Vegonomics

A number of people, from family to friends to total strangers, have asked me, essentially, "Why are you vegetarian?" Then, as they see me struggling for words, they usually provide multiple-choice answers: "Health? Spiritual reasons? Animal welfare? The environment?" (Okay, very few people actually know about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, but some have indeed included it.)

I'm always thankful for the multiple-choice format, because my answer is always the same: "Yes!"

They are all good reasons, of course, and it's fun giving cryptic answers. But I never hear the follow-up question that I hope to hear, so I'll ask myself right now:

"Do you really think it matters?"

Let's face it, we live in the United States in the early 2000's, where eating meat is still a deeply ingrained part of our culture. It is a right, and also an expectation, to some degree. The amount of meat consumed in America is not affected significantly by my efforts.

I recognize the power of the masses, and I know that the masses are made up of individuals capable of making their own choices. I can choose to be a very tiny part of a very large problem, or a very tiny part of the solution, I suppose.

Glazed with a Layer of Abstraction

I recently read an odd description of the Thai relationship to meat. (I found it in a Thai cookbook, so it has to be true.) Apparently, because many Thai people are Buddhists, and Thai Buddhists are taught not to kill animals, that they are used to having meat chopped up into small pieces, so that it doesn't look like animal parts.

I don't know about the Thai, but this is certainly true for most of us Americans, right? I recall a particular meal when I was a boy: I was given a whole chicken leg, both the thigh and the drumstick. I discovered that I could make the joint move, just as the chicken had done when it was alive. I was "grossed out" to say the least. Throughout most of my life, meat has been presented as unidentifiable pieces: Fillets, patties, chunks, tenders. That chicken-leg was an eye-opening experience for that chubby little city boy.

To add to the abstraction that is "meat," much of the meat we eat retains, conveniently, the names derived from French livestock: Beef, Pork, Veal. I recall learning that we call chicken "chicken" and turkey "turkey" because the French would not eat such fowl [sic] creatures. But, for the most part, we Americans eat an abstraction called "meat" which is far removed (at least, in our minds) from animal flesh.

Back to the Thai. Why would a Buddhist not be allowed to kill an animal, but still be allowed to eat it? Buddhists around the world, and within America, have numerous approaches to diet. The Buddha, himself, was not a vegetarian. He died from a bad bit of pork. You may have also read that the Dalai Lama is not (or is no longer?) a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is not prevalent amongst Tibetan Buddhists, and for good reason. How easy do you suppose it would be to grow crops up in the Himalayas?

The Thai Cookbook approach has a flaw. (For the record, I don't think the cookbook was written by a Buddhist Thai. All the more reason for it to hit closer to home.) If you eat meat that isn't recognizeable, are you a vegetarian?

"So, why bother?"

In order to avoid killing animals, I don't ask for meat in my food.

By not eating meat over the last few years, I have probably "saved" one cow (I was never a big beef eater), and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of chickens.

"Well," you say, "But someone else would just eat those chickens instead!"

The Law of Supply and Demand

I was sitting with a wonderful friend and highly respected colleague of mine at a restaurant close to his home. We ordered, and I asked for a pasta dish that came with chicken, and I asked to have it without chicken. Simple enough.

My friend ordered his dish, and then he added "I would like to have Rob's chicken."

Quite logical from a business expense perspective, whether or not it was his turn to buy! And, could he not have proclaimed "Besides, the critter is already dead!"?

No. We know from the simple law of supply and demand that they'll only manufacture McNuggets as long as we continue to order them.

I use my friends mild "faux pas" as example, only. I was not the least bit upset, nor did I comment. Besides, he enjoyed the extra chicken, and--for all I know--he may have felt a little short of dietary protein. Nor does it bother me to watch people eat meat, even a big juicy steak.

I do, however, think that our American society (i.e., its individual citizens) ought to examine the industry's treatment of food animals when making those dietary choices. Reality may be painful, but it's the only route to informed decision-making.

"Re-cy-cling?" -- Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons

A while back, I heard a story about a woman who sold a 40-year-old fur coat that she had inherited from her mother's estate. She was berated by animal-rights activists for selling fur.

What nonsense. She was selling from an existing supply, and satisfying someone else's demand without harming a living animal. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Nobody's Perfect

I do know of vegetarians who prefer their food to be prepared so that it cannot come in contact with any meat products, such as the grease remaining on a fryer. Personally, I'm not one of them. What I try to do is reduce the demand for animal products. (For me, the ethical and "spiritual" benefits lie in avoiding harm to others. Sure, I'd rather that my garden burger is not swimming in grease, but that's the health thing.)

It's basic economics. Eventually my grocery store stops carrying things we (as a community) don’t buy. Eventually farmers will use their lands for something much more productive and healthy. Eventually. Give it another one or two hundred years.

I enjoy looking for simple ways to reduce the overall amount of suffering caused by my actions. I can't force anyone else to do the same (I would have to break the precept in order to enforce the precept, and we have too much of that going on in the world already), but I feel compelled to be this miniscule and insignificant lack-of-contribution-to-the-problem (for lack of another precise term).

