Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
David
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RefBan
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Brian Williams Captures the Mood along the Gulf Coast
Very good interview from "Morning Joe" with NBC News Anchor Brian Williams - watch:
David
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spillonomics - Underestimating Risk
Great analysis from David Leonhardt of the New York Times on the nature of risk - and the oil spill - a must read - David
May 31, 2010
Spillonomics: Underestimating Risk
By DAVID LEONHARDT
In retrospect, the pattern seems clear. Years before the Deepwater Horizon rig blew, BP was developing a reputation as an oil company that took safety risks to save money. An explosion at a Texas refinery killed 15 workers in 2005, and federal regulators and a panel led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, said that cost cutting was partly to blame. The next year, a corroded pipeline in Alaska poured oil into Prudhoe Bay. None other than Joe Barton, a Republican congressman from Texas and a global-warming skeptic, upbraided BP managers for their “seeming indifference to safety and environmental issues.”
Much of this indifference stemmed from an obsession with profits, come what may. But there also appears to have been another factor, one more universally human, at work. The people running BP did a dreadful job of estimating the true chances of events that seemed unlikely — and may even have been unlikely — but that would bring enormous costs.
Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to consider what BP executives must be thinking today. Surely, given the expense of the clean-up and the hit to BP’s reputation, the executives wish they could go back and spend the extra money to make Deepwater Horizon safer. That they did not suggests that they figured the rig would be fine as it was.
For all the criticism BP executives may deserve, they are far from the only people to struggle with such low-probability, high-cost events. Nearly everyone does. “These are precisely the kinds of events that are hard for us as humans to get our hands around and react to rationally,” Robert N. Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard, says. We make two basic — and opposite — types of mistakes. When an event is difficult to imagine, we tend to underestimate its likelihood. This is the proverbial black swan. Most of the people running Deepwater Horizon probably never had a rig explode on them. So they assumed it would not happen, at least not to them.
Similarly, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan liked to argue, not so long ago, that the national real estate market was not in a bubble because it had never been in one before. Wall Street traders took the same view and built mathematical models that did not allow for the possibility that house prices would decline. And many home buyers signed up for unaffordable mortgages, believing they could refinance or sell the house once its price rose. That’s what house prices did, it seemed.
On the other hand, when an unlikely event is all too easy to imagine, we often go in the opposite direction and overestimate the odds. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans canceled plane trips and took to the road. There were no terrorist attacks in this country in 2002, yet the additional driving apparently led to an increase in traffic fatalities.
When the stakes are high enough, it falls to government to help its citizens avoid these entirely human errors. The market, left to its own devices, often cannot do so. Yet in the case of Deepwater Horizon, government policy actually went the other way. It encouraged BP to underestimate the odds of a catastrophe.
In a little-noticed provision in a 1990 law passed after the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress capped a spiller’s liability over and above cleanup costs at $75 million for a rig spill. Even if the economic damages — to tourism, fishing and the like — stretch into the billions, the responsible party is on the hook for only $75 million. (In this instance, BP has agreed to waive the cap for claims it deems legitimate.) Michael Greenstone, an M.I.T. economist who runs the Hamilton Project in Washington, says the law fundamentally distorts a company’s decision making. Without the cap, executives would have to weigh the possible revenue from a well against the cost of drilling there and the risk of damage. With the cap, they can largely ignore the potential damage beyond cleanup costs. So they end up drilling wells even in places where the damage can be horrific, like close to a shoreline. To put it another way, human frailty helped BP’s executives underestimate the chance of a low-probability, high-cost event. Federal law helped them underestimate the costs.
In the wake of Deepwater Horizon, Congress and the Obama administration will no doubt be tempted to pass laws meant to reduce the risks of another deep-water disaster. Certainly there are some sensible steps they can take, like lifting the liability cap and freeing regulators from the sway of industry. But it would be foolish to think that the only risks we are still underestimating are the ones that have suddenly become salient.
The big financial risk is no longer a housing bubble. Instead, it may be the huge deficits that the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will cause in coming years — and the possibility that lenders will eventually become nervous about extending credit to Washington. True, some economists and policy makers insist the country should not get worked up about this possibility, because lenders have never soured on the United States government before and show no signs of doing so now. But isn’t that reminiscent of the old Bernanke-Greenspan tune about the housing market?
Then, of course, there are the greenhouse gases that oil wells (among other things) send into the atmosphere even when the wells function properly. Scientists say the buildup of these gases is already likely to warm the planet by at least three degrees over the next century and cause droughts, storms and more ice-cap melting. The researchers’ estimates have risen recently, too, and it is also possible the planet could get around 12 degrees hotter. That kind of warming could flood major cities and cause parts of Antarctica to collapse.
Nothing like that has ever happened before. Even imagining it is difficult. It is much easier to hope that the odds of such an outcome are vanishingly small. In fact, it’s only natural to have this hope. But that doesn’t make it wise.
David Leonhardt is an economics columnist for The Times and a staff writer for the magazine.
Originally publishedSpillonomics - Underestimating Risk - NYTimes.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 31, 2010
Spillonomics: Underestimating Risk
By DAVID LEONHARDT
In retrospect, the pattern seems clear. Years before the Deepwater Horizon rig blew, BP was developing a reputation as an oil company that took safety risks to save money. An explosion at a Texas refinery killed 15 workers in 2005, and federal regulators and a panel led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, said that cost cutting was partly to blame. The next year, a corroded pipeline in Alaska poured oil into Prudhoe Bay. None other than Joe Barton, a Republican congressman from Texas and a global-warming skeptic, upbraided BP managers for their “seeming indifference to safety and environmental issues.”
Much of this indifference stemmed from an obsession with profits, come what may. But there also appears to have been another factor, one more universally human, at work. The people running BP did a dreadful job of estimating the true chances of events that seemed unlikely — and may even have been unlikely — but that would bring enormous costs.
Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to consider what BP executives must be thinking today. Surely, given the expense of the clean-up and the hit to BP’s reputation, the executives wish they could go back and spend the extra money to make Deepwater Horizon safer. That they did not suggests that they figured the rig would be fine as it was.
For all the criticism BP executives may deserve, they are far from the only people to struggle with such low-probability, high-cost events. Nearly everyone does. “These are precisely the kinds of events that are hard for us as humans to get our hands around and react to rationally,” Robert N. Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard, says. We make two basic — and opposite — types of mistakes. When an event is difficult to imagine, we tend to underestimate its likelihood. This is the proverbial black swan. Most of the people running Deepwater Horizon probably never had a rig explode on them. So they assumed it would not happen, at least not to them.
Similarly, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan liked to argue, not so long ago, that the national real estate market was not in a bubble because it had never been in one before. Wall Street traders took the same view and built mathematical models that did not allow for the possibility that house prices would decline. And many home buyers signed up for unaffordable mortgages, believing they could refinance or sell the house once its price rose. That’s what house prices did, it seemed.
On the other hand, when an unlikely event is all too easy to imagine, we often go in the opposite direction and overestimate the odds. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans canceled plane trips and took to the road. There were no terrorist attacks in this country in 2002, yet the additional driving apparently led to an increase in traffic fatalities.
When the stakes are high enough, it falls to government to help its citizens avoid these entirely human errors. The market, left to its own devices, often cannot do so. Yet in the case of Deepwater Horizon, government policy actually went the other way. It encouraged BP to underestimate the odds of a catastrophe.
In a little-noticed provision in a 1990 law passed after the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress capped a spiller’s liability over and above cleanup costs at $75 million for a rig spill. Even if the economic damages — to tourism, fishing and the like — stretch into the billions, the responsible party is on the hook for only $75 million. (In this instance, BP has agreed to waive the cap for claims it deems legitimate.) Michael Greenstone, an M.I.T. economist who runs the Hamilton Project in Washington, says the law fundamentally distorts a company’s decision making. Without the cap, executives would have to weigh the possible revenue from a well against the cost of drilling there and the risk of damage. With the cap, they can largely ignore the potential damage beyond cleanup costs. So they end up drilling wells even in places where the damage can be horrific, like close to a shoreline. To put it another way, human frailty helped BP’s executives underestimate the chance of a low-probability, high-cost event. Federal law helped them underestimate the costs.
