The Income-ing Revolution

In the earlier days of this blog, I have written an article that talks about how robots will become way more cost efficient than humans in the future. A question that might come to mind after reading that sentence is: How will we generate revenue in the future if more and more jobs are being automated? One of the solutions that seems to really stand out these days is called Basic Income. 

Similar ideas have been discussed as early as 1795, but the basic income, as it is presented today, only appeared during the 60s when a negative income tax was suggested to simplify welfare and help people get back into the workforce. Today, it is possible that a universal basic income might be the solution to the job loss problem. This income gives the same amount of money (equal to the calculated amount needed for survival) to everyone without conditions or discrimination. 

Why is this a good idea? Since the 1970's, wages have declined or stayed the same, jobs have become scarce and many people require public assistance to top off what they already earn each month. And the future, thanks to robots, does not look brighter. Finally, welfare is not as useful and efficient anymore as it was in the 90s (in America at least). Basic Income creates a floor revenue on which people can build, develop personally and enjoy life without fear of complete loss of income. Finally, it also helps us embrace change in the society (such as automation) without fearing its consequences on human jobs.

Why is it not a good idea? Well, it has not yet been proven to work on a big scale. Basic Income might cut welfare payments, reduce health care and tax credits to avoid raising taxes too much. But even then, basic income could only be affordable with around 45% taxes (2012 estimate from Ireland). There were trials in the 70s in the US that concluded that a basic income reduced poverty but also reduced the number of hours each person worked. So will it make people lazier?

Testing has taken place in Sweden, India, Germany, America, etc. The results are not unanimously positive, but in some places, basic income has generated some pretty good results. Crime rates have gone down, high school completion rates have gone up, but is this something that will be maintained in the long run? Wouldn't people try to abuse of this system or use the money for alcohol or drugs? There is still much testing to do and, if this idea is implemented, it will drastically change things on economic, politic and social levels. 

We are approaching an era where there will simply be less things to do. Maybe one day we will have to implement such a system. Let's hope that, until then, we would have understand the advantages and the consequences of such a drastic change to our society. This might be a solution that seems to solve no problem but it will definitely change the way we live our lives for the better or for the worst. Since both sides of the political distribution (left and right) seem to like the idea, why not give it a try on a bigger level and see what happens. It might even teach us something about ourselves.

P.S. I want to know what people from different places think of this. If you feel like sharing your opinion, go ahead and leave a comment. I'll read it with great pleasure!

For a bit more drops of future, visit:

-http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040832/world-changing-ideas/a-universal-basic-income-is-the-bipartisan-solution-to-poverty-weve-bee

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m_k14dEcAI

-http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-basic-income-20151227-story.html

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3jUtZvWLCM

-http://www.vice.com/read/something-for-everyone-0000546-v22n1

The Unconventional Way to the Top

I've been wanting to write about this subject for a while now since it has got a lot of media attention in the past few months. Let's go back a few years to the start-up region often called Silicon Valley. In 2009, an idea hatched inside the head of two entrepreneurs that would make a ton of noise and cause a lot of trouble. Uber was born. And two years later, the company went from operating from the coast of California to New York City. Today, calling a Uber car takes 2x less waiting time than the median response time for an ambulance. Sounds good? Well, let's take a look at all the commotion this application has caused.

If you've heard of Uber before, you probably did not only hear good things about it. Uber is what I like to call an aggressively competitive company. It's main role is to promote commuting by cars where the driver actually gets paid. This encourages people to use the app since it is easier and simpler than paying for an actual taxi (the passenger is charged directly on his credit card via the application). Obviously, the success of Uber has been making taxi drivers mad since their industry now make much less money. A lot of taxi companies have protested against Uber. Cities have tried to label it as illegal and have pressed charges. But still, Uber holds its grounds. How come?

To become a Uber Driver, you don't really need to do much. You need a 4 inspected door car, a good record, a permit and... That's it? Oh, and you also need to sign up on the app itself. How easy was that? Taxi drivers actually have to get trained before doing their job. Uber skips all that. This is why, in New-York City for example, Uber has a lot more cars than there are taxis. The towns have been imposing a tax on all the driver's profits, but that has not stopped the company from greatly expanding all over the world and acquiring profits of more than 50 Billion $.