A Yearly Ban on Tofurkey

What a wonderful holiday, Thanksgiving! It's a chance to give thanks for your great fortune to be living with a high degree of wealth and comfort (if you're able to read an English BLOG, you're probably in darn good financial shape), and to simply be alive! It's also the only nationally recognized four-day weekend, and the start of the Christmas shopping season!

If I’m invited to Thanksgiving dinner, I can let the hostess know that she doesn’t need to count me when calculating turkey size. And, when the plate goes around the table the second time, I may grab a slice of turkey for myself, anyway, if there’s enough for everyone. "What?!" The bird is already dead, and it has been offered to sustain my life.

I’m expecting this to seem hypocritical to some. Well, we must all make these choices for ourselves, of course. I suppose I would call myself (if I must use a label) a "mostly-vegetarian." I discourage the suffering of animals for my benefit, but will not always turn down fish or fowl when it is subsequently offered.

(Aside regarding labels: I've noticed that there is a way to let people know without labeling myself, and it truly seems to put people at ease with my choices. Rather than "I'm a vegetarian" I often say "I'm eating vegetarian these days." Labels (nouns) sound so permanent. It's as though we limit ourselves, and listeners instantly share that limited image of us.)

I have heard that the original disciples of the Buddha, when they went begging for food, were allowed to eat meat as long as it was not killed specifically for them (i.e., leftovers were okay). I've used a "rule of thumb" that is almost the opposite of that: If I forgot to tell the host at a dinner party that I'm a vegetarian, and the cook has prepared something for me, with meat, I'll eat it. I would rather skip being a vegetarian for a day than make my host feel incredibly uncomfortable.

Apparently my hero, Robert Aitken (my, how my heroes have changed over the decades), has a similar take on this. I don't recall the exact quote (or where I read it), but to paraphrase: The creature is already dead; the hostess is not.

Beef and pork are another story: For me, mammals are out. I find it far too unhealthy (animal fats), risky (mad cow), and repulsive to eat a creature that is so similar to us biologically.

Don't get me wrong: When I'm watching you eat your filet mignon, butterflied and cooked medium-rare; I'm more apt to drool than to turn my head in revulsion. And don't get me started on the joyous childhood memories of McDonald's cheeseburgers! But those joys have been replaced, and I really don't miss 'em. Much.

Apply Gentle Pressure

Christmas 2004: I was talking to Mom before Christmas and she said that we would be having some homemade stew before going to see A Christmas Carol. I let her know that I was vegetarian, and that I could not eat pork and beef. She let me know that I would be able to remove the meat from the stew. That was fine, and I told her so.

The night of the play, she had a wonderful, savory vegetable stew waiting for us! (No meat.)

Thanks, Mom. Essentially, I didn’t make it an issue, and she didn’t make it an issue, either. Mom’s great! :) I hope Dad didn't miss the meat too much. He has made so many sacrifices ove r the years, but his tend to be less obvious. Dad is great, too!

And, yes, I had some turkey with my Christmas meal. Just a little, and with much gratitude to the poor fat bird who gave its life for mine.

All -isms please report immediately to the Iron Cage of Death

There's been a recent upheaval in my "spiritual backyard," so to speak. Apparently there is a movement in Gujarat to declare Buddhism and Jainism as sects of Hinduism.

I have yet to read the numerous related articles at http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/, but I wanted to record my first impressions upon reading the headlines. (Yes, a very dangerous thing, that. I've been so wrong so many times when guessing at the contents of articles based on their headlines.)

Disclaimer: In fact, I should clarify that the following is not my opinion of the events in Gujarat. Religious freedom, and the rights of people to identify their own selves, are critical human rights. If they are being interfered with, this is certainly a serious issue. But the following is not meant to be so serious...

I practice and study a particular flavor of the Buddha-dharma known as Zen. I want to take a moment and reflect on all the traditions that have molded (contributed to, transformed, mutated, enhanced, rarefied) the original teachings of Siddhartha Gautama into what I get as American Zen:

Siddhartha lived in a time and place where Hinduism thrived. He often used Hindu terms (even Hindu gods) to express his knowledge.

As Buddhism washed repeatedly over China, it picked up various Chinese influences, including Confucianism and Taoism. Ch'an Buddhism was particularly influenced by Taoism. And as Ch'an rode its Eastbound tsunami (repeatedly) into Japan, it picked up a bit of the Shinto traditions, and certainly a strong dollop of potent Japanese culture.

Looking at all this, I suppose I could either lament, or rejoice.

Lament that the pure and original words of the Buddha have been through such a thrashing that I could never recover their wisdom. Perhaps I should look elsewhere? The earliest writings in Pali or Sanskrit? Sure, that could give me a better idea of what he actually said and did. Right?

We need only look at today's media battles, e.g., CNN vs. Fox in the Iron Cage of Death, to know that words--even when originally issued in a familiar language and recorded earnestly--are open to interpretation. Of course, the Buddha spoke repeatedly, in different ways, in order to convey his realization. But which sutra is the Pinnacle of Wisdom? Which sect of Buddhism is the One True Buddhism?!

Bah! I choose to rejoice. I've found some wise words that resonate, if you'll pardon the new-agey term. (What a perfect description, though: resonate...) Your Mileage May Vary. Find what resonates in you!

I am currently reading an old Tricycle article by Stephen Batchelor, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite Buddhist authors. In the article, he makes the argument that traditions are inherently living and changing (and dying) things, and that this includes Buddhism. He likens it to members of a family: There is a resemblance, but each is an individual. (I can't find a copy of the article on the web, probably because I'm reading the Winter 2000 issue. Don't ask... :-)

Wisdom is all around us, in all traditions. Is it any wonder that The Golden Rule is so similar in numerous traditions? (The Buddhists use negation: "Do NOT do unto others what you would rather NOT have done unto you. Like, um, waterboarding." Okay, I added that last part. So many of us learn best from examples. I'm hoping the Bush administration reads my blog. HAR! HAR! *snort!*) Look at the similarity between the Ten Commandments and the Ten (Five/Eight/Dozen/Baker's Dozen) Grave (Moral/Pure/Enumerable) Buddhist Precepts, particularly that one special principal that might translate into blogspeak as "Please STOP f***ing killing each other, right now!" Perhaps adding "I mean it, dude. YOU. STOP."

Buddhism is, after all, pragmatic stuff about reality, here and now. If awakening were metaphysical, and beyond the reach of us ordinary humans, the Big Guy wouldn't have bothered speaking at all. Remember, he thought about it for a while. "What can I possibly say about this?!"

So, do I care if someone starts calling what I've been studying and practicing "Hinduism"? Nah. It's really more Taoism anyway! ;-)

Of course I care. But I also try to remain aware that American Zen has probably adapted and evolved in the great leap over the largest pond on Earth. How not?!

I'm happy to have the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Christian traditions (raised a Lutheran!) each providing their wisdom to the subjective synthesis that is my personal spiritual path. Yes, it is subjective. There's no other choice, really. Your religion is what you take it to be. As any good Zen teacher will tell you (in their own words, of course), "You are your own teacher!"

Of Mice and...Lobsters

I'm in Charlotte, NC on business, and I noticed an editorial in the local paper inspired by a recent spate of local animal-cruelty issues (and regulations) about cooking lobsters live, and keeping them in those grocery-store aquariums.

She (the author, and I'm recording this from memory, so I don't recall the name) brought up some very good points about this issue.

She mentions that vegans and vegetarians should stop and think before claiming the moral high-ground. She points out how many field mice are chewed up by wheat-harvesting machinery, and the environmental costs of having baby greens wrapped in plastic and shipped across state lines.

She wasn't suggesting that we should give up wheat for lobsters, but that we should try to be more aware of the trade-offs, and to eat food produced locally. She lives in a place where lobsters are plentiful, and are fed in a semi-wild fashion for about seven years before being harvested. She knows a lobster fisherman, and he pointed out that lobsters have more in common with mosquitoes than humans, so why are we so ready to defend the lobsters but eat the beef? Even if we stop boiling lobsters alive, you know we'll just start buying pre-boiled, packaged lobster nuggets, just so we don't have to hear those screams...

She mentions the book The Omnivore's Dilemma as a good place to read about the realities and trade-offs of our meals.

I think the biggest point was about proximity: Eat what's locally available (and therefore seasonal).

I'm not planning to change my diet, but then I have the great fortune of living very close to farms that bring fresh produce to the grocery store, and dairys that treat their cows quite humanely. (We have also planted an organic vegetable garden, and berry bushes, in our yard.) And that pretty much sums up my diet: Vegetarian, with a lot of dairy.

I hope I'm not being smug. I know I'm very fortunate. If my good fortune helps a little, great.

I may have to give some thought to those field mice, though...

The Marriage Amendment is already unconstitutional

The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage...
-- White House spokesman Ken Lisaius

Yes, the need to defend marriage and family from people who are trying to establish monogamous relationships and stable families--i.e., "the gays"--has again superseded the importance of war in Iraq, global environmental disasters, marital infidelity, and divorce. Queers, ladies and gentlemen, are The Greatest Threat to Civilization! Or so it would seem, if you listen to the latest carefully prepared Presidential speeches.

What a pickle for gay people! We're not allowed to get married, but we're off-handedly criticized for our sordid lifestyles. What's a guy to do...?

Focus on "Family"

But marriage is about families...children! Yes, those adorable little bundles of economic potential. From a social standpoint, they're what keeps civilizations going. It's no wonder that politicians are all in a fuss to make sure there are plenty of little ones to keep the economy going, at least until the current batch of politicians has served their terms.

I'm being unfair? One thing has been made very clear recently: Most of us are not planning for the long-term. Ten years from now? Barely on the radar. 100 years? Why give it a single thought? You'll be dead anyway. In about 150 years, you and (almost?) everyone on the planet today, will be dead. (And I'm an optimist!) Most politicians can barely see beyond the next election. It's hard to take seriously most of what they say or do.

