

One of the nice things about coffee is that it’s sold in the kind of airtight containers designed to keep it fresh. While coffee doesn’t have an unlimited shelf life, if stored properly, it should stay fresh for at least half a year. So why not buy it at that low price and stock up? Just make sure you rotate your stock so you’re always using up the older stuff before the new.

And while I’m talking about coffee, it also makes sense t talk about coffee filters. I make my coffee in a Black and Decker single cup coffee maker. I’m the only coffee drinker and I like my coffee brewed just before I drink it. I don’t like coffee that’s been sitting on a pot on a burner for more than maybe 5 minutes. After that, it starts getting stale and I really can’t drink it.

My coffee maker comes with one of those “gold” filters. It’s a washable thing that’s supposedly better for brewing coffee because it helps the oils of the beans meld together or some such bull. Whatever. What I find is that using the reusable filter guarantees bitter bean residue at the bottom of my cup. I’ll stick to paper filters. The coffee maker takes a #2 cone filter. I don’t buy Melita brand or unbleached or any such nonsense. I buy the cheapest ones I can find — they do the job perfect well. My supermarket sells them in packs of 50 or 100. At my rate of 2+ cups per day, that’s enough filters for one or two months. But over the past summer, I discovered that Wal-Mart sells off-brand paper filters like the ones I use in packs of 250 for less than what I pay for 100 at my local supermarket. So when I go to Wal-Mart — which isn’t very often, thank heaven — I buy two or three packs. Stock up and save.

Oh, and if you’re a coffee aficionado reading this and want to “educate” me about brewing and drinking coffee, save it for another blog. I’m tired of people telling me about how my coffee should be. I make it the way I like it, thank you. My point is not how I brew or drink coffee. It’s how I buy what I like and stock up when it’s at a good price.

Other Products

My husband and I don’t go grocery shopping. We go to the store when we need something and buy what we need, along with a few other things. You’ll never see us in the supermarket with a cart full of groceries. We’re usually able to check out on the 15-items-or-less line. It’s been that way for years, since the days in New Jersey when we’d walk to our local grocery store/meat market after work each day and buy dinner right before we cooked it.

You might think that this kind of shopping is less conducive to saving money. It isn’t really — at least not for us. (Again, remember that we don’t have a family to feed.) We’re still walking many of the aisles of the supermarket. And we’re still keeping an eye out for bargains. When butter goes on sale, we buy two or three pounds and freeze what we don’t immediately need. The same goes (without the freezer) for canned items such as chicken broth and soups. (We don’t eat much canned food.) Pasta, pasta sauce, salad dressing — we buy it all on sale before we need it. We pay close attention to the “Best by” dates and don’t buy anything that we don’t think we’ll use before it “expires.”

What we don’t do is buy things we don’t like or won’t need just because it’s on sale. Mike’s a good example — often, I can buy a gallon of milk for just a bit more than I’d pay for a quart. But there’s no way I’ll use a gallon of milk before it goes bad and I’m not interested in freezing it (as some people do). I also don’t believe in throwing food away. If you buy something you don’t like or don’t use, you’re throwing your money away.

The Lure of Costco and Sam’s Club

Ever notice that if you go into a Costco or Sam’s Club you’re lucky to get out of there without spending at least $200? Ever wonder about that? Ever wonder if you’re really saving money?

I’ve been avoiding these places unless I know for sure that there’s something there I need that’s cheaper there than anywhere else. I firmly believe that I can get better prices on an item in my local supermarket when it’s on sale than I can in a Costco. Best of all, I don’t have to buy a case of it.

My husband — well, he’s still sucked in. He buys cases of canned corn and canned chicken broth. He buys huge plastic jars of nuts and garlic powder and peppercorns. He buys buffet plates full of smoked salmon and styrofoam trays of flank steaks. He buys a lot of junk we don’t need. He freezes things that are better not frozen. We eventually do eat or use most of what he buys, but we also throw some of it out. I don’t like that.

My thoughts on these warehouse stores is that unless you’re shopping for a large family or group — or a restaurant — you probably shouldn’t be shopping in there. Sure, the strawberries are a great price per pound, but do you really think you can eat 10 lbs of them before they go bad? What are you going to do with 12 giant fresh-baked muffins? Got room in your freezer for that 10-lb bag of flash-frozen chicken breast? Are you even going to get them home before they start defrosting? And where are you going to store those 24 rolls of toilet paper and eight boxes of Kleenex? And you do realize that even canned food doesn’t have an infinite shelf life, right?

Shop with a Calculator

Buying bigger isn’t always cheaper. Don’t get conned into buying the jumbo size just because you’re too lazy to do the math.

