Spending $114 (or less) on these six items is the smartest investment you every make

Selling inexpensive, but long-lasting household items has to be a scam, right?

Consider this: Based on my research (looking for the normal sales price on Amazon), you can spend $114 and buy six essential household items that you never need to replace.

Invest $114 in 2022 dollars and you're done. Forever. There must be a trick to this, right? If so, I can't figure it out. How do companies make money when they sell items cheaply and we never need to replace them?

I'll share the six items and when your read each, think about when you last purchased one. Odds are, you've had the item for years and won't need a replacement for years. Maybe forever.

The sensational six:

1. Ironing board ($30). An amazing feat of engineering, this folds up and slips beside your chest of drawers or beside your coats in the hall closet or something else. Once you buy an ironing board, you're set for life (to prove this point, think about the ironing board in your childhood home. It's no different than what you have now). Do ironing board manufacturers sell these so they can sell you irons? Maybe that explains it.

2. Clothes hamper ($25). Not a laundry basket, which suffices for many of us. This goes in a bedroom corner or in the closet. Maybe it's made of wicker or plastic or metal. But it lasts a long, long, long time. Do clothes hamper manufacturers make their money off college kids who destroy these? Maybe that's the profit.

3. Kitchen trash can ($30). This price seemed high to me, but maybe that's because we have a cheap version. Whether it's the kind with the pedal that opens the lid or if it fits in a cupboard (correct location for that option: under the sink, right side), the kitchen trash can lasts forever. We had a hideous yellow plastic version my whole childhood. They last forever and are cheap.

4. Plunger ($18). You probably bought your first plunger after the first experience of learning you needed one. Once you have one, there's (hopefully) no need for a replacement – plungers last forever. They're the CPR of household necessities: rarely used, always valuable. And also unclear how the plunger industry makes a lot of money.

5. Dustpan ($10). A $10 dustpan is likely an elite dustpan, since even one that costs $5 lasts forever. Brooms may break or fray, but the old, reliable dustpan only needs to be replaced when you lose it – and how would you lose a dustpan? Of course, you could go for the Cadillac of dustpans – the kind school janitors have, where the handle stands up and you don't have to bend over to use it. Go ahead, moneybags. The rest of us will use this long-lasting, low-priced dustpan.

6. Flyswatter ($1). How many flyswatters were in your childhood home? One. It probably had a tear in the plastic, but who cared? The job is to kill flies and that doesn't require a perfect swatting surface, just enough to get it done. This $1 investment lasts a lifetime.

All of those items have been in your house for a long time and you won't need to buy replacements this year or next year. That $114 is the best investment you'll ever make.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Are you part of the 10% of insane people who want the T-rex to return?

At least 10% of Americans have apparently never watched a science fiction movie.

That's the only rational explanation for the fact that one-tenth of our population supports the idea of scientists bringing back the tyrannosaurus rex.

Seriously. This was from a survey conducted by YouGov, which asked respondents a series of questions about extinct animals and whether those animals should be brought back.

One out of 10 respondents said the T-rex should come back. One-tenth!

Think of a group of 20 people you know, friends and family. Based on this study, two of them – two! – think we should bring back the T-Rex. And by that, they mean the dinosaur, not T. Rex, the band that sang "Get it on (Bang a Gong)."

Although frankly, either idea is bad. The founder of T. Rex died in a car wreck in 1977.

Anyway, the survey asked a series of questions:

• Should scientists try to prevent animals from going extinct? (Most say yes.)
• Should scientists bring back extinct animals? (Most are squeamish about it.)
• Should scientists bring back specific extinct animals?

To the last question, interviewees were presented with options, and the answers varied. This isn't necessarily a moral question, it's a strategic question: Which animals would be good to bring back?

The most popular animal to bring back was the giant tortoise (supported by 50% of respondents), followed by the passenger pigeon and the northern white rhino (44% support for each).

OK. This kind of makes sense. We like those animals – or at least think they're worth saving. The world would be better with them, presumably.

Then came the less-desired-to-be-returned animals. The wooly mammoth. The saber-tooth tiger. Neither were very popular (return supported by 24% and 20% of respondents, which seems high).

Then came the dinosaurs: 12% of people said they'd support the return of the triceratops. Eleven percent said they'd be OK if scientists brought back the pterodactyl. And the aforementioned 10% who thought it would be cool if the T-rex returned.

A weird thing is that only 70% of people think it's a bad idea to bring back those animals to their original habitats, which means about 20% of us (again, that would be an additional four out of your group of 20 friends) don't have an opinion. ON WHETHER WE SHOULD BRING BACK THE T-REX.

