Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 15 – Saturday, May 24, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

Congress Passes Tax Cut for Wealthy Over Truman Veto While Assuring Working Americans This Benefits Them Somehow

WASHINGTON, DC – In a display of bipartisan unity that occurs primarily when reducing taxes for the wealthy, Congress this week overrode President Truman’s veto of Republican tax legislation that will provide substantial relief to high earners while offering modest benefits to working families, all while being sold as economic stimulus that will somehow “trickle down” to everyone despite no historical evidence that this actually happens.

The Revenue Act of 1947, as supporters call it, reduces income tax rates across the board with the largest percentage cuts going to those earning over $300,000 annually – a demographic that apparently needs government assistance more urgently than returning veterans, struggling families, or anyone earning average wages who might benefit from the government spending that these tax cuts will eliminate.

“This will stimulate the economy,” explained Senator Robert Taft while describing how giving wealthy Americans more money to invest will theoretically create jobs for everyone else, operating under the economic theory that rich people create employment out of generosity rather than necessity, and that they’ll definitely hire more workers with their tax savings rather than simply keeping the money.

President Truman vetoed the bill, arguing it provides “the wrong kind of tax reduction to the wrong people at the wrong time,” which translated from political language means “this primarily benefits wealthy people while pretending to help everyone.” Congress overrode his veto with votes from Republicans and Southern Democrats who apparently agree that reducing revenue during peacetime when the nation has substantial debt makes perfect fiscal sense if it benefits their donors.

The Department of Treasury projects the cuts will reduce revenue by $4 billion annually, money that will not be available for veterans programs, infrastructure, education, or other government services that primarily benefit people who aren’t wealthy enough to benefit significantly from tax cuts.

“Every American will benefit,” insisted Representative Harold Knutson while explaining legislation that benefits some Americans substantially and others barely at all, using math that makes sense only if you don’t examine the actual numbers.

The benefits breakdown reveals interesting pattern:

• Families earning under $2,000 annually: $5 tax reduction
• Families earning $5,000 annually: $75 reduction
• Families earning $50,000 annually: $5,000 reduction
• Families earning $500,000 annually: $65,000 reduction

This distribution is described as “fair” by people earning over $50,000 annually and “suspiciously skewed toward wealthy” by people capable of basic arithmetic.

Supporters argue that wealthy individuals and corporations create jobs, so reducing their taxes enables job creation. This reasoning ignores that corporations are currently profitable and could create jobs now but choose not to, suggesting that profitability rather than tax policy drives hiring decisions, making tax cuts unlikely to change employment patterns.

“If we cut taxes on the wealthy, they’ll invest in businesses,” proponents claim, as if wealthy Americans are currently unable to invest due to excessive taxation rather than simply choosing not to invest because current investments are sufficiently profitable without expanding.

Critics note that similar tax reduction arguments preceded the Great Depression, when reduced government revenue and increased wealth concentration created economic instability that harmed everyone except wealthy individuals who benefited from tax cuts before the crash. Supporters dismiss this as irrelevant history that definitely won’t repeat itself this time because reasons.

The legislation also reduces estate taxes, ensuring that wealthy families can pass fortunes to heirs with minimal taxation, which supporters describe as “preventing double taxation” and critics describe as “creating hereditary aristocracy where wealth concentrates across generations without redistribution through taxation that funds public goods benefiting everyone.”

“We’re not creating aristocracy,” defenders protest while creating policies that allow wealthy families to accumulate and transfer wealth indefinitely without taxation breaking up large fortunes, which is essentially how aristocracies work.

Working families will receive modest tax reductions that might pay for groceries for a week or two, while wealthy families will receive reductions sufficient to purchase automobiles, houses, or small businesses. Both groups will be told they benefited equally from “tax relief” despite receiving wildly different absolute benefits.

The override required Democratic support, which Southern Democrats provided, demonstrating that reducing taxes for wealthy donors represents one of few issues that transcends regional and ideological differences. Helping poor people requires extensive debate about costs and moral hazard. Helping wealthy people proceeds smoothly with bipartisan cooperation.