I know this sounds dorky, but if you have trouble comparing prices of items because they’re sold in different quantities, use a calculator. 12 ounces for $2.39 is cheaper than 20 ounces for $5.29. Most supermarkets will help you by posting the per ounce (or other unit) price for each item on the shelf.

Going back to my coffee example, my supermarket also sells Eight O’Clock coffee in a larger bag. I think it’s 2 pounds. But a comparison of the per ounce price clearly shows which bag is a better deal; when the small bags are on sale, they’re almost always cheaper per ounce.

A calculator and a cheat sheet with supermarket prices would certainly help me prove my theory about Costco. But that brings me back to my original point: I’m not a shopper. I just buy the things I want or need in reasonable quantity when I find them at a good price.

For the past six or more years, I’ve been watching my country — and my town — deteriorate as the result of bad decisions by our leaders.

We go to war in Iraq, spending $341.4 million per day. Thousands of people die — our soldiers and Iraqi civilians — and many thousands more are permanently maimed with lost limbs and worse. We lose the respect of many nations because of our arrogance and stubborn refusal to “lose” a War we can’t win and probably never should have started in the first place.

Our country is in financial meltdown because of bad lending practices and other policies of greedy financial institutions. The “flip this house” mentality has caused thousands of people to invest in properties now worth far less than they paid. Rather than pay mortgages they can’t afford, they’ve been mailing their keys to the mortgage holders, leaving them with properties they have to maintain and sell in a market they’re not willing to lend to.

Businesses have sent thousands of manufacturing and support jobs overseas, leaving fewer job opportunities at home for Americans. With the economy tanking, thousands of people are losing their jobs every month. People without jobs don’t have money to spend on the goods and services still offered in this country, so they’re not buying. Less revenue for U.S. businesses forces them to cut staff even further. It’s a vicious circle.

The country has split into two factions: conservatives, who strive to force their values on everyone, and liberals, who want the true freedom this country promises. Among those freedoms are the freedom of speech, so recently misunderstood by a vice presidential candidate. Yet when we speak out about what’s wrong with this country, we’re labeled as unpatriotic traitors.

Clearly, the country is sick and needs a cure.

I’m voting tomorrow and I urge every U.S. citizen reading this to do the same. It’s only by voting that we can make a difference in our country. Vote for a change. Vote to make things better. Vote because it’s your right and your responsibility.

And don’t let the polls con you into staying home. Your candidate needs your support.

Get out and vote.

Got this this morning from my friend Ray, who probably picked it up elsewhere on the ‘Net.

Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it.

They failed and it closed.

Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze?

If this is yours and it’s copyright protected, let me know and I’ll pull it immediately.

A quick footnote to my “Don’t Panic!” post earlier today. I was reading the NYTimes online and stumbled upon an article by Alex Berenson titled “Those With a Sense of History May Find It’s Time to Invest.”

Not only does he refer to the tech stock bubble burst of 2000-2001 (as I do), but he claims:

Now investors have again convinced themselves that this time is different, that the credit crisis will push economies worldwide into the deepest recession since the Depression. Fear runs even deeper today than greed did a decade ago.

But in their panic, investors are ignoring 60 years of history. Since the Depression, governments have become far more aggressive about intervening when credit markets seize up or economies struggle. And those interventions have generally succeeded. The recessions since World War II, while hardly easy, have been far less painful than the Depression.

Read the article. It cites experts:

“I think in years to come — I wouldn’t say months to come — we will perceive this as being a great value-buying opportunity,” said David P. Stowell, a finance professor at Northwestern and a former managing director at JPMorgan Chase. “Two and three years from now, it will seem very smart.”

Don’t panic. It might just be the time to go bargain hunting on Wall Street.

I really didn’t think a post like this was necessary, but after speaking with two different people about portfolio management in these troubled economic times, I realized that the average investor doesn’t have a clue about what a mutual fund is and how it works.

A Transfer is not Just a Transfer

Conversation One went like this:

Him: I’m thinking about transferring my Fidelity balances to bonds or t-bills.

Me: Don’t sell when the market is low.

Him: I’m not selling. Fidelity has bond and t-bill funds. I’m just transferring. When the market starts coming back, I’ll transfer back.

Conversation Two was remarkably similar:

Her: This week, I transfered all my mutual funds to a money market account.

Me: You sold your mutual funds? Now? When the market is in the toilet?

Her: No, I didn’t sell them. I just transferred them from one Putnam account to another. When the stock market starts going back up, I’ll just transfer the money back.