I love kids. My niece is expecting, and I hope that there is plenty of healthy food and clean water and clean air and wild spaces for her child to grow. That's why I'm a progressive: It's not because I expect the world to coddle me. I keep hoping the current population of the country will become a little less selfish, take care of the world, and leave something for my grand-niece-or-nephew to enjoy. And for your children and grandchildren, too!

Anyway, this proposed amendment can't be about children. No one is insisting that married couples procreate. No one has to sign a contract saying "we will do our very best to have children so you can have your tax base in 20 years." I know plenty of people who were allowed to get married even though they couldn't (or wouldn't) have children.

So, what's a family? What exactly is this sacred union that we're trying to defend?

I remember thinking about writing something last time President Bush brought this up, but I was too busy, and the topic faded from sight. I suppose I should have known that I merely needed to wait for another election year.

Sacred Is As Sacred Does

In the quote at the top of this post, the emphasis is mine. Finally, someone is being honest about the real issue.

"Sacred..." we're told.

sacred

adj 1: concerned with religion or religious purposes... 2: worthy of respect or dedication... 3: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use...

-- The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Of course! This debate is about religion.

This marriage issue has always been an issue of religion, and finally the administration has held out the cards for all to see.

It only becomes a political issue inasmuch as religion intrudes upon the political machine. We suspect Bush's heart isn't in it. Apparently a friend of his claims that he doesn't give "a s--t" about the gay-marriage issue. Unfortunately, he does care about pandering to the "religious right," and winning elections. Somewhere along the way, Bush squandered all of that good political capital, and is now trying to buy it back.

Have our ultra-conservative, ultra-wealthy citizens decided to declare a State Religion? Or could it be ordinary human nature, repeating itself as it has done throughout history: The need to be right?

Doctor, It Hurts When We Do This

The uber-conservatives are clearly arguing for their ideology. And they certainly have the right to do so. But they're not being forthright about their agenda. Legalized gay marriage is no real threat to the establishment of a family.

These folks need to focus their kindness and compassion on the psychological dysfunction that creeps into marriage. Let's face it, any relationship is tough work. The rewards don't simply appear, nor do the problems dissipate, just because a religious figure blesses the union. Marriage is where the hard work begins, if it hasn't started already.

Us gay people are really not trying to interfere with other folks' rights, or families. No, we're just trying to discourage the physical violence that killed Matthew Shephard and others. We, too, have the human need to survive.

We may not have suffered nearly 1/1000th as much as black folks have in this country, but wouldn't it be nice to avoid the suffering before it rips our country apart (again)? Just once, can't we circumvent the true evils of bigotry and hatred before we have to look back in shame and disbelief? I'm not suggesting that the conservatives are conspiring to cause harm. I doubt it's ever the wealthy-and-comfortable who directly promote violence. Violence seems to appear, rather, where and when minorities are not truly protected by equal rights and equal enforcement.

And no, I'm not being overdramatic. I have about 10,000 years of human history and pre-history backing me on this. Minorities don't actually have to cause trouble in order to attract the hatred of others. They merely have to be perceived as aberrant.

Did I mention that I'm an optimist? ;-) Well, I'm not trying to predict some doomsday scenario. Just trying to point out the subtle trends of civilizations in general.

God Bless the Pluralists

It's okay that President Bush allows his decisions to be informed by his faith. But this proposed amendment clearly crosses the line, and forces The People to agree with his beliefs (or those of his "base," if we're to believe he doesn't give "a s--t").

The Founding Fathers were apparently more forward-thinking than today's politicians. Fortunately, they gave us a simple amendment, the First Amendment, that protects us from the establishment of a state religion.

Marriage Proposals

Regarding the legal definition of marriage, we have only two legitimate choices available to us as a nation:

One: We broaden the definition of "marriage" to include any two non-blood-related consenting adults who choose to establish a family based on mutual love and caring. (Please, let's just keep the whole polygamy issue separate. It is a separate issue, and should be examined frequently. But I'm talking about gay marriage here, and I'd like to stay on-topic. Also, in case you're not following my argument, farm animals are not able to consent. And children are not adults. All these things are off the table. Are we clear? If you're into either of those, please seek professional help.)

Two: We acknowledge that "marriage" is a sacred religious bond, and allow only religious figures to perform marriages. A marriage also includes a civil union. I've heard it said that, currently, the legally and economically important part of the ceremony is the signing of certain legally binding documents after the ceremony. We can still let that be a part of the marriage ceremony, but let's call that a civil union license; separate from, or included within, a marriage license. And let's allow any two consenting adults to join in a civil union. A Justice of the Peace can perform civil unions. Religious leaders can perform civil unions or marriages.

Either one of these choices puts the question of whether or not to marry two people of the same sex onto the clergy, where it belongs. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, your clergy will decide if you can.

In other words, if we're going to make it an issue of religion, let's put all the cards on the table, and let each religious group decide what's right for them.

My Country, Right or Left

I recently heard Bill Bennett say (on the Daily Show) that all religions agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not true. Mine doesn't. Oh, and thanks for bolstering my argument that it's a religious debate, Bill.