President Truman’s veto message noted that tax cuts during inflation risk worsening price increases by reducing government revenue while increasing private spending. Congress apparently believes inflation is less important than tax reduction, or perhaps believes that inflation only affects working families whose wages don’t keep pace with prices while wealthy families are insulated by their wealth.

“This is about economic growth,” supporters maintain while passing legislation that primarily benefits people who already have substantial wealth, suggesting their definition of “economic growth” focuses on growing existing fortunes rather than expanding opportunities for those without fortunes.

As of press time, wealthy Americans were celebrating tax cuts that will save them tens of thousands of dollars annually while working Americans were receiving modest reductions and assurances that benefits to the wealthy will somehow translate to benefits for everyone else through economic mechanisms that exist primarily in theory rather than observed reality.

Man’s “I’m Almost Ready” Means “Haven’t Started Getting Ready, Might Never Start”

BALTIMORE, MD – Following his wife’s inquiry about whether he’s ready to leave for dinner reservations in fifteen minutes, area resident Harold Finchley declared he’s “almost ready” despite currently sitting in his armchair wearing pajamas and house slippers, having made zero preparation for departure beyond acknowledging that departure will eventually need to occur.

“Almost ready,” Finchley announced at 6:45 PM when asked about readiness for 7:00 PM reservation.

His wife Dorothy surveyed the scene: Harold in sleeping attire, newspaper in hand, coffee cup on table, radio playing, no evidence whatsoever of preparation activity. “You’re not even dressed,” she noted with the observation skills of someone who can see.

“I just need a few minutes,” Harold replied, apparently believing that dressing, grooming, and leaving house constitute activities requiring “a few minutes” rather than the fifteen to twenty minutes they actually require, meaning they’re already going to be late to reservation he hasn’t begun preparing for.

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Preparatory Time Estimation Failure” where men believe getting ready requires minimal time despite consistent evidence that they require extensive time, creating situations where “almost ready” means “will begin getting ready eventually” rather than “nearly completed preparations.”

“When he says ‘almost ready,’ he means he’s almost ready to start thinking about getting ready,” explained Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing timeline of Harold’s preparation process. “In his mind, intending to get ready soon counts as being almost ready. The actual physical preparation hasn’t begun and won’t begin for several more minutes, but the mental preparation is almost complete, so he reports being almost ready.”

This interpretation – where planning to do something equals almost doing it – explains why Harold believes he’s almost ready despite being completely unready by any objective measure.

Dorothy’s questioning revealed Harold’s actual readiness status:

“Are you dressed?” – No, still in pajamas

“Have you showered?” – Planning to after finishing coffee

“Do you know what you’re wearing?” – Haven’t thought about it

“Have you shaved?” – Considering whether shaving is necessary

“Are your shoes by the door?” – Don’t know where shoes are

“Are car keys located?” – Assume they’re somewhere

“Is wallet in pocket?” – Not wearing pants with pockets yet

Total readiness: 0% Self-reported readiness: “Almost ready” Time until departure: 14 minutes Time required for actual readiness: 25 minutes minimum

“So you’re not almost ready,” Dorothy clarified. “You’re completely unready and need to start getting ready immediately if we’re going to be only moderately late instead of extremely late.”

“That’s what I said,” Harold protested. “I’m almost ready. I just need a few minutes.”

Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that men genuinely believe they can accomplish preparation activities faster than physically possible, creating optimistic time estimates that never align with reality. “He thinks getting ready takes five minutes,” Dr. Pemberton explained. “It takes twenty minutes. This gap between estimated and actual time exists every single time he gets ready, yet he never adjusts his estimates based on consistent historical data.”

Harold’s actual preparation timeline, according to historical records:

6:45 PM – Declares he’s almost ready 6:50 PM – Still sitting, hasn’t moved 6:55 PM – Begins contemplating standing up 7:00 PM – Actual preparation begins (reservation time) 7:05 PM – In shower 7:15 PM – Out of shower, searching for clothes 7:20 PM – Dressed, can’t find shoes 7:25 PM – Located shoes, searching for keys 7:28 PM – Ready to leave (28 minutes late for reservation)

His timeline: “I said I needed a few minutes. I was ready in a few minutes.”