What followed was my attempt to explain that the “transfer” was, in reality, the sale of one mutual fund for the purchase of another. In both instances, my loved ones — yes, they are both related to me — were selling shares in a mostly stock-based mutual fund that had taken a beating with the Dow’s plunge and using the meager proceeds to invest in a different mutual fund based on less volatile (or more conservative) investment types with the same investment firm.

They didn’t see it this way because they mistakenly think that they are invested in the investment company: Fidelity, Putnam, Janus, Dreyfus, etc. They don’t understand that each mutual fund really consists of huge investments in regular publicly traded companies like GM, Washington Mutual, AIG, and countless other firms that have yet to hit the news. When they sell shares of a mutual fund that includes investments in, for example, GM, they are effectively selling GM stock. If everyone is selling, the price goes down.

Panic Feeding the Decline

Clearly, investors are the ones causing the stock market decline. Their panic sales are what’s driving down the prices, thus feeding the panic. The worse the prices get, the more people panic. Every one who cashes out — even by transferring stock based mutual funds to money market funds — is making the situation worse.

Take, for example, GM. On october 12, 2007, its shares were selling for $42.64 each. Although share prices declined slowly throughout the year, the panic of this past week really hit home. On Friday, GM shares closed at $4.89. You can see the decline in this chart:

Let’s look at the reality of this. According to market valuation of GM stock, GM lost nearly 89% of its value in a year. What happened? Did a UFO hover over a few GM plants and suck them into the sky, leaving a gaping hole? Did GM inventory get spirited away by pixies in the middle of the night? Were all of GM’s cash reserves shredded for some kid’s hamster cage? Were GMs huge asset investments in equipment scrapped for their recycling value?

Of course not. GM’s company value is not just 11% of what it was this time last year. While the original stock price may have been inflated — I can’t say because I’m not an analyst and have not studied GM’s financial statements — there’s no way in hell that the company can be worth a tenth of what it was twelve months ago.

But do investors believe that GM’s total value has declined by 89% in a year? I don’t think so. I believe they’re just panicking, trying desperately to save their finances by cutting their losses. They’re running — screaming that the sky is falling — away from stocks and the declining mutual funds that are based upon their values. As a result, they’re causing much of the mayhem.

More About Mutual Funds

My personal portfolio has declined in value by at least 40% in the past year. I can’t tell you the exact amount. I haven’t looked since Monday. I’m afraid to.

My portfolio includes my retirement funds. And yes, most of them are mutual funds. Most of them were doing very well — one was posting consistent gains of 25% a year and had doubled in value in five years. Like most Americans, I’m a lazy investor. Why do all my homework to handpick investments and then watch them from day to day when an investment firm has experts who can do that for me?

But at least I have an idea of what’s in my mutual funds. Fund names often have a clue. For example an S&P 500 fund is directly tied to the securities that make up the S&P 500. If the S&P 500 goes down 5 points, so does my fund. Pretty simple, right? Another fund name might include the words “Small Market Cap.” That fund is invested in stocks of small market capitalization companies.

Let’s say, for example, that Maria’s Big Cap Fund includes investments in 10 stocks named A – J. (In reality, it would likely include investments in far more securities, but this is a simple example.) Let’s also say that 1 share of Maria’s Big Cap Fund consists of one share each of companies A – J. When I sell a share of Maria’s Big Cap Fund, I’m selling 10 shares of stock — one each in companies A – J. If I have 500 shares of Maria’s Big Cap Fund and I “transfer” my investment to Maria’s Great Money Market Fund, I’m really selling 500 shares each of companies A – J and buying the equivalent dollar value investment in a money market.

Now say that Maria’s Big Cap Fund is really popular and there are 50,000,000 shares of it held with investors. As those investors panic and “transfer” or sell their shares in Maria’s Big Cap Fund, they’re really selling lots and lots of stock. As stock is unloaded in bulk, its value decreases. As value decreases, its price goes down.

This is part of what’s making the stock market so screwed up right now.

No Loss Until Sold

But what’s worse is that many investors are unnecessarily taking losses on their investments. They bought at one price and, as prices drop, they may be selling at a lower (or much lower) price. That’s a loss.

But if they held onto their investments and didn’t sell (or “transfer”), they wouldn’t have a loss — at least not yet. Sure, it would look horrible on their account statements or in Quicken or on whatever online service they might use to track investment value. But until the stock is sold, there is no loss.

I need to say that again, in some different words for those who might not have understood the previous words:

If you do not sell your stock, you do not lose any money.

You can argue this all day long but you will not win. A loss is only on paper until the sale is made. Paper losses aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. (Pun intended.)

Remember “Black Monday” in 1987? At the time, it was the largest one-day percentage decline in stock market history. Remember when the dot-com bubble burst? Wikipedia even has an exact date for it: March 10, 2000. How about the market right after September 11, 2001? These are just three examples of disaster in the stock market.

