Tech employees over age 55 are actually less stressed using technology in the workplace, and better at using multiple devices than their younger peers.
Earlier this year, France passed a labor reform law that banned checking emails on weekends. New research–to be presented next week at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management–suggests other countries might do well to follow suit, for the sake of employee health and productivity.
A new study–authored by Liuba Belkin of Lehigh University, William Becker of Virginia Tech and Samantha A. Conroy of Colorado State University–finds a link between organisational after-hours email expectations and emotional exhaustion, which hinders work-family balance. The results suggest that modern workplace technologies may be hurting the very employees that those technologies were designed to help.
[…] Read the full article…
The highest-paid CEOs tend to run some of the worst-performing companies, according to new research.
The study, carried out by corporate research firm MSCI, found that for every $100 (£76) invested in companies with the highest-paid CEOs would have grown to 265 (£202) over 10 years.
But the same amount invested in the companies with the lowest-paid CEOs would have grown to 367 (£279) over a decade.
How will decentralised blockchain technology (as first used by bitcoin) help banks and other financial operations? This technology has everyone from Richard Branson to Glenn Stevens talking (in this case, on Branson’s private island Necker – pictured above).
The linked article provides a pretty decent explanation of what it’s about, also for the less technical among us. I personally don’t like bitcoin (for a number of reasons that are specifically related to bitcoin itself), the ideas in the underlying architecture are very nifty indeed.
Pacific Standard magazine tracked down the origin of the “trickle down economics” concept popularised by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and curiously (consistency principle?) still supported by many.
Apparently, the phrase was actually coined by American humorist Will Rogers, who (80 years ago now) mocked President Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era recovery efforts, saying that “money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy.”
A new report from the International Monetary Fund has declared the idea of “trickle-down” economics to be as much a joke as Rogers imagined.
“Income distribution matters for growth,” the economist authors of the IMF report write. “Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent increases, then GDP growth actually declined over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down.”
The study results suggest that raising incomes for the poor and middle class yields measurable improvements to the national economy.
So why aren’t (more) countries taking this approach? Sounds to me like typical political short-sightedness. It’s clear that in the long run, everybody is better off (and that includes the wealthy), while with “trickle down” nonsense the longer term outlook for the wealthy is not that good. Unsurprising, really. The heirs of the wealthy might want to consider this, as it’s their future.
(original article at http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke)