09/08/99- Updated 10:09 PM ET

Don't worry, be prepared

Poll finds most Americans don't fear worst on Jan. 1, 2000

By Thomas A. Fogarty and Del Jones, USA TODAY

Like many Americans, Leo Lombari, a 53-year-old rural mail carrier from Huntsville, Ark., expects Y2K to be no big deal. At the same time, he has hedged his bet to make sure he won't go hungry in January.

Lombari accelerated his schedule for converting an abandoned building on his property, and he recently began using it to raise chickens for eggs and rabbits for meat.

"The general consensus in our community is that those of us who stick together will get through this just fine," he says. "People are aware of what's going on. They'll use common sense."

A new USA TODAY/National Science Foundation poll found fewer and fewer Americans expect major problems due to Year 2000 computer glitches. Only 7% expect their personal lives to be disrupted in a major way, while 40% expect no problems at all. Last December, 14% expected major problems, and 30% expected no problems at all.

Yet a significant number of people are taking steps to protect themselves against possible failures if computers malfunction. Many computers, software and embedded chips use two digits to designate a year. That means they could read "00" as 1900, rather than 2000.

More than half of Americans plan to get documentation of bank, retirement and other financial records. Almost half say they won't fly on New Year's Day. Almost 40% intend to stockpile food and water, and about one in five will stock up on gasoline, according to the poll of 1,014 adults conducted Aug. 25-29 by the Gallup Organization.

Many people also are expecting some ugly things to happen in 114 days, the poll found:

48% expect failure in banking and accounting systems that could cause errors in paychecks, government payments and other automated financial transactions.

35% expect air-traffic control systems to fail.

35% expect shortages of food and other retail goods.

22% expect hospital equipment and services to fail, putting patients at risk.

18% anticipate a major accident from failure of nuclear power or weapons systems.

Informed or complacent?

But overall, people are becoming less worried as the new year approaches.

That is fueling debate about whether Americans are becoming rationally informed or dangerously complacent.

John Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, says people know all problems have not been fixed, but are confident they are being tackled.

Management consultant William Ulrich, author of two books and hundreds of articles warning of serious Y2K fallout, says there is no doubt that concern is disappearing. In February, 750 people attended one of his seminars that was set up for 450. By June, only 16 showed up for a well-publicized seminar at a Catholic church in Santa Cruz, Calif.

Americans are nestling into a false state of complacency, Ulrich says. They don't lose sleep over Russian nuclear submarines, so they can't be expected to lose sleep over Y2K, he says.

Thursday, Sept. 9, 1999, will only add to that, Ulrich says. The date has been publicized by industry and government as a mini-Y2K because some old computer programs read 9/9/99 to indicate "end of file."

But Ulrich predicts there will be few newsworthy glitches, leading to another round of publicity easing the public's worries about problems come 1/1/00.

Ulrich says complacency has been aided by "the PR engines" of groups ranging from the food industry to the Federal Reserve Board to the President's Council.

Koskinen agrees that a successful public relations campaign has been waged, but only to provide information that lets the public draw rational conclusions.

Even some who first warned of catastrophe are coming around. Y2K author Peter de Jager, who says he might have been characterized as an "alarmist" three or four years ago, last week confirmed a flight from Chicago to London where he will be "drinking champagne at 32,000 feet," when Year 2000 arrives.

He says he's almost to the point of telling people not to worry at all. "Prepare like it's Hurricane Dennis," de Jager says.

Bargain generators

Many of those polled had similar attitudes. Guy Stuart, a 38-year-old businessman from Owosso, Mich., says he expects a virtually seamless transition from this millennium to the next.

He long has been planning to buy a generator for his home, but has decided to wait until after the first of the year.

With so many people buying into the doomsday scenario, he says, "I think I'll be able to get a pretty good deal on one."

And if problems do arise, he says, so what? "I've lived without power before," Stuart says. "We'll get through it."

Karen Mullenhour, 43, of Wapakoneta, Ohio, says she's confident that Y2K will be a nonevent because of the relative ease with which her employer, the local Girl Scouts council, fixed its Y2K glitch.

"Surely, everybody has records on paper of some kind," she says. "I don't see the problem."