In the wake of Deepwater Horizon, Congress and the Obama administration will no doubt be tempted to pass laws meant to reduce the risks of another deep-water disaster. Certainly there are some sensible steps they can take, like lifting the liability cap and freeing regulators from the sway of industry. But it would be foolish to think that the only risks we are still underestimating are the ones that have suddenly become salient.
The big financial risk is no longer a housing bubble. Instead, it may be the huge deficits that the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will cause in coming years — and the possibility that lenders will eventually become nervous about extending credit to Washington. True, some economists and policy makers insist the country should not get worked up about this possibility, because lenders have never soured on the United States government before and show no signs of doing so now. But isn’t that reminiscent of the old Bernanke-Greenspan tune about the housing market?
Then, of course, there are the greenhouse gases that oil wells (among other things) send into the atmosphere even when the wells function properly. Scientists say the buildup of these gases is already likely to warm the planet by at least three degrees over the next century and cause droughts, storms and more ice-cap melting. The researchers’ estimates have risen recently, too, and it is also possible the planet could get around 12 degrees hotter. That kind of warming could flood major cities and cause parts of Antarctica to collapse.
Nothing like that has ever happened before. Even imagining it is difficult. It is much easier to hope that the odds of such an outcome are vanishingly small. In fact, it’s only natural to have this hope. But that doesn’t make it wise.
David Leonhardt is an economics columnist for The Times and a staff writer for the magazine.
Originally publishedSpillonomics - Underestimating Risk - NYTimes.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oil Everywhere on Alabama Beach
Unfortunately, this is just the first signs of a whole new front on the fight against the oil spill along the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coasts - some of the most beautiful beaches anywhere int he world. Time for all to be getting angry on this crisis - but unfortunately, this is a situation with many villains and a real lack of hope at this point. Wait till we see what's going on off-shore to the marine life - can you say species wipe-outs?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
David http://wyl
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v4RqA6Tye65XXhewWib3f-bTI_xZNMbpI0KepDJPI4StuEOeSIKNSuMUiH49lprCr2prINAGuZgcO77hMhi7KBczuMAFmz0jtI1wTGvY2T4ZWa-6UamMbKlu87b8bMkFzMoBxCC7Bpz7rchwxXaOBg=s0-d)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scholars Skeptical Of Incentive Dieting Plans in Companies
Hey, money is the ultimate motivator! I believe this is a very cost-effective way for companies to help improve the health and well-being of their employees - and lower their benefits costs in the process. All companies - all organizations - should seriously consider this incentive program for weight-loss as a great employee benefit.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
David http://wyl
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vQZa-G7mfp99vciZIP-CafIPPXFk9veiAkuqcWNDlICML6I9Q84fTaUHT1IGM-yYDWKwbjFD5Syi2dvSCfiJqAfVnZY_vHiUD-ExsB4VIskuisbPaGlBz7NGcmEx27ZIsHQorWvKv8LbJQKRE98ETk=s0-d)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Woman Sues Google After Directions Led To Car Accident
Proof that distracted walking can be very, very dangerous - put the BlackBerry away when walking down a busy street!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
David http://wyl
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vEk0U13htNDGOOaI8ytcJXhbT2wCCOtMf_7ispo5n-qp3QvWSERHG-BO3e8jUDV4AiA4n_dD9JyTV0OKMTseOsHXYEZcHADaLw4JJY88Xr1im69GeVDq3z21G8zaTk0roeN7XqWnnZe5FObm9Vb-tY=s0-d)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Distracted Driving: Surprising Number of People Get It On While Driving
Unbelievable story from Wired - makes you scared to get out on the road - read:
Surprising Number of People Get It On While Driving | Autopia | Wired.com
Surprising Number of People Get It On While Driving
By Chuck Squatriglia June 1, 2010 | 10:00 am | Categories: Autopia WTF? Dept.