If the marriage amendment were ever to pass, it would be in violation of the First Amendment. It isn't likely to pass, but it doesn't seem to want to die either. The fundamentalists in this country see themselves as answering to a higher authority than the United States Constitution. And, in some sense, they're correct: They are answering to their own human need to be right.

As adults, we need to get beyond that base need, and instead behave in ways that will cause the least amount of harm to all The People.

Orphaned Thoughts

I have a whole collection of these, but they rarely ever find a life beyond their original discovery.

Sometimes a blog entry will occur to me, I'll write down a reminder, but there's not enough (perhaps yet) to formulate an entire entry. Or, sometimes a turn of phrase will roll around in my brain, and I just don't want to lose it.

Sometimes, I'm simply trying to channel Mark Twain. Let's face it: Recording one's own quotes is pretty egotistical!

Anyway, here are some of these orphaned thoughts:

• Greed is now the greatest threat to capitalism.
• The Fallacy of Command and Control: Trying to avoid mistakes by having fallible humans watching over other fallible humans.
• Peace is not something we take for ourselves, but something we give to others.
• One gentle nudge is worth a thousand rough shoves.
• In my 20's it was "What am I going to do today?" In my 30's it was "What am I going to do this week?" In my 40's it's become "What am I going to do this month?" Boy, I'm worried about my 50's.
• We must not mistake the serendipitous for the miraculous.
• Maturity is like altitude: There is always "higher." (Since there is no "highest," we can stop competing with ourselves and others.)
• Book-learning is bullshit: Works as fertilizer, not as food.

May they inspire you...or me...someday!

The 2006 Toyota Prius: Finally, My Bubble-Car has Arrived

I'm quite happy with the new Prius we just bought. Almost immediately, we took it on a road trip, and it performed quite well over hill and dale.

I read an article recently that took two rather unfair stances against the 2006 Toyota Prius.

As reported in The Week, Consumer Reports suggested that the mileage for the Prius was not as advertised. The 2006 Prius is rated at 50 Hwy, 60 in the City. No, I don't have those reversed: The Prius is designed to get better mileage in slower, stop-and-go traffic. It thrives on braking, and uses the electric motor when accelerating from a stoplight.

There isn't a single car on the road today that meets its own advertised MPG. They are often around 10 MPG less than advertised. I've been driving my car in the mostly highway, hilly, and partly slow-and-go traffic that is common for a Bay Area commuter (Santa Rosa to one of the two "nearby" airports). I get around 47 to 49 MPG, as measured by the computer and verified by me at each refill. So, it's supposed to get 55 combined, but it's getting only around 48. Golly, I should be upset! ;-)

Now for the other point:

There is a huge Federal tax credit available to those who buy a new Prius in 2006. Since the car is supposedly a failure at what it was intended to do, the accusation was made that this is yet another George W. Bush tax break for the wealthy.

Well, yeah! But at least this one is attainable by someone making under $200,000 per year!

I consider myself quite fortunate to be able to leverage this tax break in my favor. I'm expecting a credit of over $3k for the Prius. The credit is based on the fuel economy and emissions ratings of the car. We also looked at the Honda Civic hybrid, which is about $5k cheaper (for a very nice car with a sleek, sporty interior). The Civic's rebate is not as high as the Prius rebate.

The tax credit can only offset taxes paid in, or owed, so if you don't need to pay in the total amount in one year, you may not get the full benefit. For example, a college student who does not have a Federal tax obligation of $3k would not get extra money back, and some of the credit would be wasted. There are legal ways to get around this, of course. E.g., parents could buy the car for the student. Personal arrangements could then be made for the student to make the payments, minus $3k (it seems only fair, right Dad?).

Granted, it's not a break for the lower middle-class or the poor, but it is a nice incentive to get the upper middle-class to buy vehicles that don't suck as much gas. And perhaps that will encourages car-makers to build more hybrids instead of traditional gas-sucking cars. Why isn't there a hybrid Taurus, or a hybrid Sebring? What are other car manufacturers waiting for?

Perhaps the next incentive should be $3k towards college tuition for every high-MPG/low-emissions vehicle purchased by/for a full-time college student.

I am truly enjoying the Prius. It handles well enough, has enough power to get up the steep hills (yes, the engine whines a little, but I've reached a certain level of maturity where not every road is my personal race track). And over 45 MPG! For a geek like me, what's not to love?

Rising healthcare costs - Part II

I wouldn't consider reducing benefits because it's too hard to find great employees.

-- director at a high-tech Seattle-based company

(to see Part I, including the survey responses, click here)

1. Does your organization currently pay 100% of the medical premiums for employee, spouse, and family? If not, what percentages are paid?

I was surprised by how few respondents indicated that their companies paid 100% of the insurance premiums for employee, spouse, and dependents.

Apparently, I've been spoiled. I've always worked for small companies, and they've almost always taken care of all the incidentals. Those that did stand out in my mind as great companies. And not just from my point of view: They were also highly successful.

The sample is small--I've only worked for eight or nine companies in my 18-year post-gratuate career (and I haven't always had a spouse/dependent)--yet, I've sensed a trend: The most successful companies were those that focused less on managing income and expenses, and more on creative product development, competitive strengths, and a sense of community within the organization.