But guess what? In each case, the market rebounded. Sure, a bunch of companies were shaken out of existence — primarily after about 50% of the dot-com startups were revealed to be based on ideas that couldn’t generate enough revenue to warrant their market values. But the market that emerged after these disasters was stronger. Values for most “good investments” came back.

I’ve been actively investing in the stock market, through both individual stock purchases via an online brokerage firm and mutual funds. As I mentioned earlier, my entire retirement portfolio is in a variety of diversified mutual funds. I survived as an investor through the dot-com bubble burst — my investments recovered their value within two years. And I fully expect to survive as an investor from the current market madness.

Why? Because I’m not going to sell.

I’m lucky, in a way. Although I’m not a kid, I’m still 15 years away from minimum retirement age. I have time to let my portfolio recover.

Not everyone is that lucky. Some people are just getting ready to retire. Other people — like my mm and stepdad — are already retired and tapping into that investment nest egg to meet their financial needs every day. These people are pretty much screwed — unless the stock market rebounds in a hurry.

And the stock market simply won’t rebound if everyone panics and keeps selling.

I like to think that I’m a “citizen of the world.” To me, that means that I feel that I (and my country) should be a team player on Team Earth.

Team Earth is the team that works together for the benefit of our world. When we see a crisis looming — global warming comes to mind — we work together to try to prevent it. When we see drought in one part of the world causing mass starvation, we step in with funds and technology to help the victims. When we see genocide killing off huge ethic groups in a country or region, we take action against the murderers.

The players on Team Earth do what’s right for the world. They don’t do just what will benefit themselves, especially at the expense of others.

So I can’t understand it when I hear the comments of some Americans — especially those living the good life — when they talk about “bombing the hell” out of one country, stealing the oil of another country, and ignoring the serious problems of yet another country.

I can’t understand why people would rather set up oil rigs in a pristine wilderness to provide just 5% of our country’s current oil use in 2020 or beyond when they could be spending the same money developing alternative energy sources that don’t destroy the planet — or simply act responsibly to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels. (Do we really need to commute to work in vehicles like Hummers?”)

I can’t understand why people who have health plans (today) are so opposed to a universal health care system that would protect those who are less fortunate from financial ruin in the event of a catastrophic health problem.

I can’t understand why any American — other than a very wealthy one — would support a candidate who would give a taxpayer earning more than $2.9 million per year a $269,000 tax cut (on top of the tax cuts already handed out by G.W. Bush) while cutting the taxes of folks making less than $19K by less than $20 — all while the government is funding an expensive War in Iraq and bailing out financial institutions. (The numbers are summarized here, and here’s a video for those who struggle with tables of numbers.

I know I’m not the only player on Team Earth. But am I the only American player on the team?

The other day, one of my editors told me that the book I’m currently writing will be laid out in India. As a matter of fact, last year’s edition of the same book was also laid out in India.

She went on to tell me that the production department for the company had been downsized from 168 people to less than 20, with the majority of those jobs going to India.

What followed was a discussion of what the company could possibly be saving by making such a change. Sure, the Indian workforce is probably making a lot less per hour. And there’s a huge reduction in other payroll costs for things like vacation pay and health care and employer taxes.

But don’t they consider the cost to the U.S. Economy of putting 148+ people out of work? People who may not get jobs? People who may contribute to the home mortgage crisis by failing to pay their mortgages? Who may need to burden the country by requiring economic assistance to live and get healthcare? People who are a lot less likely to spend disposable income on things like books simply because they don’t have disposable income?

148 people, you say. That’s nothing. How is that going to affect the U.S. economy?

Well, it’s not just one company shipping jobs overseas. It’s hundreds or thousands of them. That equates to thousands of people out of work, many of whom may become unable to afford the goods or services offered by the companies that let them go.

How ironic. By acting in such an idiotic, short-sighted way, these companies are actually reducing their customer base. So while their costs are lower, their sales are likely to be lower, too. Net effect? Zero change in the bottom line!

When I was a kid, we called that “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” Wikipedia has this to say about this particular phrase: “Cutting off the nose to spite the face is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive overreaction to a problem.” Although it usually refers to an act of revenge, I think it could apply to this situation, too.

How can companies reduce their bottom line without shipping jobs overseas? It’s pretty simple: use freelancers.

One of my other publishers has a very small in-house production staff. But it also utilizes a number of freelance production people all over the U.S. When the in-house staff is busy putting books together, it turns to its freelancers and assigns books to them. They get the job done right in a timely manner. They have to — if they don’t do the job satisfactorily, there’s another freelancer waiting in line behind them to do that job or the next one.