You don’t have to spend any amount of time driving to see people doing really stupid things behind the wheel, but we’re surprised by how many people are having sex while driving.
According to Jabra, which makes phone headsets, 15 percent of people surveyed said they “have performed sex or other sexual acts” while driving. There’s always the possibility people are claiming they’re getting freaky in traffic to sound cool, but the survey found many drivers are doing more than driving while commuting.
Jabra surveyed 1,800 people in six countries and says the study has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percent. People might have monkey-wrenched the online survey, but the findings are in line with some we’ve heard. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls distracted driving “a deadly epidemic” and says seven out 10 people use cellphones and other gadgets while driving. He’s working with automakers to address the issue.
As you’d expect, most of those surveyed — 72 percent — confessed to gobbling McFood or slurping a Frothed Milk Sugar-Laced Coffee-Flavored Beverage while driving. That’s to be expected when you realize most cars come with more cupholders than seats these days.
Another 35 percent said they’ve changed their clothes while driving, a feat we’d find exceedingly difficult because we drive a compact. Nearly one in four people admitted doing their hair and 13 percent said they apply makeup. It never ceases to amaze us when women apply mascara in traffic — putting a sharp object next to your eye while driving is just plain stupid.
Five percent of respondents said they shave behind the wheel. We’re assuming most of those are men, but we know of at least one case where a woman crashed while shaving her bikini line.
In this connected age, 28 percent of people say they text while driving (which is illegal in 26 states) and 12 percent say they read or send e-mail behind the wheel. Of course, just one-third of respondents are using headsets or other hands-free devices while yakking on their cellphones.
Another 10 percent said they read the paper while driving and 5 percent say they’ve played videogames.
“It is truly unbelievable what people are doing while driving,” said Jonas Forsberg of GN Netcom, which owns Jabra. “The results of our survey show that so many people are distracted and doing other things while on the road — even though they know the consequences that can occur. We hope that people will soon understand the implications of these bad behaviors and will change their own behavior accordingly.”
Yeah. Good luck with that.
David
Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/driving-distraction-survey/#ixzz0phpoH200
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jon Stewart Returns And Gloriously Rips BP For Lack Of Progress (VIDEO)
Classic - we were all waiting for Jon Stewart and the "Daily Show" crew to take on BP - and they did not disappoint. Do yourself a favor and close the office door. Then, watch these clips to let-off a little "oil spill stress" - especially if you're here along the Gulf Coast like I am. We need Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to rip BP execs on a daily basis - for all of our sakes!
Watch both below:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Spilling Fields | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Cenac - The Spilling Fields - Oil Leak Containment Ideas | ||||
| ||||
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
David http://wyl
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tyHQcRHwOCWoaG7wOUqvfBgIxLAgFO64z0UbK5QlFRs7Lj-d8hEI291NPkcnt2YH8pucjrWbyZ2VQOERQsibClr3LR8mXG89Ph6PotuYjpM7zJXzBGcS96Hre4dsGInAJZ-JoXpM6DcNav_6AEV-Hx=s0-d)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7 Essential Business Negotiation Tactics
Great article from CIO magazine:
– Constantine von Hoffman, CSO
June 01, 2010
Having trouble winning over that one key person at work? Expert negotiators at the FBI and elsewhere have found active listening to be key in any negotiation. Here are seven keys to active listening. (Also see the companion article Secrets of successful business negotiation" for tips from former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss.)
Adapted from the article "Crisis Intervention: Using Active Listening Skills in Negotiations" by Gary W. Noesner and Mike Webster, published in the 1997 issue of the Law Enforcement Bulletin. Full text available at: www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/crisis_interven2.htm.
Having trouble winning over that one key person at work? Expert negotiators at the FBI and elsewhere have found active listening to be key in any negotiation. Here are seven keys to active listening. (Also see the companion article Secrets of successful business negotiation" for tips from former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss.)