Reality: He needed 43 minutes from “almost ready” declaration to actual readiness, making the restaurant wait and probably losing their table.

“Why did you say you were almost ready when you hadn’t started getting ready?” Dorothy asked while they drove to restaurant that no longer had their table.

“I was almost ready to start getting ready,” Harold explained with logic that makes sense only to men who believe that proximity to beginning a task counts as progress toward completing it.

Marriage counselor Dr. Reginald Crumpet notes this represents chronic communication failure where husbands report aspirational readiness rather than actual readiness. “He’s not lying intentionally,” Dr. Crumpet explained. “He genuinely believes that being 15 minutes from readiness counts as ‘almost ready’ because he hasn’t internalized that those 15 minutes matter when you need to leave now.”

Dorothy reports that Harold declares himself “almost ready” an average of twenty minutes before achieving actual readiness, making “almost ready” a reliable predictor that they’ll be late to wherever they’re going.

“I’ve learned to add thirty minutes to whatever he says,” Dorothy explained while describing her coping strategy. “If he says five minutes, I know it’s thirty-five minutes. If he says he’s almost ready, I know we’re not leaving for half an hour. The words are just sounds he makes. They don’t correspond to reality.”

Some wives have attempted to force accurate time reporting by refusing to accept “almost ready” as answer. “Tell me when you’re actually ready,” they demand. Their husbands then report being “ready” while still requiring ten more minutes of preparation, suggesting the problem extends beyond “almost ready” to fundamental inability to assess or report readiness accurately.

As of press time, Harold was declaring himself “almost ready” for bed despite still being fully dressed, sitting downstairs, watching television, showing no signs of actual bedtime preparation, suggesting that “almost ready” represents permanent state of near-readiness that never quite reaches actual readiness but feels close enough to report as accomplished.

Local Woman’s “Hint” About Anniversary Gift Goes Completely Unnoticed Despite Being Incredibly Obvious

DETROIT, MI – Following three weeks of increasingly direct “hints” about her upcoming anniversary gift preferences, area resident Dorothy Whitmore has concluded that her husband Theodore is either completely oblivious to obvious communication or is deliberately pretending not to understand hints that everyone except him recognizes as clear statements about desired gifts.

“I saw a beautiful necklace at Jacobson’s,” Dorothy mentioned while flipping through a magazine showing photograph of that exact necklace, pointing at it, and saying “This one would be perfect for our anniversary.”

“That’s nice,” Theodore replied while continuing to read his newspaper, apparently interpreting his wife’s statement as random observation about jewelry rather than explicit instruction about what she wants him to purchase.

“The anniversary is next week,” Dorothy added, in case Theodore missed the connection between mentioning jewelry and upcoming gift-giving occasion.

“I know,” Theodore responded, suggesting awareness of anniversary while demonstrating zero awareness that he’s being told what gift to buy.

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Male Hint Imperviousness” where wives provide increasingly obvious suggestions about desired gifts while husbands remain mysteriously unable to interpret these suggestions as anything other than casual conversation about random topics.

“She’s been hinting for three weeks,” explained marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing transcripts of Dorothy’s attempts at communication. “She’s mentioned the necklace seventeen times. She’s shown him pictures. She’s visited the store three times and mentioned these visits. She’s left the magazine open to the page with the necklace. She’s circled the store’s phone number. Short of purchasing the necklace herself and asking him to wrap it, I don’t know what else she could do.”

Theodore maintains he had “no idea” what Dorothy wanted for their anniversary, despite her spending three weeks providing information that researchers describe as “maximally obvious” and “just barely short of skywriting.”

“How was I supposed to know she wanted that necklace?” Theodore asked with genuine confusion.

“She told you seventeen times,” Dr. Hargrove noted.

“She never said ‘I want that necklace for our anniversary,'” Theodore protested, apparently requiring literal explicit statements rather than the completely obvious hints that constitute standard female communication about gift preferences.

“Women don’t want to have to explicitly tell you what gifts to buy,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “They want you to listen to their hints and deduce their preferences, demonstrating that you pay attention and care about what they want. Requiring explicit instructions defeats the romantic gesture of gift-giving.”