Freelancers might get a higher wage than in-house people, and they surely get a higher hourly wage than overseas workers, but they only get paid when they work. So you’re not paying them to hang around the office during slow spells, when there’s no work to do. And, if you pay by the job, rather than by the hour, you only pay for the work done — not time hanging around the water cooler or spending a few extra minutes at lunch.

Employers don’t have to pay taxes for contract labor like freelancers. They also don’t have to offer benefits like vacation time or healthcare. There’s no need to send them for training or to maintain a big human resources department to keep track of them.

And since many freelancers work from their homes, they’re not commuting to and from work. That means they don’t contribute to traffic, pollution, or greenhouse gases.

And since they do work and they do get paid, they have disposable income to buy consumer goods and services. (I’ve been freelance for 18 years now and I can assure you that I’m quite a consumer of goods.)

So my question is this: why don’t more companies explore the possibilities of using freelancers instead of shipping jobs overseas?

Comments? Use the Comments link or form for this post to share your thoughts.

Related Posts:

As the following post list illustrates, I’ve been writing about this issue on and off for some time now. I used to use the word outsourcing to refer to sending jobs overseas. I later learned that was really called offshoring. But if you do read any of these, understand when I say outsourcing, I mean sending jobs overseas — not just sending jobs out of company.

• Outsourcing Blues
• Just Say No to Outsourcing
• Outsourcing, Continued
• Outsourcing — or “Offshoring” — Revisited (Again)

On Saturday, I received FAA form 1800-31 in the mail. Titled “Airport Activity Survey (by Selected Air Carriers),” it’s headed up with the following description as part of its Paperwork Reduction Act notice:

Submission of this form is voluntary. The purpose of this collection is to capture passenger enplanement data to be used to allocate Federal funds to eligble airports. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour and 30 minutes per response.

The form requests me to enter the names, states, airports, and airport identifiers for all airports where I picked up passengers for on demand commercial operations. For each airport listed, I need to provide a count of the passengers I picked up.

To gather this information, I’ll need to go through my aircraft logs for 2007 and look at each flight conducted. If it was a revenue flight, I need to note where I picked up the passengers and how many passengers I picked up. I then need to tally these for each airport and summarize it on the form. Ninety minutes sounds about right for this chore.

Although this task is voluntary — frankly, I don’t think I bothered last year — I’m looking forward to doing it this year. It might be the bean counter in me — once an accountant, always an accountant. But there are two good reasons why it interests me more this year:

• A line-by-line review of my log books helps me to remember individual flights. I’m in the process of drawing together material for a book about my flight experiences and I’m sure I’ll be reminded of a few flights that are interesting enough to write about.
• I’m curious to learn which airports I did the most business at last year. I’m pretty damn sure it wasn’t Wickenburg. Hell, I picked up more passengers in Buckeye in one day than I did during a whole year at Wickenburg.

Not Wickenburg? you may ask. How can that be? Aren’t you based there?

Yes, I’m based at Wickenburg. But sadly, very little of my business originates here. The vast majority of my revenue comes from flights out of Deer Valley, Scottsdale, and Sky Harbor, with the big revenue charters originating in places like Page and Yuma. Try as I might to market my services here in Wickenburg, the population simply isn’t interested. I’m probably too costly for most of the fixed income folks who live here, while the folks who don’t worry about money would prefer a pickup from a turbine helicopter based in Scottsdale. (How’s that for ironic?)

I’ve actually gotten to the point where I don’t bother marketing much in Wickenburg anymore. Sure, my original tri-fold brochure is still out there. Why not? I have about 10,000 copies of it left. It emphasized my Wickenburg tours and, when I realized that my market was in the Phoenix area, I had it redesigned to emphasize tours from there. The leftover copies of the original are in my hangar, slowly making their way out into brochure racks around town.

And this year, I pulled the plug on my local Yellow Pages ad.

I’m even in the process of turning off my local phone number, preferring my cell phone for all communications with current and future clients.

It’s odd, in a way. I’m the only aircraft charter operator based in Wickenburg. The town has a very nice little airport that recently got a bunch of funding from the Federal Government that added 1000 feet to its runway. But when finally given the opportunity to set up an office on airport property, I turned it down. I, like many other business owners (or potential business owners) here, have learned that dealing with the Town can be a nightmare of bullshit politics conducted by men who get their kicks controlling this insignificant corner of the world. They have no regard for the future of the airport — a fact they’ve made clear by allowing housing on three of the airport’s four sides, including less than 4000 feet from the approach end of Runway 23. Why would anyone in their right mind put up a building or hangar or anything else at an airport that’s likely to be closed in 10 or 15 years due to residential encroachment and the accompanying complaints? Or, for that matter, sign a land lease agreement that can be cancelled at any time on the whim of the Mayor or a Council member?