Income and expenses are important, of course, but secondary to the real work of running the business.

2. Does your organization have plans to reduce that benefit, particularly for spouse/family?

I was pleasantly surprised by the answers to the second question. A reduction in benefits, particularly while a company is turning a profit, is probably counterproductive.

It's true, health insurance premiums are sky high. Something has to be done. And a company should shop around for health insurance at a good rate. But what does it mean for a company to reduce the amount it pays by increasing the amount the employee pays?

It would be perceived as a pay cut, pure and simple.

It's true that the employee's portion can be deducted on a pre-tax basis, which would help. But it still has the exact same effect as a pay cut. And in my experience, a pay cut is a sign that it's time for employees to start searching for the life-rafts. Whether the company is profitable or not, the employee takes a small kick in a sensitive spot. Companies that make themselves more profitable by taking away money from their employees are really shooting themselves in the foot. After all, where does the company derive productivity, and where does the employee get money?

The most profitable companies I've worked for (as measured either by how rich the owners were by the time we parted ways, or by how immense the profit-sharing bonuses became over time) all followed what I call the "C-E-O Principle."

The What?

The following is a restatement of a "principle" I first put forward on Ward Cunningham's original wiki:

The C-E-O Principle:

In order to be truly successful, a company must foster a community of customers, employees, and owners. Decisions containing conflicting interests among these groups should be made in a way that favors those groups in the specified order: Customers, Employees, Owners.

I did get some grief from people who pointed out that CEOs are legally bound to serve shareholders (Owners). And apparently those naysayers were right: I just watched The Corporation, and learned that, indeed, CEOs really are beholden to shareholders and the bottom line. But that doesn't mean the principle is false, or (as some have claimed) illegal. Someone else on the wiki came to my rescue and pointed out that many CEOs have the freedom to follow their own instincts and experience in these types of decisions.

What I'm saying is that, in the long run, this is the best approach for the bottom line. And even though I've only once (okay, twice) worked for a company that was larger than 40 people and publicly traded, I'm apparently not alone in my beliefs.

There is the example of Hyperion's offer to give $5k to each employee who buys a hybrid car (mentioned in the wiki discussion). And how about Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, who was interviewed in The Corporation? You may think he's gone bananas, but I can see pure clear-eyed common sense in his words and his expression: This man has somehow seen through the haze of corporate greed to a better way to run his company. (Actually, he credits his employees for nudging him towards his "epiphany.")

As far as I know, no CEO has recently been terminated or jailed for turning the organization into a better corporate citizen. If nothing else, it's extremely good PR. Consumers like to know that someone is watching out for the "little guy."

General Motors (GM) may be heading for bankruptcy down the road, but I had to buy my 2006 Toyota Prius sight-unseen because they're selling as fast as Toyota can make them. Sure, in a lot of cases consumer choices are driven by self-interest. But Toyota has turned self-interest and environmental concern into a benefit to their own organization. Toyota saw a need and answered it, years before anyone else. Good for Toyota, good for me, good for America, and good for the Earth. A "Win-Win" scenario, and it has the added appeal of being more than just an idealistic mirage.

Of course I care about American jobs, and I groaned when I heard about Ford's huge layoffs. Let it be a message to American auto manufacturers: Follow the consumer's needs, not those of your oil-barron shareholders. If they follow this one simple rule of thumb, perhaps they will be the first to offer a sexy hybrid convertible, and I'll trade in my Prius!

Lowering the Stress of Business Travel

My boss, who also travels a lot, reminded me of the One Big Travelers' Lesson that I have neglected to post until now:

Your Flight Will be Late!

So take a deep breath, and plan for it. Expect it to happen, and you won't be disappointed either way.

I'm not always a patient man, but this is one area where I may have finally developed a bit of real patience. Here are some steps to take to keep your cool when you discover--at the gate, of course--that your flight is delayed by an hour or more:

1. Schedule the flight so that you arrive at least two hours before you actually have to be there. If the delay doesn't make you late for an appointment, you won't feel as stressed. Perhaps the rule of thumb should be two hours per time zone: The further you need to travel, and the more stops you make, the greater your chances of being delayed.
   
2. Schedule any layovers so that they are sufficiently long, otherwise you may miss your connection. But obviously not too long. See #1 for guidance. Usually one to two hours is plenty.
   
3. Bring plenty of things to keep you occupied during all the delays. I usually take some business related tasks (call the boss, work on the laptop, fill out some paperwork, read something technical) and some personal tasks or relaxing activities (bills, books, magazines, music, movies). These aren't things that I have to get done today. If they were, then I'd be stressed when delays didn't occur! Also, extended phone calls are very difficult at the noise-laden terminal, so I won't call an old friend, or a new client. I try to bring things I can do on the plane, so I won't limit myself to electronic stuff. Reading material is best. I bring my own, but I'm rather particular about the books and magazines I read. If you like the usual magazines, fine newspapers, or the latest best-sellers, you can probably find something at the terminal.
4. Bring snacks. Unless you've had time to scope out the best snacks and restaurants at your usual airports, you may get quite hungry. A small snack can keep you going--and keep you calm--during the delay. I usually bring or buy one small but complete meal to eat at the terminal or on the plane, and then dry stuff (granola bars, bananas, nuts) to keep me going. I pack snacks in my briefcase, so I can munch on something at any time.
   