“That’s ridiculous,” Theodore replied. “If she wants something, she should just tell me directly instead of expecting me to read her mind.”

“She did tell you directly,” Dr. Hargrove corrected. “Seventeen times. You just don’t consider it direct unless she uses words like ‘Theodore, purchase this specific necklace at this specific store for our anniversary.’ Anything less direct than a legal contract apparently counts as unclear communication.”

Dorothy’s “hints” have included:

Week One:

• Mentioning necklace casually (3 times)
• Showing picture in magazine (2 times)
• Discussing how pretty it is (4 times)

Week Two:

• Visiting store, mentioning visit (3 times)
• Leaving magazine open to necklace page (daily)
• Commenting on anniversary approaching (5 times)

Week Three:

• Direct statement: “That necklace would be perfect for our anniversary”
• Showing picture again with explicit anniversary connection
• Visiting store again, mentioning it’s at Jacobson’s specifically
• Leaving store phone number visible on counter

Theodore’s interpretation of all this: “She likes necklaces generally, I guess?”

Dr. Theodore Pemberton, who studies marital communication, notes that husbands and wives operate under different communication frameworks. “She believes hints are efficient communication that demonstrates his attentiveness,” Dr. Pemberton explained. “He believes hints are inefficient communication that creates confusion and shouldn’t be used. Neither will change their approach, so they’re destined to repeat this cycle every gift-giving occasion.”

“I’m not a mind reader,” Theodore protested when his wife expressed frustration about his failure to recognize her obvious hints.

“You don’t need to read minds when someone shows you pictures, names the store, and explicitly connects the item to the occasion,” Dorothy replied with the exasperation of someone who has provided every piece of information except purchasing the gift herself.

“Then why didn’t you just say ‘Buy me this necklace’?” Theodore asked.

“Because then it’s not a gift, it’s an errand,” Dorothy explained. “A gift should show you thought about what I’d like. Hinting lets you demonstrate that thought. Just telling you what to buy removes the thoughtfulness.”

“So you want me to guess what you want based on vague hints?” Theodore asked.

“They’re not vague. They’re incredibly specific,” Dorothy corrected. “I’ve told you the item, the store, the occasion, and why I want it. You’re just not listening.”

This impasse – where Dorothy believes she’s communicated clearly and Theodore believes he received no usable information – represents what marriage counselors call “the eternal anniversary gift problem” that has ruined countless gift-giving occasions throughout history.

As of press time, the anniversary was in three days, Theodore had no gift plans because he “didn’t know what to get,” Dorothy had essentially purchased her own gift through comprehensive hinting, and both were maintaining their positions that the other person was responsible for the communication failure rather than examining whether their own communication style might require adjustment.

Groundbreaking Study Reveals Everyone’s Terrible Handwriting Looks Perfect to Themselves

BOSTON, MA – After analyzing handwriting samples from 10,000 subjects and asking them to rate their own writing legibility, the Institute for Written Communication has confirmed that approximately 94% of people believe their handwriting is clear and readable despite evidence suggesting their writing resembles ancient hieroglyphics created during earthquakes.

“I have very neat handwriting,” test subject Walter Grimsby insisted while producing writing sample that researchers described as “possibly letters, possibly abstract art, definitely illegible to anyone including the person who wrote it.”

When asked to read back what he’d written, Grimsby squinted at his own writing for thirty seconds before admitting “it says… something. I wrote it, so I must know what it says.” He did not know what it said.

The Library of Congress has documented what curators call “Handwriting Self-Delusion” where people remain convinced their writing is legible despite overwhelming evidence from everyone who attempts to read it that their handwriting constitutes cryptographic challenge requiring professional code-breakers.

“We asked subjects to rate their handwriting on a scale of one to ten,” reported lead researcher Dr. Millicent Hargrove while displaying writing samples that looked like spiders had crawled across paper while dying. “Average self-rating: 7.3. Average rating by independent observers: 2.1. The gap between perception and reality is remarkable.”

Test subjects consistently overestimated their handwriting legibility by approximately 500%, believing their writing was clear when observers described it as “technically writing but practically unreadable” and “I’m sure this says something but I have no idea what.”

“My handwriting is perfectly fine,” insisted Mrs. Dorothy Pemberton while reviewing her writing sample that looked like someone had written words, then immediately smudged them, then written different words on top, then given up.

“Can you read this?” researchers asked, pointing to her own writing from ten minutes earlier.

“Of course,” Dorothy replied. “It says…” She squinted. “It says… well, I know what I meant to write.” What she meant to write and what was actually written appeared to be entirely different things.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that handwriting self-perception operates independently from handwriting reality. “You know what you intended to write,” he noted. “So when you look at your writing, your brain fills in the gaps between illegible scrawl and intended words. You see legible text because you’re reading your intent rather than the actual letters. Everyone else sees scrambled nonsense.”

The study found that handwriting quality correlates inversely with confidence about handwriting quality. People with beautiful penmanship often worry it’s not clear enough. People whose writing could charitably be described as “alphabetical suggestions” remain certain their writing is perfectly legible.

“I’ve never had anyone complain about my handwriting,” subjects insisted despite researchers finding extensive evidence that everyone who encounters their writing struggles to read it but remains too polite to say so directly.

Particularly troubling were medical professionals whose prescription writing appeared designed to prevent anyone from filling prescriptions correctly. Pharmacists report spending significant time attempting to decode doctor handwriting that doctors insist is “perfectly clear.”

“I write very clearly,” insisted test subject Dr. Harold Finchley while producing prescription that could say “aspirin” or “arsenic” or possibly “arrange” – nobody could determine which, making it somewhat concerning that patients rely on accurate reading of these prescriptions.

Cursive writing proved especially problematic, with writers certain their flowing script was elegant and readable while observers described it as “decorative loops that might contain letters” and “beautiful but unintelligible.”

“Cursive should be taught in schools,” subjects argued while producing cursive writing that demonstrated why schools are reconsidering this position.

Print writing fared only slightly better, with subjects creating letters that were technically alphabetical but arranged in ways that required extensive interpretation to decode. “That’s clearly a ‘K,'” writers insisted while pointing to what observers identified as “possibly a broken ‘H’ or maybe a sideways ‘T.'”

The study examined whether people could read their own old handwriting. Results showed that writing becomes progressively more illegible as time passes, with subjects unable to read their own notes from months or years earlier.

“I definitely wrote this,” test subjects confirmed while staring at their own handwriting with confusion. “I have no idea what it says.”

This suggests that handwriting legibility depends partially on immediate memory of what was written rather than actual clarity of writing, making all handwriting eventually illegible even to its creator.

Some subjects attempted to defend their handwriting by noting that “people who know my writing can read it,” which is like saying “people who know my accent can understand me” – technically true but doesn’t address fundamental legibility issues.

“My wife can read my handwriting,” married subjects claimed.

Investigation revealed wives could not actually read husbands’ handwriting but had learned to ask “What does this say?” rather than attempting to decode it themselves, creating illusion that writing was readable when actually it just prompted verbal clarification.

As of press time, millions of people were continuing to write illegibly while maintaining firm belief that their handwriting was clear, creating notes that nobody including themselves could read, leaving messages that required follow-up phone calls to decode, and generally producing written communication that fails at its primary function of communicating through writing.

Man’s “I Know a Shortcut” Adds 45 Minutes to Journey

PHILADELPHIA, PA – What began as a simple twenty-minute drive to visit relatives became a ninety-minute ordeal yesterday when area resident Ernest Potts confidently announced he “knew a shortcut” that would save time, then proceeded to become lost, take multiple wrong turns, refuse to ask for directions, and insist repeatedly that they were “definitely going the right way” while traveling in completely wrong direction.

“I know a shortcut,” Potts declared at 2:00 PM while approaching the turnoff for the highway route that would have taken them directly to their destination in twenty minutes.

“The highway is that way,” his wife Dorothy noted while pointing at the exit they were passing.

“This way is faster,” Potts insisted while turning onto side road that looked nothing like a main route and appeared to lead away from rather than toward their destination.