What?

Have they not seen Jurassic Park? Or The Lost World Jurassic Park? Or Jurassic Park 3? Or Jurassic World? Or Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom?

This is a baffling result. I guess some people think the world should be returned to whatever stage they think was the right era. It's kind of like people who want the world to be like it was when they were a kid, ignoring all the problems that existed in their childhood world. (In my childhood world, for instance, there was no internet and no cupholders in cars.)

Here's what I know: If scientists can bring back extinct animals including dinosaurs, it's there's a 100% chance that some rogue scientists will do so. Then we'll have a runaway T-rex (or a pack of them) causing havoc – knocking over garbage cans, trampling golf courses and eating all the apples off your trees. Oh, and killing people and reasserting their position as the apex predators in the world.

If that happens, the 10% of people who think this is a good idea (and maybe the 20% who are undecided) we fight off the inevitable T-rex invasion.

I'll be on an island with all the other people, living in peace with a group of giant tortoises.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Remote office work is here to stay and the implications are largely positive

Hybrid working schedules are here for good. I know, because I drive a hybrid to my office every day.

Get it? MY CAR IS A TOYOTA PRIUS. A HYBRID CAR!

Anyway, I've been back at my office for nearly a year, but that scenario is far from universal. In fact, a recent Gallup poll of nearly 12,000 U.S. employees in remote-capable jobs showed that nearly 40% are working either partly or entirely from home.  Nearly half!

To emphasize the obvious, many jobs can't be done remotely. You can't be a restaurant server from home. You can't be a bus driver or a police officer or professional mime (unfortunately). So the Gallup survey was of those who can work remotely.

While 40% of remote-potential workers work at least partially remotely, a full 70% of all such workers say would prefer that scenario (which suggests that about 30% of them – the gap between those who do work remotely and those who wish they could – are looking for another job).

As hybrid work becomes more common, a late-March Gallup article highlighted four important dynamics of hybrid work, including some things that we used to think were untrue.

The first principle is counterintuitive (at least to companies that have long refused to allow remote work): Folks who work remotely (or who mix on-site and remote work) are more engaged and less likely to experience burnout. Counter to what employers have long said, providing flexible working arrangements makes people feel more connected and makes the job better.

A downside of remote work from the Gallup study and article is that remote work results in a decrease in feedback from the manager. That makes sense in a way because being out of sight (and away from the site) can put someone out of mind. And you don't get the kind of accidental feedback that sometimes happen when there's zero chance you'll walk by your boss's office or meet her while getting coffee.

Maybe the most affirming conclusion of the Gallup report is that despite what management presumed for years, people are actually more productive working remotely than while at the office. This runs counter to the longstanding management theory that employees will only work when they're being watched. Which is insulting and clearly wrong (since we can't be watched all the time anyway).

The final conclusion from Gallup is an argument against remote work. The ability to build and perpetuate workplace culture is much easier to do when there is shared time. That, of course, presumes the workplace culture is positive. The survey didn't address whether some negative workplaces might improve morale by decreasing exposure to "culture."

The Gallup poll and follow-up article ultimately addressed what's becoming obvious: Some version of remote or hybrid work is here for good. The future involves many or most office workers doing their jobs from home.

More than two years after the pandemic started and more than a year after most people were vaccinated, it's clear that there is a permanent change.

Take it from someone who works in a 10-story building that used to have hundreds of people in it and now has a few dozen: Hybrid work is here to stay.

Trust me, I know: As I wrote earlier, I drive a hybrid to work every day.

Get it?

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Most important current Bay Area sports figures

It's easy to determine the most important current Bay Area sports figure.

But who's second and third? Who's fifth and 10th? Glad you asked. Following is the latest ratings of sports figures for major Bay Area professional teams.

It's sports figures, not just athletes: Announcers are eligible, as are coaches and managers. Heck, a mascot could make it someday (hint: Not this day).

This list obviously changes over time. For instance, six of the 10 figures on my 2018 list are now gone: one (Buster Posey) retired, two (Derek Carr and Jon Gruden) left for Las Vegas and three (Joe Thornton, Madison Bumgarner, Kevin Durant) departed as free agents. Another member of the 2018 list (Jimmy Garropolo) is about to be traded.

And away we go . . .

10. Tomas Hertl, Sharks. I had to pick at least one NHL player and he's the best in San Jose. For years, Joe Thornton was the most beloved Sharks player, but now it's Hertl, who just finished his ninth season and is just 28.

9. Trey Lance, 49ers. The best bet on this list to make a big leap in the next year. The 49ers quarterback: the glamour position on the area's glamour team.

8. Ken Korach, A's. It would be nice to pick an Oakland player, but ownership is bent on trading off everyone who can get anything in return. Korach has been the radio voice of the team since 1996 and is quietly as good (or better) at radio play-by-play as Jon Miller or Dave Flemming of the Giants.

7. Nick Bosa, 49ers. A freakishly great defensive end who (if he stays healthy) will be one of the NFL's top players for the next several years. One of the greatest defensive linemen in team history.

6. Draymond Green, Warriors. The Warriors have been led by Green, Klay Thompson and Steph Curry for 10 seasons. For perspective, only six NBA players have spent the last 10 seasons with the same team, meaning that group makes up half of that list. Green is the heartbeat and the NBA's best defensive player.

5. Brandon Crawford, Giants. Grew up in Pleasanton, joined the Giants in 2011, played on two World Series champions and was the best player on last year's 107-win team. Quietly a Giants legend.

4. Klay Thompson, Warriors. He spent more than 900 days off the court with two major leg injuries and somehow became even more popular. Like Curry and Green, fans feel like they've seen him grow up.

3. George Kittle, 49ers. This could have been Deebo Samuels' spot had he not gotten into a baffling contract squabble with the Niners this offseason that end with him being traded. Kittle is an aggressive, athletic, one-of-a-kind tight end who thrills fans with his skills. And joy.

2. Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow, Giants. The beloved Giants TV broadcasters have been a pairing since the early 1990s and the tragedy in recent years (illness for Krukow, cancer for Kuiper, followed by Kuiper's wife's death last winter) has made them even more treasured. Maybe the most beloved local sportscasters in America.

1. Stephen Curry, Warriors. The greatest-ever Bay Area basketball player, a modern-day version of Willie Mays (had Mays started his career in San Francisco). Arguably the most popular NBA player, he's the top Bay Area sports figure by the same margin by which he'll ultimately hold the NBA 3-pointer record: It's not even close.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

 

Fifty years ago, we began America's middle-school decade

Decades have an image in our collective memory.

The 1960s were about social change.

The 1980s featured yuppies, the end of the Cold War and cocaine.

The 1990s saw the rise of grunge, growing wealth and the emergence of the internet.

The 2000s were about hip-hop music, 9/11 and the Great Recession.

The 2010s highlighted social media's explosion, political division and the Giants and Warriors each winning three championships (maybe that's just me).

The 1970s? They were America's middle school years – particularly the decade from 1972 to 1981 (from Watergate to Ronald Reagan becoming president).

Stay with me, especially if you have fond memories of that era. I do.

Fifty years ago we began the middle school decade of American history.

Think of middle school. It's when kids are most awkward. Photos from sixth, seventh and eighth grades are put away, often forever. In middle school, we try to fit in but don't know how. We know what and who is cool, but can't figure out why.

In middle school, we're awkward and uncomfortable and wish we could just hit a fast-forward button.

Just like the 1970s. Don't just think of Watergate and disco and runaway inflation (although those fit this narrative).

The styles were also awful. Wild, unkempt hair. Sloppy clothes. Caught between the 1960s (traditional or hippy) and the 1980s (preppy or cool street clothes). It was an embarrassing time, the middle school of style.

Cars were awkward. Sedans (including the Ford Pinto and AMC Pacer!) and small trucks (the Chevy Luv! Pickups made by Datsun and Toyota!). Heck, in the late 1970s, the Ford Mustang looked like something a middle-aged businessman would drive to work, not a sports car. That decade was the middle school era of cars.

Watch video from that era, particularly news reports that show how everyday people looked and acted: They looked terrible. Tired. Sad.

Part of the reason for the visual awkwardness of 1972-1981 was the quality of the videotape used. By the 1970s, videotape replaced film for news footage and for many TV shows, meaning this era was preserved with fading, poor video. Compare the quality of the video on "I Love Lucy" or "Leave it to Beaver" with "Happy Days" or "Laverne and Shirley." The latter shows look old and tired because they were shot on videotape (also true: They were old and tired shows).

Likewise, video of Jimmy Carter or the coverage of the Three Mile Island disaster looks older and more tired than coverage of Civil Rights marches and the Vietnam War a decade earlier.

It's as if those filming knew it was middle school and history would spend time looking at childhood (the 1960s and before) and adulthood (the 1980s and later).

I loved the 1970s. I'm embarrassed by the 1970s.

We're supposed to reflect on our younger years with nostalgia and warmth, but as someone who wore a leisure suit, drove a Volkswagen Rabbit and watched "Happy Days," I also acknowledge the truth: Those were the middle school days.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.