5. When you hear that announcement, try not getting mad. Note that I didn't say "try not to get mad," but actually make an effort to keep from groaning, yelling, or cursing under your breath. Are you really surprised? After years of business travel, I'm not. These days, I often find myself smiling, thankful for the time to catch up on some reading.
6. If it helps you to feel self-conscious about your anger (which, for me, is a great way to learn how to let it go), keep this in mind: Seasoned travelers can recognize the newbies by how upset and vocal they get when the flight is delayed.
   

Avoiding Burnout

Let me tell you about my schedule during most of 2002. This occurred weekly, almost every week for a year:

Sunday morning I would take a taxi to the bus station and take a bus to SFO. I would then fly to DTW, rent a car, and drive to Ann Arbor. That was at least an eight hour day, door to door. And, Ann Arbor is on East Coast time.

Friday evening, I would leave the client's office as early as possible, drive frantically from Ann Arbor to DTW (20 to 40 minutes), drop off the rental car, sprint to my flight (and, if you've been to the new Detroit Northwest Airlines terminal, you know that this can be a literal 1/2 mile jog, worst case, which was also the typical case, due to Murphy's Laws of Travel). One time, when the flight was on-time, they were about to close the doors with me on the wrong side of the porthole. That was as close as I have ever been to being denied a seat on my flight.

If the flight was delayed, then--upon arrival in SFO five hours later--I had to sprint from the arriving terminal to the bus stop. (On those weekly DTW to SFO flights, I never checked luggage!) Fortunately, I never missed the last bus (at midnight), but I often missed the bus that I had planned to take at 11PM. Hurry up and wait, as the saying goes. To top it all off, the bus had multiple stops between San Francisco and Santa Rosa. There were times when I wouldn't get to bed until 3AM Pacific, 6AM Eastern, after spending a week trying to adapt to the Eastern time zone.

And Saturday was usually spent sleeping off the jetlag, and doing laundry.

But I'm not whining. I actually enjoyed that gig. I made a couple of good friends in Ann Arbor, and I made an obscene amount of money. But the stress was starting to wear me down.

What would I do differently today? I would certainly park my car near SFO. Eventually the bus fare got so high that off-airport parking became cheaper than taking the bus round-trip. At the time, I was very frugal: I was the business, so a dollar of business expense was nearly a dollar out of my own pocket. With my own car readily available, I wouldn't have to arrive on-time, and I wouldn't have to wait. Less expensive in terms of money, time, sanity, and life-expectancy.

Other things I would do differently today would be business-related: I now schedule Monday as a travel day, and I would try to plan to be elsewhere at least one week every two months, at a minimum. To that end, a consultant should try to have multiple clients. These are subtle reminders to the client that (a) you're not an employee, and (b) you have other sources of income.

But even if that other client turns out to be your family, and your projects are mowing the lawn and painting the guest room, you will thank yourself. I've noticed that the more money I made, the more "expensive" a week of unpaid vacation would seem. "Missed opportunity" we self-congratulating investors like to call it. What a load of crap! We serve the clients better when we take care of ourselves, too.

With the wonderful job I have now, we try to keep travel down to every other week. And we mostly succeed.

Rising healthcare costs giving you a coronary?

First: Many thanks to those who responded to the survey.

Here are the results of my small, informal, and unscientific survey of friends and colleagues, including (but not limited to) HR folks, executives and owners, and people in high-paying, high-tech jobs.

Fourteen people answered each question directly. Others provided interesting anecdotes, but didn't respond with values. I have included a little of both. First, the "statistical" answers:

1. Does your organization currently pay 100% of the medical premiums for employee, spouse, and family? If not, what percentages are paid?

Responses follow, with one paragraph per respondent. Where necessary, the answer has been edited to reflect the percent payed by the employer, not the employee. Where the response is a direct quote, I have added quotation marks.

1. Approximately 90% for the HMO plan, 75% for the PPO plan.
2. 60-80%.
3. 73%.
4. Approximately 85% for employee and dependents.
5. No. (This person's employer uses a tiered approach for families of varying ages and incomes.)
6. "100% employee. mumble% spouse (50?), child unknown."
7. 75%.
8. 100% for employee and 50% for dependents.
9. "We currently get 100% of the employee's medical and dental covered. There are upgrade plans, e.g., an improved medical plan and cancer insurance, which the employee pays group-rates for. Spouse and kids are covered at a rate that puts the company's overall expenses near the national average (for software companies?), which I think was 76%; I think the company covers something like 48% of the cost for spouse and family."
10. 75% for employee and dependents.
11. "Yes." I.e., 100%.
12. 100% for employee, 0% for dependents.
13. "We [the company] used to [pay 100%] until this January."
14. 100% for employee and dependents.