It is now 3:30 PM. They arrived at their destination forty-five minutes later than if they’d taken the highway. Potts maintains his shortcut “would have worked” if various external factors hadn’t conspired against him, including: poor road signs, unexpected construction, roads that “must have moved,” and fundamental geography that apparently betrayed him.

The Department of Transportation acknowledges that “shortcuts” announced by male drivers rarely save time and frequently add substantial duration to journeys, creating situations where the fastest route is replaced by circuitous alternatives that drivers insist are faster despite all evidence suggesting otherwise.

“When a man says he knows a shortcut, he means he thinks he remembers a route he might have taken once,” explained traffic psychology researcher Dr. Theodore Pemberton while reviewing GPS data from Potts’s journey showing extensive wandering through residential neighborhoods followed by complete reversal and eventual return to highway route. “He doesn’t actually know the shortcut. He’s confident about his vague memory of possibly having taken this route before, which becomes certainty despite having no reliable information.”

Potts’s shortcut consisted of:

Minutes 0-10: Confidently driving on side roads he claimed to know Minutes 10-20: Growing less confident but maintaining certainty Minutes 20-30: Clearly lost but insisting they’re “definitely on the right track” Minutes 30-40: Very lost, considering asking directions but refusing Minutes 40-50: Finally admitting confusion, finding highway entrance Minutes 50-60: On highway heading toward destination Minutes 60-70: Arriving at destination forty-five minutes later than planned

Total time savings from shortcut: Negative forty-five minutes Potts’s assessment: “The shortcut would have worked if everything had gone according to plan”

Dorothy’s questions during the journey revealed Potts’s unreliable navigation:

“Do you actually know where you’re going?” – “Yes” (no) “Have you taken this route before?” – “Pretty sure” (no) “Should we ask for directions?” – “No need” (definite need) “Are we lost?” – “Just taking a different route” (completely lost) “Can we just take the highway?” – “We’re almost there” (not even close)

“Why do you insist on shortcuts you don’t actually know?” Dorothy asked while arriving very late to visit relatives who had been expecting them forty-five minutes earlier.

“I know the area,” Potts replied, apparently defining “knowing the area” as “having driven through this general region before at some point, maybe.”

Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that shortcut-taking represents male need to demonstrate navigational competence even when lacking navigational knowledge. “Taking the highway is easy,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “Anyone can follow signs to a destination. But taking a shortcut demonstrates special knowledge and spatial intelligence. Except when you don’t actually know the shortcut, then it demonstrates inability to admit you should have just taken the highway.”

The phenomenon appears related to male reluctance to ask directions. Potts passed three gas stations where he could have asked for help but maintained he “didn’t need directions” despite obvious need for directions evidenced by his continued driving in circles.

“Asking for directions means admitting you’re lost,” Dr. Hargrove noted. “Men would rather drive aimlessly for an hour than admit they don’t know where they’re going. The pride involved in refusing to ask outweighs the practical benefit of actually reaching your destination on time.”

Dorothy reports that Potts “knows a shortcut” approximately once monthly, and these shortcuts universally add time to trips rather than reducing it. She has learned to add thirty to sixty minutes to any journey where Potts announces shortcut knowledge.

“I just agree now,” Dorothy explained while describing her coping strategy. “Arguing accomplishes nothing. He’s going to take his shortcut regardless of logic, common sense, or my objections. We’ll get lost. He’ll insist we’re not lost. Eventually we’ll arrive late. He’ll claim the shortcut would have worked with better conditions. We’ll repeat this next month.”

Some marriages have resolved this through GPS technology that provides directions husbands cannot argue with. However, many shortcut-taking husbands simply ignore GPS instructions, believing their vague memories are more reliable than satellite navigation systems.

“The GPS doesn’t know about my shortcut,” they insist while driving past the route the GPS suggests, usually resulting in GPS repeatedly trying to redirect them back to the correct route while drivers maintain confidence in shortcuts that exist primarily in their imagination.

As of press time, Potts was planning next month’s journey and had already announced he “knows a shortcut” that will definitely save time, prompting his wife to pack snacks for the extended journey she knows his shortcut will require.