Uber has been brought to court over the problem that its drivers are actually employees and not independent contractors. If the latter case was proven correct, employees of Uber would be subject to new rules. Uber has only been criticized for its aggressive ways in dealing with the competition. Its employees have acted as fake pedestrians, scheduling and cancelling rides from a competitor. Furthermore, Uber aims to make taxis obsolete. The industries have been trying to modernize their approach but customers always seem to prefer Uber. It has become a modern part of our lives even if its services remain  controversial.

Moreover, Uber seems to be wanting to play in the automated car industry. When Tesla announced it will be selling autonomous cars by 2020, Uber proposed to buy half of million of them. Such an impressive amount brings questions to mind. Why? What would Uber do with all of those cars? Of course, replacing existing taxi drivers seems to be part of the answer. Safety might be the other part. Such an investment might make Uber the owner of the most autonomous cars in the world. This shows how much power Uber has and how much it can still achieve in the business.

That being said, the problems Uber has had in past have been playing in its favor the whole time. Even if no one is sure if the service is within the boundaries of the laws, it has not stopped millions of people from using the service. This proves that sometimes, a bad reputation can greatly work in favor of companies. If Uber had kept things less controversial, it surely would not have become the company we know today. Even if a review is bad, it's a review. And the more people talk about it, the more Uber gets known. I wouldn't agree with their methods, but it is stunning how fast they revolutionized an old, firmly established industry in so little time. For that, I think they deserve the success they have today. Would I use their services? I do still prefer buses; but, out of curiosity, maybe once.

For a bit more drops of future, visit: 

- https://medium.com/invisible-balloons/uber-911-5d28d7428de6#.o0qugvz0o 

- http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/11/uber_won_new_york_city_it_only_took_five_years.html

- http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/18/the_9th_circuit_just_dealt_uber_another_blow_in_its_class_action_driver.html

- http://valleywag.gawker.com/ubers-dirty-trick-campaign-against-nyc-competition-cam-1508280668

- http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/taxi-review-offers-city-of-ottawa-advice-on-dealing-with-uber-1.3324983

The Wireless Spacecraft

In 2003, NASA flew the very first aircraft power solely powered by the energy provided by a laser beam. Of course, the technology for running such an interesting experiment has been around for quite some time now. At the beginning of the 20th century, Tesla was building a tower that was suppose to transmit wireless power worldwide. Even if the tower and the technology were unsuccessful, the idea behind such a concept was not lost.

The first real transmission happened after World War 2 after the microwave technology was discovered. Wireless Power Transmission then became possible and led to new ideas such as a satellite that sends energy collected from the sun back to earth. This type of energy transfer was mainly used for drones and satellites. 

What is interesting with such a technology is the fact that, with our current technologies, it is efficient at 76%. But of course, creating one of theses systems is extremely expensive. That is the reason why it has only been deployed in space or aircraft projects (like in satellites, drones or in the idea of the space elevator) and not for powering your car when you run out of battery. Closer to us, NASA was the first to power an aircraft with a laser for a flight in 2003. This opened the door for a lot of applications.

Today, a young start-up named Escape Dynamics is looking for a new way to send rockets into space. They plan on removing the costly and inefficient fuel that each spacecraft carries into space and replace it with a microwave-absorbing heat exchanger. As the electromagnetically-powered spaceship rises, it gets powered by a microwave beam that will provide energy to heat up the hydrogen in a fuel tank and power the rocket until it reaches orbit. All of the energy that will power the spacecraft comes from the electricity grid.

So what makes this new thing so powerful? Reduced risk, increased efficiency, reduced costs (from 5000$/Kg to about 150$/Kg), completely reusable spacecrafts and great use of renewable energy to power the whole thing. This looks awesome. On paper. But as with any big technological advantages, it comes with a cost. The R&D costs around 200 millions and the whole thing would cost around 1 billion dollars to implement. And all of the advantages are only expectations. Who knows what the real outcome will be?

But I think it's an amazing idea and that it could be a big step in helping us explore more of the universe. No one said such a dream would come at a low cost and if we are to discover and colonize our entire Solar System one day, then steps like theses are necessary. I look forward to seeing what they come up with in 10 years.

