Premature evacuation is back!
I noted with some humour (at the choice of headline, not the actual story!) a headline used on heraldsun.com.au today:
It’s a headline that has probably been used several times before when the right news story pops up. I actually posted a blog article here in July 2007 about a similar one used for a Melbourne story in The Age:
I’m sure editors and sub-editors are itching to use this kind of headline whenever they have a suitable story!
So much so, a Google search reveals hundreds more examples of the term used (like this one from 2006 in the Dallas Observer)!
Awesome Christmas Lights Video
Thanks to Mike Humphreys on the Copywriting Board for pointing out this one! Wow!
There’s even a link in the thread to the post on Snopes that verifies the authenticity, plus to the company who make the lights (and even more videos!).
It’s Better Than Sex!
What’s that, you ask? What’s better than sex?
Access to the internet! At least for some!
According to this story in today’s Herald Sun online:
Forty-six per cent of the women polled said they would rather go without sex for two weeks than give up access to the internet for the same period of time, according to the survey, Internet Reliance in Today’s Economy.
The Harris Interactive survey of 2119 adults (sponsored by chip maker Intel) also found 30 per cent of men agreed on the internet vs sex question.
And the number of survey respondents who thought access to the internet was “very important, important or somewhat important” …
… 95%!
Remember that old joke about the bloke who gets washed up on a deserted island, who finds a gorgeous woman … she asks him about the one thing he really wants after being all alone for so long … and he asks if he can check his email — it’s turned out to be true!
PS: Of course, the respondents must not have been married … otherwise the figures would be much, much, higher! 
Facebook ad encourages productivity theft
Just what all employers need (not!) in time for Christmas: encouragement of time wasting — at the expense of an employer.
This ad caught my eye on Facebook today:
Some employers are worried enough already about how social networking and personal emails can eat into staff productivity — and in an ad like this it is blatantly encouraged.
Lower productivity = higher costs = costs passed on to the consumer as higher prices.
Employees should be provided with a work environment that they love to be in — but I don’t think that goes as far as being encouraged to waste time!
Being happy at work should be achieved in other ways!
Business advisers send wrong money message
Last night I happened to watch about 5 minutes of the “Your Money, Your Call” show on Foxtel’s Business News channel.
A caller phoned in to say that he and his wife disagreed on pocket money for their children (from memory, one was about 12, and the others about 8 and 5. I didn’t write down the details, so my ages/pocket money amounts are only estimates!).
The caller gave the kids monthly pocket money ($20, $5 and $5 respectively) because he wanted his kids to have their own money and get used to being responsible for it.
His wife disagreed, saying the kids should do some kind of small task around the home to “earn” the money instead.
The two business advisors on the show for this particular episode sided with the caller’s wife, agreeing that the money should only be given to the kids as “reward for effort.”
Oh no.
They’re teaching the kids that the ONLY way to get money is to work hard for it — to swap “time for money”. They’re saying in effect that if you don’t work hard, you’re not entitled to any money (even just $5 monthly pocket money for a 5 year old!).
They’re teaching the kids the WRONG money message. They’ll grow up thinking that earning money is hard work, and only comes to you because you deserve it. How did these guys ever get to be put up as exerts on a business channel?
I think there’s a big difference between giving kids responsibility for money and telling them it must be earned. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of an allowance/pocket money!
This is not the same issue as expecting a handout — or giving in to every demand for money/things… you can still teach responsibility about money without sending a message that “money doesn’t grow on trees” and can only be swapped for hard work.
Let me illustrate.
When I was growing up, we were given money for things like days out with friends at the cinema, or trips to the annual show.
Here’s the difference though. When I was given the money (say, $20), it was mine to spend as I pleased. When one of my mates Sam was given his money, for example, he was told to bring home any change and give it back to his mum.
Sam spent every cent that day. There was no change for mum. It wasn’t Sam’s money, so he saw no need to have any left over. Because the $20 was mine and my responsibility (and I’m talking early 1980s here), I didn’t spend it all, as I didn’t need to. I put aside what was left over and saved it up. Neither of us had to “earn” the $20 we got, but only one of us took responsibility for it. We still got to do the same activities for the day (tram to the city, watch a movie, have lunch etc) … but only one of us had money to call their own at the end of the day.
I’d rather kids learned that lesson than be told the only way you’ll get money is to toil away working hard for the rest of your life!