2. Does your organization have plans to reduce that benefit, particularly for spouse/family?

The same respondents, in the same order:

1. No.
2. Not sure.
3. Not sure.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. No.
8. "Two digit rate increases would trigger one of the following: put the contract out to bid to see if another carrier will cover us at more reasonable rates or ask the employees to contribute more of the cost. Another option that companies consider are the HSA (health savings plans)...a good option for new companies - and they have the added benefit that whatever the employee doesn't use can be accumulated for their use at a later date."
9. "I expect the family benefit to increase, and perhaps the employee benefit to decrease..."
10. "No, in fact we had no spouse or dependent coverage until a recent benefit increase."
11. No.
12. No.
13. "They just did."
14. No.

3. If you were to reduce such a benefit, would you do so only for new hires, or would you reduce the benefit for existing employees?

The answer from all who chose to respond to this question was that such changes would affect everyone. I was not surprised. Some respondents made me realize that, though there are no stupid questions, there are some that qualify as absurd.

In the interest of fairness we would make the change across the board for all employees.

-- HR executive, financial sector

We firmly believe in the "same rules and perks for everyone" philosophy...

-- COO, software consulting firm

Grandfathering equity morsels is one thing -- not health benefits.

-- Colleague, at a company whose name is now a household synonym for "search" ;-)

Other Respondent Comments

A friend, ex-employer (early 90's), and company president had this to say:

As you know, I used to pay full medical benefits.

There can be enormous differences in costs. For a young person, it may "only" be $100 or so per month. For [my spouse] and I, and a fairly high deductible ($2000 or $2500 I think) it is a little over $1000/month now. But what is even more scary is that increases are very rapid. I've had increases in this cost of over 20% year to year at times.

Be sure to look at Health Savings Accounts. They may encourage better use of healthcare.

Since over 1/2 my business is with doctors, I hear a lot about health insurance. At best, it is a horrible mess. The inequities and stupidity in the current system are incredible. I'd estimate that over 25% of all healthcare dollars go into administering the finances. That number might be as high as 50% in reality. I could go on a rant...

Universal coverage makes more sense to me than most alternatives. I think that has worked OK for the most part with Medicare. Extending it to all would make sense to me in the long-run.

Another old friend says:

At the law firm when I started there 7 years ago, we paid $20 a month for medical (hmo) and dental (100% covered plan). When I left this year, we were paying $30 a paycheck (or $60 per month)... and the deductibles had gone from $10 copay for doctors and $5 co-pay for prescriptions, to $25 co-pay for doctors and prescriptions.

At the LARGE company I am with now... it is even worse.

We pay $51 a paycheck.... and have a mediocre HMO to choose from.

The owner of a small insurance agency had this to say:

Regarding health benefits, I only provide coverage for [one employee] and not her dependents. The other two employees are covered by their husband's insurance. I assume we will continue paying her insurance at 100%.

Industrywide deductibles are going up and employees are being asked to contribute up to 40% of the premium. In some cases the premium for family coverage is $1600/month.

Employers can't keep up with the 20 - 30% increases they're getting every year.

A good friend and single mom who is holding down two jobs, school, and a teenager, responded to question #2 with this:

They just did [lower our benefits]...However, they did do one smart thing in the process, in order to keep costs down, they have single, single plus one (which works for domestic partners of either sex and single parents with one child).

I'm planning to give my own impressions of the survey results in a different post. (I want this one to stand alone, untarnished by my interpretations.) But I will end with a quote from a colleague and director at a high-tech Seattle-based company. The emphasis is mine:

I wouldn't consider reducing benefits because it's too hard to find great employees.

Satorix, the Nirvana Pill! (Part I)

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

-- Morpheus [Wachowski A. and Wachowski L. (1999) The Matrix.]

Could we, one day, invent a pill that gives people an enlightened state of mind? And, if such a "Nirvana Pill" were available, would you take it?

While catching up on some copies of Scientific American that must have arrived during an exceptionally busy time, I found an intriguing article by Scientific American's resident skeptic, Michael Shermer. The article was about seemingly metaphysical phenomena such as out-of-body experiences, and the sense of "oneness with everything" that long-time meditators occasionally experience.

Apparently, these phenomena can also be induced through external physical stimuli. Dr. Shermer tells us, "Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, for example, can induce all these perceptions in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of magnetic fields. (I tried it myself and had a mild out-of-body experience.)" (Shermer)

The article explains that there is a small section of the brain critical to your sense of physical orientation. During meditation, this area quiets down, as it would while you sleep, and you may experience a sensation of floating, or perhaps, "oneness." No matter how real the sensation may feel, even the recipient's own descriptions often revealed an illusion of sorts. One woman said she could "see myself lying in bed, from above, but I only see my legs and lower trunk."

Ask yourself:

Did this brief article just debunk meditation? Or, worse, all spiritual pursuits?

What if all perception--our entire experience of life, in fact--could be altered via physical means? Where does that leave my trust of my senses, and my reality?

"Whoa!" ;-)

---

• Shermer, M. (March 2003). Skeptic: Demon-Haunted Brain. Scientific American <Click here for article>