1. Showing Your Interest: Prove you're listening by using body language or brief verbal replies that show interest and concern. Simple phrases such as "yes," "OK" or "I see" effectively show you are paying attention. This encourages the other person to continue talking and relinquish more control of the situation to the negotiator.
2. Paraphrasing: Tell the other person what you heard them say, either quoting them or summarizing what they said.
3. Emotion Labeling: This means attaching a tentative label to the feelings expressed or implied by other person's words and actions. This shows you are paying attention to the emotional aspects of what other person is conveying. When used effectively, emotion labeling is one of the most powerful skills available to negotiators because it helps identify the issues and feelings driving the other person's behavior.
4. Mirroring: Repeating the last words or main idea of other person's message. This indicates interest and understanding. For example, a subject may say, "I'm sick and tired of being pushed around," to which a negotiator can respond, "Feel pushed, huh?" Mirroring can be especially helpful in the early stages of a crisis, as negotiators attempt to establish a nonconfrontational presence, gain initial intelligence and build rapport.
5. Open-Ended Questions: Use open-ended questions instead of "why" questions, which could imply interrogation. If you do most of the talking, you decrease the opportunities to learn about other person.
Effective open-ended questions include, "Can you tell me more about that?" "I didn't understand what you just said; could you help me better understand by explaining that further?" and, "Could you tell me more about what happened to you today?"
6. "I" Messages: Negotiators have to avoid being provoking when they express how they feel about certain things the other person says or does. Using "I" statements lets you ostensibly shed the negotiator role and react to the subject as just another person.
For instance, you might say, "We've been talking for several hours, and I feel frustrated that we haven't been able to come to an agreement." This is also an effective tactic if the other person verbally attacks, because it lets you respond with, "I feel frustrated when you scream at me, because I'm trying to help you."
Remember: Never get pulled into an argument or trade personal attacks with a subject.
7. Effective Pauses: Any good interviewer knows the power of the long, awkward silence. People tend to speak to fill spaces in a conversation. Therefore, you should, on occasion, consciously create a space or void that will encourage the other person to speak and, in the process, provide additional information.
For more negotiation information, check out the Air Force's Negotiation Center of Excellence website at negotiation.au.af.mil.
7 Essential Business Negotiation Tactics
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
– Constantine von Hoffman, CSO
June 01, 2010
Having trouble winning over that one key person at work? Expert negotiators at the FBI and elsewhere have found active listening to be key in any negotiation. Here are seven keys to active listening. (Also see the companion article Secrets of successful business negotiation" for tips from former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss.)
Adapted from the article "Crisis Intervention: Using Active Listening Skills in Negotiations" by Gary W. Noesner and Mike Webster, published in the 1997 issue of the Law Enforcement Bulletin. Full text available at: www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/crisis_interven2.htm.
Having trouble winning over that one key person at work? Expert negotiators at the FBI and elsewhere have found active listening to be key in any negotiation. Here are seven keys to active listening. (Also see the companion article Secrets of successful business negotiation" for tips from former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss.)
1. Showing Your Interest: Prove you're listening by using body language or brief verbal replies that show interest and concern. Simple phrases such as "yes," "OK" or "I see" effectively show you are paying attention. This encourages the other person to continue talking and relinquish more control of the situation to the negotiator.
2. Paraphrasing: Tell the other person what you heard them say, either quoting them or summarizing what they said.
3. Emotion Labeling: This means attaching a tentative label to the feelings expressed or implied by other person's words and actions. This shows you are paying attention to the emotional aspects of what other person is conveying. When used effectively, emotion labeling is one of the most powerful skills available to negotiators because it helps identify the issues and feelings driving the other person's behavior.
4. Mirroring: Repeating the last words or main idea of other person's message. This indicates interest and understanding. For example, a subject may say, "I'm sick and tired of being pushed around," to which a negotiator can respond, "Feel pushed, huh?" Mirroring can be especially helpful in the early stages of a crisis, as negotiators attempt to establish a nonconfrontational presence, gain initial intelligence and build rapport.