Revolutionary Research: All Meetings Run Exactly 15 Minutes Over Scheduled Time

WASHINGTON, DC – After analyzing 5,000 workplace meetings across 200 companies, the Institute for Productivity Studies has confirmed that meetings possess mysterious ability to run exactly fifteen minutes longer than scheduled regardless of scheduled duration, making stated end times fictional aspirations rather than achievable targets.

“We need to keep this meeting short,” meeting organizers announced 5,000 times at the start of meetings that then ran long anyway, suggesting that announcing brevity creates opposite effect of guaranteeing extensive duration.

The study found that meetings scheduled for:

• 30 minutes run 45 minutes
• 60 minutes run 75 minutes
• 90 minutes run 105 minutes
• 2 hours run 2 hours 15 minutes
• “Quick 15-minute check-in” runs 45 minutes minimum

This pattern held across all industries, meeting types, and organizers, suggesting some universal law of meeting physics where scheduled times serve as minimum baseline that meetings automatically exceed.

“We scheduled the meeting for one hour,” test subject Walter Grimsby explained while checking his watch at the seventy-three-minute mark with no end in sight. “Then someone had questions. Then someone else had comments. Then we discussed those comments. Now we’re discussing whether we need another meeting to continue discussing the topics we didn’t have time to discuss in this meeting that’s already run twenty minutes over.”

The Department of Labor estimates that meeting overruns cost American businesses approximately $37 billion annually in wasted time, making the inability to end meetings on schedule one of the most expensive failures in corporate culture.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that meetings run long because organizers schedule insufficient time while participants feel compelled to contribute regardless of whether their contributions are necessary, creating situations where meetings expand to fill all available time plus mandatory fifteen-minute buffer.

“Nobody wants to be the person who ends the meeting,” Dr. Pemberton noted while observing meeting that should have ended ten minutes ago continue indefinitely. “Someone says ‘just one more thing’ and everyone stays. Another person adds a comment. Someone else asks a question. The meeting develops its own momentum that cannot be stopped by something as trivial as the scheduled end time.”

Particularly troubling are “quick meetings” that organizers promise will take just a few minutes. These invariably run longest relative to their scheduled time, with “five-minute standup meetings” routinely exceeding thirty minutes.

“We’re just going to touch base quickly,” meeting organizers lie repeatedly while touching so many bases that the quick meeting transforms into extended session covering topics nobody knew would be discussed and nobody wanted to discuss.

The study identified several mechanisms causing meetings to run over:

The Last-Minute Question – Someone asks question at scheduled end time, extending meeting fifteen minutes

The Tangent – Discussion veers off-topic, consumes time, finally returns to agenda forty minutes later

The “One More Thing” – Series of supposedly final comments that never end

The Late Arrival – Meeting recaps for late attendees, repeating entire discussion

The Technology Failure – Ten minutes lost attempting to make presentation display correctly

All contribute to meetings running longer than scheduled while organizers maintain that “we’ll keep this short” despite never keeping it short.

“I have another meeting,” participants announced at meetings that should have ended but continued anyway, forcing choice between staying in current over-running meeting or leaving for next meeting that will also run over, creating cascading schedule failures throughout the day.

Some organizations attempted to prevent overruns by scheduling hard stops, but participants simply started meetings early to accommodate inevitable overrun, making scheduled start times as fictional as scheduled end times.

As of press time, this reporter was attending meeting scheduled to end fifteen minutes ago with no indication of actual ending, while organizer who promised “we’ll keep this brief” was beginning third tangential discussion that had nothing to do with meeting agenda but definitely ensured meeting would run at least fifteen minutes beyond its already-extended current duration.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 15 – Published every Saturday from our offices in Washington, DC.

Editorial Staff, 1947: Editors-in-Chief: Corporal Henry “Hank” Bohiney & Sergeant Lester “Les” Krupke
Senior Correspondents: Dorothy Ashworth, Harold K. Pennington III
Contributing Satirist: Reginald “Reggie” Buttonworth

All articles are works of satire. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental and intended for humorous purposes.