So my business languishing, as far as Wickenburg is concerned, but doing quite well everywhere else. And that’s unfortunate for Wickenburg. Not only is the Town losing out on sales tax revenue generated by my scenic tours, but FAA Form 1800-31 will not indicate Wickenburg as one of my major operating airports.

And if the only charter operator based in Wickenburg has more passenger operations at other airports, then how many passenger operations will be recorded for Wickenburg’s final tally? And how will that affect future airport funding?

I’m learning not to care.

Later this morning, I’ll have the joy of joining thousands of other drivers on I-17 as we head southbound into Phoenix from points north. It’s a typical Monday morning, so I expect traffic to back up in the typical places — a few miles short of the Loop 101 intersection, down around Glendale Ave, at the “Stack” and “Mini-Stack,” at the Durango Curve, etc. The only thing that’ll make this trip to the airport tolerable for me is that my husband will be with me in the car and we can take advantage of the HOV lanes set up for carpoolers along part of the route. We’ll speed by the thousands of cars with only one driver in each one, getting to our destination in an almost normal amount of time while they take 50% longer to reach theirs.

Obviously, one of the best ways to slow global warming caused by auto emissions is to reduce auto emissions. You can do that by encouraging people to buy more fuel efficient cars, but you’ll always find people who need that status symbol Hummer or other ridiculous SUV in their driveway. (You know, the one with the shiny chrome extras that has never been off pavement?) You can do that by encouraging car pooling by adding HOV lanes to the highways. (You can see how well that works on the commute into Phoenix each day; ask the folks in New Jersey about their HOV lanes.) You can do that by encouraging people to live closer to where they work. (But with people changing jobs more often than most folks change hairstyles, that’s difficult to maintain.)

But you can also do that by implementing a solid plan for telecommuting — making it possible to work at home or in a local telecommuting center instead of making the long commute to park their butts in an office or cubicle for the day.

The Benefits of Telecommuting

The benefits of telecommuting go far beyond keeping single-driver cars off the roads during rush hour. For example:

• Telecommuters spend less time traveling to and from work, so they have more time to spend with their families and friends. This can improve their lives and reduce stress.
• Telecommuters can easily “pop back into the office” to get a bit of extra work done when necessary, especially if that office is in their own home or neighborhood.
• Companies that allow telecommuting can reduce the amount of office space needed because fewer people will be coming to a central office. This can save the company money.
• Companies that allow telecommuting can pay lower salaries because telecommuting employees have reduced commuting costs. (My sister, for example, spends more than $500 per month to get from her New Jersey home to her Broadway and Wall workplace, which is less than 20 miles away.) Savings can be spent on the equipment the employee needs to work away from the central office, such as a computer, Internet connection, and/or telephone line.

Clearly a telecommuting program can help a business and its employees, as well as the environment.

Not Always Possible

Obviously, telecommuting is not possible for all kinds of jobs. A car salesman, for example, can’t meet and greet prospective customers while sitting in his home-based office. Someone who works in manufacturing, where job duties require assembling parts or checking quality needs to be at the factory with tools and materials to get the job done. Policemen, firemen, and ambulance workers must be on the beat or at their base of operations, ready to spring into action when needed.

But there are so many jobs — especially in our predominately service economy — where an employee’s physical presence is not required at a specific workplace. Salespeople can do much of their work on the phone and in front of a computer, with visits to customers and clients to close a deal or provide service. Customer service personnel can work from any location where they have access to a telephone and the Internet. (If we can ship these jobs out to India, why can’t we ship them to people’s homes or telecommuting centers in the suburbs?) Editors, writers, and production people don’t need to come to an office to get things done. As long as they have the tools to work, they can work.

And telecommuting doesn’t need to be an all-or-nothing proposition. An employee can work in a main office two or three days a week and work the remaining days at a home office or telecommuting center. He can share an in-office workspace (cubicle or office) at the workplace with another telecommuter on the opposite schedule. Just taking one day a week off a person’s commute — that’s 20% fewer miles driven — can make a world of difference.

The Mindset

Unfortunately, the mindset of employers and employees makes utilizing a telecommuting program difficult, if not impossible.

Many employers have a complete distrust for their employees. They feel that if they’re not looking over an employee’s shoulders, the employee must be goofing off.

While that might be true of some employees, it isn’t true for everyone. Many employees are responsible individuals who understand that they’re being paid to get a job done. It’s those people who should be given the opportunity to telecommute.