While the overall level of concern is subsiding, Y2K fear is far from eradicated. Three percent of Americans still expect disasters of the magnitude that could cause the loss of life, according to the poll, which has a margin of error plus or minus 3 percentage points.

One is Clara Ryals, a 65-year-old retiree who lives with her husband and son in Macon, Ga. She expects the possible breakdown of social order at home and conflict with foreign enemies. She has stocked up on canned goods, toiletries and first-aid supplies and has bought a camp stove and water tanks.

Faced with conflicting claims in the news media, Ryals says she doesn't know what to believe about Y2K. But she's expecting the worst.

"It's just my gut feeling," says Ryals. "I'd be real happy if we didn't have any problems at all."

In general, the poll shows that women, African-Americans, the poor, the young and the least educated express greater concern about Y2K than does the public at large.

Y2K experts expect the trend of increasing confidence to continue. However, de Jager says, fears could return if the news media overplay minor glitches into catastrophes.

Ulrich says about the only thing that might catch the public's attention is a major debacle in the financial markets.

George Strawn, an information technology expert at the National Science Foundation, says his own view of Y2K coincides with the mainstream of public opinion as measured by the new poll.

Says Strawn: "There will be some problems for me personally and for society at large, but they'll be small problems."

Cover story index

Go to Moneyline Go to Money front page Go to USA TODAY front page

Front page, News, Sports, Money, Life, Weather, Marketplace ) Copyright 1999 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

-- argh (argh@nowhere.com), September 09, 1999

Answers

sorry. here's the site: http://www.usatoday.com/money/bcovthu.htm

-- argh (argh@nowhere.com), September 09, 1999.

good for clara. the only smart one. the rest deserve what they get.

-- tt (cuddluppy@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.

[snip]

Karen Mullenhour, 43, of Wapakoneta, Ohio, says she's confident that Y2K will be a nonevent because of the relative ease with which her employer, the local Girl Scouts council, fixed its Y2K glitch.

"Surely, everybody has records on paper of some kind," she says. "I don't see the problem." [end snip]

I'm speechless. How do you respond to something as idiotic as this?

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

"Surely, everybody has records on paper of some kind," she says. "I don't see the problem."

Gee, I never thought of THAT. I guess she must be right. I'll just stock up on paper records of some kind.

Great article. So helpful

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 09, 1999.

[snip} Many people also are expecting some ugly things to happen in 114 days, the poll found:

48% expect failure in banking and accounting systems that could cause errors in paychecks, government payments and other automated financial transactions.

35% expect air-traffic control systems to fail.

35% expect shortages of food and other retail goods.

22% expect hospital equipment and services to fail, putting patients at risk.

18% anticipate a major accident from failure of nuclear power or weapons systems.

Informed or complacent?

But overall, people are becoming less worried as the new year approaches. [snip]

I'm shocked by these stats (and the media disconnect). I think the story here should be how much worry there is. "48% expect failure in banking and accounting systems that could cause errors in paychecks, government payments and other automated financial transactions." ??? And how many asre pulling out $$$?

-- argh (argh@nowhere.com), September 09, 1999.

"In general, the poll shows that women, African-Americans, the poor, the young and the least educated express greater concern about Y2K than does the public at large."

Hmmm. . .

Here's another take on that issue:

While Most Ordinary Americans say Y2K Is 'Overblown,People Are Taking Precautions

Study Finds Over One Third of 10,000 Interviewed are Making Preparations

WESTPORT, Conn., Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- While most people think the whole Year 2000 problem is being "overblown," many are protecting their homes and apartments and some believe "life will never be the same again." In fact, 85 percent of 10,000 computer-savvy people surveyed by Greenfield Online say they have a level of concern about what will happen when the calendar hits 2000.

While "expert" opinions about what may happen due to the Y2K bug have been widely publicized, this is the first large study of what ordinary Americans think about the issue. Obviously, they are of mixed mind -- whistling fear away, but taking precautions.

Some of the dire beliefs expressed in the July study include:

-- 43 percent think banks will not be able to access funds.

-- 40 percent will not travel by air that day.

-- 38 percent think lights will go out and some are buying generators.

