Clark is intrigued by the way the economic theory of wage stickiness is playing out in today's economy.

Wage stickiness holds that it is better to layoff some workers and preserve the wages of those who remain vs. cutting everyone's wages to ensure there are no layoffs. Economists favor the former approach because they believe it's better for worker morale.

But a recent poll question on ClarkHoward.com found that -- given the choice -- most of you prefer the opposite of wage stickiness. The overwhelming number of respondents said that they'd rather everyone take a haircut at work to ensure there would be no beheadings.

So are the economists just plain wrong? Or is that in these uncharted economic waters, we realize the next one who gets canned could be us…and it's better to have 90% of a loaf than none at all? Perhaps there's another reason people want to see headcounts preserved at work; nobody wants to be part of a skeleton crew of survivors who have double or triple the normal workload!

Whatever the motivating factor, your fellow citizens are more mature and responsible than they get credit for being.

For example, one of Clark's radio colleagues hit a ratings mark that qualified him for a huge bonus. Management told him that they could give him the bonus he earned fair and square -- but they'd have to let go of 7 staffers to be able to afford it. Though he'll never admit it, the man did the honorable thing and agreed to give up his bonus rather than see people fired.