When you shop online, it is common for retailers to offer additional items in a bundle to try to increase sales. For instance, if you are buying towels, the seller may offer matching washcloths. Or if you are buying an airline ticket, you may be asked if you also want to purchase inflight Wifi and premium seating. If this “bundle” is appealing to you in terms of the items offered and the price, you might be motivated to buy it all. If not, the items or services are left on the table, eventually getting marked down even more.
With the online market projected to grow 57% from 2013 to 2018, retailers have the potential to significantly increase their profits through bundling. This strategy can be beneficial for customers too if they are presented with desirable items they otherwise may have missed — and at better prices. The key is creating an attractive enough bundle to incentivize the buyer to click “add to cart.”
In the popular media, we talk a lot about robotsstealing jobs. But when we stop speculating and actually look at the real world of work, the impact of advanced robotics is far more nuanced and complicated. Issues of jobs and income inequality fade away, for example — there aren’t remotely enough robots to affect more than a handful of us in the practical sense.
Yet robots usually spell massive changes in the way that skilled work gets done: The work required to fly an F-16 in a combat zone is radically different from the work required to fly a Reaper, a semi-autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle, in that same zone.
Because they change the work so radically, robot-linked upheavals like this create a challenge: How do you train the next generation of professionals who will be working withrobots?
My research into the increasing use of robotics in surgery offers a partial answer. But it has also uncovered trends that — if they continue — could have a major impact on surgical training and, as a result, the quality of future surgeries.
Last month, the Federal Reserve announced that 31 out of 33 U.S. banks had passed its latest “stress test,” designed to ensure that the largest financial institutions have enough capital to withstand a severe economic shock.
Passing the test amounts to being given a clean bill of health by the Fed. So are taxpayers – who were on the hook for the initial US$700 billion TARP bill to bail out the banks in 2008 – now safe?
Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren unveiled a comprehensive set of proposals to provide basic employment policy protections and income security benefits to those working in the so-called “gig” economy and others in subcontracted or franchised arrangements. Whether one agrees with her specific ideas or not, the nation owes her a debt of gratitude for putting these issues front and square on the table for a discussion that is long overdue.
The gig economy, best embodied by Uber, Lyft and Task Rabbit, may account for less than 1 percent of the workforce, but it has sparked a debate over what to do about all those who make their living outside of standard employment relationships.
Standard employment relationships are ones in which there is a clearly defined and identifiable employer that is responsible for complying withthe range of employment laws put on the books since the New Deal: unemployment insurance, Social Security, minimum wage and overtime rules, and the right to unionize and gain access to collective bargaining. To be clear, the vast majority of American workers, about 85 percent to be exact, still work in this type of employment relationship.