-- 1 percent plan to "go into a cave."

"With 10,148 respondents, we feel we have an accurate snapshot of what people's concerns are," says Greenfield Vice President Brin Bell. "We asked people more than 25 questions about level of worry, preparations and how the Y2K issue will impact New Year's Eve plans," she said.

The most severe worries are:

-- 5 percent fear that nuclear reactors will explode.

-- 4 percent think bombs will explode.

-- 1 percent think the world will end.

While 85 percent of the survey-takers, who were mainly married and college-educated, believe the whole Y2K issue has been "overblown," nearly 40 percent are making preparations. Some 38 percent are placing candles and flashlights around the house, 37 percent are planning to withdraw cash from the bank, 30 percent are going to stockpile food and a fourth are going to have bottled water on hand.

When asked if there is a solution to the Y2K bug, 15 percent believe that a company and/or individual is hiding the solution. Among this group, 60 percent believe Microsoft is hoarding the answer and 33 percent believe it is the White House.

The study also looks at the impact of the Millennium as a social event. Some say they "purposely will not go out" on Dec. 31st, feeling that home is the safest place to be. A fifth of the respondents are not planning ahead for New Year's Eve. About an equal number have made plans, prompting the soldout reports for hotel ballrooms and vacation packages. Nearly 70 percent plan to slip into the new Millennium with their spouse or significant other. Amazingly 16 percent already have made New Year's resolutions.

When the Year 2000 arrives, 46 percent plan to take a special vacation and 14 percent plan to get married in the first year of the new century. More practically, 22 percent plan to buy a new car and 16 percent will buy a new house.

About the Study

The 10,148 respondents to Greenfield Online's study, called "The Lowdown on the Countdown," were all online Americans. The results have been weighted to represent the total U.S. Internet population in terms of age, gender and region. Topline findings from this study are available on the Greenfield Online Web site at www.greenfieldcentral.com.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 09, 1999.

[snip]

"In general, the poll shows that women, African-Americans, the poor, the young and the least educated express greater concern about Y2K than does the public at large." [end snip]

I question this statement - I would like to see the polling data.

First of all, it implies that those who are concerned about Y2K are ignorant, uneducated, poor, etc. My personal observations have been just the opposite. People who are ignorant of the issues aren't concerned at all. What about the polls that show that computer programmers constitute a large percentage of those preparing for serious disruptions.

Another thing this statement does is to lump "women, African- Americans, the poor, the young and the least educated" into a single group of people who "just don't seem to be able to understand why there really isn't anything to worry about."

On the other hand (we are to infer?): Older, educated, wealthy white men aren't worried about it, and they know everything, so the rest of you morons shouldn't worry either.

It also puts the "public at large" between the ignorant "below" them and the enlightened "above". Which group do YOU want to be a member of, reader?

Looks like some slick rhetoric to me.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

>>When asked if there is a solution to the Y2K bug, 15 percent believe that a company and/or individual is hiding the solution. Among this group, 60 percent believe Microsoft is hoarding the answer and 33 percent believe it is the White House.

<<

Now those are the true nut cases. While I believe that not much will happen, I do have a cow for milk, chickens for meat and eggs, hogs, and several hundred pounds of wheat for grinding into flour, and a pantry of home canned food to die for. Bill and Bill are not the answer to the problem, they are part of the problem.

-- chicken farmer (chicken-farmer@ y2k.farm), September 09, 1999.

"In general, the poll shows that women, African-Americans, the poor, the young and the least educated express greater concern about Y2K than does the public at large."

Talk about a disconnect -- women, blacks, the young, the poor, and the least educated. So who does that leave in the "public at large?" Seems to me if we start adding up numbers, the public at large (who they? white males and Dagestani refugees?) becomes a distinct minority while everyone else is worried.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), September 09, 1999.

"GI's,"

Meet the real GI's.

People have figured this out. Common sense usually prevails, and it is good to see common sense is prevailing with regard to the Y2K issue.

:)

Relaxed Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Did they ask any questions about the economy and the stock market? Many people, such as Ed Yardeni and John Westergaard think the major impact will be on the economy.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), September 09, 1999.