5. Open-Ended Questions: Use open-ended questions instead of "why" questions, which could imply interrogation. If you do most of the talking, you decrease the opportunities to learn about other person.
Effective open-ended questions include, "Can you tell me more about that?" "I didn't understand what you just said; could you help me better understand by explaining that further?" and, "Could you tell me more about what happened to you today?"
6. "I" Messages: Negotiators have to avoid being provoking when they express how they feel about certain things the other person says or does. Using "I" statements lets you ostensibly shed the negotiator role and react to the subject as just another person.
For instance, you might say, "We've been talking for several hours, and I feel frustrated that we haven't been able to come to an agreement." This is also an effective tactic if the other person verbally attacks, because it lets you respond with, "I feel frustrated when you scream at me, because I'm trying to help you."
Remember: Never get pulled into an argument or trade personal attacks with a subject.
7. Effective Pauses: Any good interviewer knows the power of the long, awkward silence. People tend to speak to fill spaces in a conversation. Therefore, you should, on occasion, consciously create a space or void that will encourage the other person to speak and, in the process, provide additional information.
For more negotiation information, check out the Air Force's Negotiation Center of Excellence website at negotiation.au.af.mil.
7 Essential Business Negotiation Tactics
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do your colleagues look better on Mondays?
Interesting take from the U.K., but likely true in the U.S. as well - read and let me know what you think - David
(Reuters Life!) - British women take four times as long to get ready for work on Mondays than on Fridays, while men also put less effort into their appearance as the week goes on, according to research by retail chain Debenhams.
LIFESTYLE
On average, women spend 76 minutes getting ready on Mondays -- with almost a third of that spent on their hair -- 18 minutes on make-up, 16 minutes trying on different combinations of clothes and the rest taken up by showering and washing.
This is reduced to 40 minutes on Tuesdays and continues to decline as the week goes on, falling to 19 minutes on Fridays.
"Make the most of looking at your work colleagues on a Monday morning, because that's as good as they're going to get," said Debenhams spokesman Ed Watson.
But it is not just women who put more effort into making a good impression on work colleagues at the start of the week.
Men too let their standards suffer with each passing day, the survey of 1,000 customers by Debenhams' personal shopper network found. They take 28 minutes on Monday, half that on Tuesday and 11 for the rest of the week.
"It's clear that most men can only pay attention to their appearance for a maximum of two days before opting for an acceptable level of dishevelment," said Watson.
"Women try to keep their dress standards higher for longer, but by the time Friday comes, they too have gone down a line of least resistance."
(Reporting by Kylie MacLellan; Editing by Steve Addison)
Do your colleagues look better on Mondays? | Reuters
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Reuters Life!) - British women take four times as long to get ready for work on Mondays than on Fridays, while men also put less effort into their appearance as the week goes on, according to research by retail chain Debenhams.
LIFESTYLE
On average, women spend 76 minutes getting ready on Mondays -- with almost a third of that spent on their hair -- 18 minutes on make-up, 16 minutes trying on different combinations of clothes and the rest taken up by showering and washing.
This is reduced to 40 minutes on Tuesdays and continues to decline as the week goes on, falling to 19 minutes on Fridays.
"Make the most of looking at your work colleagues on a Monday morning, because that's as good as they're going to get," said Debenhams spokesman Ed Watson.
But it is not just women who put more effort into making a good impression on work colleagues at the start of the week.
Men too let their standards suffer with each passing day, the survey of 1,000 customers by Debenhams' personal shopper network found. They take 28 minutes on Monday, half that on Tuesday and 11 for the rest of the week.
"It's clear that most men can only pay attention to their appearance for a maximum of two days before opting for an acceptable level of dishevelment," said Watson.
"Women try to keep their dress standards higher for longer, but by the time Friday comes, they too have gone down a line of least resistance."
(Reporting by Kylie MacLellan; Editing by Steve Addison)
Do your colleagues look better on Mondays? | Reuters
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)