The way I see it, telecommuting is a lot like working freelance, but for one client: your employer. If your employer gives you a job to do and it can be done in the amount of time allotted, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to do it, whether you’re at a centralized workplace or at home with the necessary tools.

If an employee cannot finish a job at the office, he should not be given the opportunity to telecommute. Instead, the employer needs to understand why the employee is falling short of goals. Are the goals unrealistic? Is the employee simply not up to the task? This needs to be established before telecommuting is offered to anyone.

Employers can get peace of mind about telecommuting by granting telecommuting privileges only to proven employees and then monitoring workflow to ensure goals are met.

For example, suppose a support staff member is expected to handle 30 support calls in a day. If given all the right tools at a remote workplace, he should still be able to handle 30 calls. If his output drops to a consistent average of 20 calls a day, this should set up a flag for the employee’s manager. Why has the output dropped? Are there additional tools the employee needs? Or is he wandering away from his desk to chat with neighbors or do errands?

Output will always tell the story and that’s what should be used to evaluate the success of a telecommuting program or a specific employee’s participation in one.

I also think that while in some businesses, telecommuting can be used as a reward for hard-working employees, in other businesses, it can be the way to do business.

After all, why do employers pay employees? To spend a certain number of hours sitting at a certain desk in a certain place? Or to get a job done?

Conclusion

These are my thoughts about something that has been on my mind for years now. My ideas are a bit disjointed and perhaps idealistic. But two of my three primary editors are full time employees for publishers who allow them to telecommute. One editor lives and works more than 1000 miles away from her main office. Both editors are able to get all of their work done in home-based offices. While this is just one example of telecommuting in action — editors in the publishing industry — there can and should be more.

Telecommuting can solve so many problems. Why don’t more employers consider it?

A fellow twitterer — and I won’t mention names because my purpose is not to embarrass him — has created a Web site designed to gather “idea donations.” That’s right: the goal is to gather business ideas for people who are evidently incapable of coming up with their own ideas. These mentally challenged people can then use the donated ideas to start businesses and improve their villages, towns, or personal lives.

I have a serious problem with this.

It isn’t enough for successful business people to donate money and equipment and finance small business owners who need help. Now we have to think for them, too?

The way I see it, if an “entrepreneur” isn’t bright enough to come up with his own business idea, he’s probably not going to be bright enough to make someone else’s idea work, either. It takes a lot more than a packaged idea to start and build a business. It takes brains, know-how, experience, hard work, funding, imagination, moral support….get the idea?

Am I missing something here? What’s the point of this? To make people who can think feel all warm and cuddly for handing out ideas to people who can’t think?

If someone doesn’t have enough imagination and know-how to come up with his own business idea, he should probably stick to work that doesn’t require so much brain power — and leave the business of starting and running new businesses to those better able to get the job done.

I stumbled upon an article in Slate Magazine titled “The Sovereign vs. the Idiot: What kind of gift-giver are you?” by Joel Waldfogel. Its lead paragraph includes the following factoid:

Most of the time, people choose purchases for themselves and only buy things that they expect to value at or above the price they pay. With gifts, by contrast, recipients end up with items that givers guess that the recipients might appreciate.

The result of all this, according to the article, is that we often pay more than we should for items that may or may not be appreciated by the recipients. In other words, we don’t get as much satisfaction for our money. The article, which is about the economics of gift giving goes into more details.

The article brings me back to the days when Christmas shopping was a chore that required multiple trips to department stores and malls for gifts that would allow me to check off names on a list. In those days, the main concern was the people on the list, my budget, and what each recipient might like. Not would like, mind you. Might like. In those days, it seemed more important to check off the names than to get a truly appropriate and appreciated gift. I bought a lot of crap from those department store displays — you know, the rotating tie racks, the scarf and glove sets, the gift-packaged cologne. Easy gifts chosen by the store’s marketing department rather than the giver, generic gifts of the one-size-fits-all variety.

I was younger then. Not busier, but younger and less wise. Since then, I’ve realized that gift giving is more than just checking off names on a list. It’s finding the right gift for each person.

In my family, we cheat. In late November, we e-mail each other a list of items we’d like to get. Sometimes we include links to the items online. This is even easier if we maintain an Amazon.com wish list (as I do) or some other gift registry. Then we discuss it with each other to make sure there are no duplicates and shop online.

For example, suppose my sister in law had a wish list at the Gap that included 5 different items. I’d go check out her wish list and see that my budget allowed me to buy her two of them. (I always pick the ones that I like, too.) I’d then e-mail my sister and mother and tell them which items I was buying so neither of them would buy the same thing. They might each buy something else on the Gap list or perhaps something from another list. As a result, my sister in law would get exactly what she wanted with no duplicates.