Well, knowing that everyone else is calm certainly reassures me.

Most of England was pretty complacent, too, after Chamberlain came back with the paper Hitler signed. We were all as relaxed as Andy on December 6, 1941. Hardly anyone in my college class was fretting over some distant place called Viet Nam back in 1966, except for a nutcase who wore green and looked a little scruffy. Ed, I think his name was. Folks on the Titanic weren't much scared, right up until the last boats were leaving. Those big, classy cars were no problem at all to fill with gas, right before that funny OPEC thingy started.

Yup, it's good to feel good about things. I see good-feeling folks all around the place, these days. Sure am glad some of us are planning for the next little disruption, though, because I have a feeling Y2k will be it, and that's not real far off.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), September 09, 1999.

Clyde, you hit the nail right on the head.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), September 09, 1999.

LA, major market AM radio talk host JUST said in the last hour that he is looking forward to Y2K being a non-event.

Folks this is what we said would be a year and a half ago...Yourdonites please note.....Human being will not consider that their lives may be significant impacted by anything, let alone Y2K. Got a psychology book handy? Look up: denial, repression, suppression, wishful thinking, delayed development.

--She in the sheet does not wonder why the old timers choose words carefully.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

"Look up: denial, repression, suppression, wishful thinking, delayed development. "

Then go talk to an actual psychologist and see what they have to say about Y2K. Oh you haven't? Well I have. Two of them. Both think there will be problems, but when I showed them both this board, they both found you all quite amusing.

-- blasted (arm@chair.docs.com), September 12, 1999.

Couple of different "poll" results are cited above: most indicate between 30% and 40% are taking preparation relatively seriously. That seems consistent with what was in earlier surveys.

the blather about reactors going off (and other "media-hyped" phrases) can be explained by one seeing thousands of "throw-away" phrases in every y2k story about exaggerated threats used to discredit those who are preparing.

If somebody denies a false story too many times, a few percent of the people will begin quoting the story, particularly given the fears many have over nuclear power plants. Also, there are several VERY activce anti-nuclear groups who are using y2k-induced fears to try (again) to shutdown the power plants....and their anti-nuclear stories are given wide publicity with virtually no rebuttal.

By the way, every comment made by these anti-nuclear groups shows why fossil-fuled plants are MORE vunerable that nuclear plants, but NOBODY is making that connection anywhere - it's the "wrong" message from the press and the administration. So, the government has gotten its word out that the fossil plants will run, despite almost certain problems and no testing, and no credible outside monitoring or verification and no training and no drills and no backup systems; and the anti-nuclear groups have gotten out their message that the nuclear plants are dangerous despite the fact of outside monitoring, outside verification, strict plant design controls, strict training, more and better redundant backup systems.....

___

Good point there Clyde - Ray, refute this:

IF we assume the "grouped" people most dependent on governmetn handouts (the usual "poor, under-educated, blacks, and women" litany) is most concerned, could it be because this group understands better than anybody that they are vunverable to government failure? These groups have NOTHING except the government handouts, government food, water, heat, and shelter - and these government handouts are certainly more susceptible to government error, lies, and fumbling than a self-reliant suburban or rural dweller. Thus, iner city government erros that stop water, stop heat, stop electricity, or stop police protection make this group vunerable.

___

On the other hand, this is the group most "loved" by the media for their vunerablitiy: the media and Democrats have used this group in every campaign and propaganda speech since 1980....so why are they now grouped in the pro-preparation group, and no the fasicts, right-wing, hate-filled, militant Christian, gun-toting redneck group?

Something is fishy here, that poll is opposite of what is expected....because my experience in asking many hundred people about their preparation is exactly opposite: the more a voter group is aligned with the Democrats, the more that individual believe the Democratic Party polly spin on y2k, and the less the preparations, if any.....

However, if by "educated" and "upscale" they are refering to the inner-city dwelling rich democratic party-goers and donors who passionating "hate" the Republican "right-winger" Christian .... rednecks, then these "upscale" people are also totally reliant on the government services, and CANNOT "think" of any way these services can fail - and are so afraid of failure they reject its possibility....

So, who was polled, and where these polls actually taken?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 13, 1999.