It goes the same way with big gifts. Suppose my brother wanted some heavy-duty power tool. The price tag might be beyond what I’d normally spend, but if my sister chipped in, we could get it together. He’d get exactly what he wanted and my sister and I would both be done shopping for him within minutes.

In my case, Christmas shopping has become very easy. Not only do I buy just about all my gifts online these days, but I have them shipped right to the recipient. In the case of family members this year, they’re shipped right to the place the recipients will be — at my mother’s house. (She has already confirmed receipt of two of the three packages that will arrive.) If I was there, I’d take them from their shipping boxes and wrap them. But since I’m not, the shipping boxes become the wrapping. True, it’s not as attractive, but no one seems to mind. The only thing I miss is seeing the recipient’s faces as they pull out the gifts they really wanted.

I actually give gifts year-round. Not every day or week, mind you. Just occasionally. You know how it is. You go on vacation and see a shirt that’s perfect for a friend. There’s no reason for a gift, but the match is so good you can’t resist. So you buy it and bring it to your friend. I did this after my Thanksgiving trip. We’d been to a place called “Stan’s” and they sold t-shirts that said, in big letters, “If found, return to Stan’s” on the back of the shirt. I have a friend named Stan and I thought he’d get a kick out of it. So we bought it and gave it to him. I have another friend that we tease with SpongeBob SquarePants items. Every time I see something cool (but small; he lives in a fifth wheel), we pick it up for him. Gifts like these are seldom expensive, but they’re usually a good (or at least fun) match for the recipient. I get more pleasure out of giving these random gifts than Christmas or birthday gifts. I think it’s because it’s unexpected by the recipient and it makes them feel just a tiny bit special to be thought of for no apparent reason.

And isn’t that what gift giving is about? Making the recipient feel as if you’ve been thinking about him/her and what he/she might like?

Technorati Tags: Christmas, holiday, gift, shopping

You think that with the money they obviously have to spend, the folks at Mellon Investor Services would have used some real talent to build their Web site. They obviously didn’t.

Sure, it looks pretty, but it’s nearly impossible to navigate without clicking a bunch of wrong navigation buttons. And half the buttons you press spawn a new little window that displays a stop-light graphic and the message that the information is being accessed. The thing that bugged me the most was when I was required to change my pin to a 6-15 character number. It took me four tries to enter a number the system liked, and when I did, the dialog that appeared gave me the impression that I’d screwed up so bad that they were offering to do it for me. I later discovered that the PIN Manager wasn’t a person but a feature of the site that had been unlabeled as such.

Jakob Nielsen of Web usability fame would have a field day with the Mellon site.

I called for help when a feature I was trying to use kept displaying an error message. After various discussion and hold sessions with two different people on two different calls, I was asked to confirm that I was using Internet Explorer. I told her that I wasn’t, that I was using Firefox on a Mac and wouldn’t waste space on my hard disk with a Web browser that hadn’t been updated for four years. She obviously didn’t understand my sarcasm because she told me to “exit” Firefox and “start” Explorer. I repeated that I was on a Mac and if their site didn’t work on a Mac they were alienating a lot of users.

After another hold, I was told that her supervisor could duplicate the error message and that there was probably something wrong with the site.

Duh.

She then suggested that I try another time. By this time (30 minutes after my initial attempt to use the system), I was fed up and ready to hang up. But she had to get one last dig in: “Have I helped you with all your concerns today?”

“No,” I said. And I hung up.

Warren Buffett, the 75-year-old billionaire who made his fortune as an investor, has given $30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A very interesting article on Slate.com, “Wealthy and Wise” by Jacob Weisberg, provides some of Buffett’s rationale for doing such a thing.

Two things from the article that really struck me are:

Buffett’s views on the political subject of wealth are deeply American. Wealth like his can be justified temporarily as an expression of how much opportunity our social system affords. But passing it down across generations, he says, “flies in the face of a meritocratic society” and threatens to create the sort of aristocracy the founding fathers sought to prevent.

and

One of his [Buffett's] aphorisms is that you should leave your kids enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’ve slipped into news junkie mode. But rather than get it from the television, I get it from the Internet, written by people who actually think.

Here are a few interesting reads:

Rescuing Jesus by Alessandro Camon on Salon.com discusses the hippocracy of the religious right.

Press Briefing (10/13/2005) by Scott McClellan on whitehouse.gov illustrates how the White House’s screw ups are not getting by the press unnoticed.

Fall of the Rovean Empire by Sidney Blumenthal on Salon.com discusses the politics, economics, and behind the scenes dealings of members of the Republican party.

Please don’t comment on these unless you’ve read them.