For a bit more drops of future, visit: 

- http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/07/17/this-company-aims-to-launch-rockets-with-beams-of-power/

- http://escapedynamics.com/technology/hpm-2/

- http://web.pdx.edu/~larosaa/Applied_Optics_464-564/Projects_Presented/Projects-2006/Andrew_Bomber_Report_Wireless_Power_Transmission_PH464.pdf

A Productivity Dilemma

The working week. For most of us, it's five days in a row where we work like hell before achieving the relaxing two-day weekend we so desperately want. This traditional way of working was shaped progressively across the ages by multiple factors like religion for example. Sundays are supposed to be the rest days for Christians and Saturday is important in Judaism during Sabbath. In modern times, working 5 days a week is considered normal mainly because it is a good way to accommodate the majority of the many religious views.

Closer to us now (talking about time here), in 1908, the five-day working week was introduced in the United States to accommodate the Sabbath's rules. Henry Ford was actually one of the first to close his factories during the weekend in 1926. The rest of America slowly followed after 1940 when a reform forced workers to never work more than 40 hours a week. The Arab World also had an influence over its surroundings during multiple workweek reforms.

There is a trend in America where working as much as possible is considered a good thing from a career point of view. The American Dream mentality is usually blamed because it promotes the idea that if you want to succeed in life, have a house and a car, you have to work hard. People usually associate working hard with working long hours.

So here is an idea that has gained a lot of attention in the last year: a new 4 day workweek reform that seems promising. But will it be? 

If you look at Germany, the Netherlands or Denmark, you realize that they work less hours, are more happy and have more robust economies than countries like Japan or the UK. So what can we actually learn from that? And is it sufficient proof that the 4-day workweek is an amazing idea for everyone?

Lets see: working less hours leaves more free time for yourself, people have more opportunities to relax, enjoy life, spend time with their kids and train to become better at their job or to seek better ones. From a productivity point of view, having one less day to worry about work seems to make people more productive, more efficient and less wasteful of time than in their full five days of work. From a company point of view, it seems to make recruitment easier, it helps save money and helps with the moral of the people.

For now, everything seems great. But let's not forget what having a job is all about; it's not about being with your family, it's not about relaxing, it's about making money. And if a 4-day workweek is imposed, the number of hours per day might climb a lot. For example, if you used to work 40 hours per week, doing the same amount of hours will result in working 10 hours per day, instead of 8. Now, if there is a limit on the number of hours worked, then the annual salary of each person is going to suffer drastically; without mentioning the fact that work will be more intense and won't accept any slow-downs. Some people might want to find another job, which would mean losing the benefits of the 4-day system. All of this without mentioning the problems it might bring to essential services like healthcare, government or educational institutions.

So those are the main problems and the expected advantages such a change might bring if it was implemented. From my point of view, something this big should not happen over-night and companies should think twice before implementing such a system. The best way to go, in my opinion, would be to dedicate a period of time to this new way of doing things, get feedback and see if it's a good idea in the end. Something like this might reduce the income of the company or boost it if it is well implemented. Creating a huge reform out of this is not a good idea. In the end, it should just require a bit of testing and tweaking. Nothing more.

For a bit more drops of future, visit:

- http://i.imgur.com/UAMeBef.jpg
- https://lissanne.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/4-day-work-week-au.jpg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=580VyI6hFmo&feature=youtu.be
- http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/08/investing/carlos-slim-3-day-work-week-will-happen/index.html
- http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/real-money-with-alivelshi/articles/2014/6/30/inside-the-life-ofacompanythatworksa4workweek.html
- http://simplicity.laserfiche.com/is-a-four-day-work-week-right-for-your-company/

A Loop in Modern Transportation

One might be impressed with the technological advancements that have been made in the transportation category in the last few years: cars have become safer, more powerful, faster and much more economical. The same thing goes for airplanes, trains, boats, trucks and buses. Well, if you really think about it, transportation has not really changed in the last 100 years. We still move around the same way. Only much faster...Right?

Faster? Yes. But how much faster? Let's compare a train during the 1930's to a modern high-speed train. And lets set this comparison in Germany. Just for fun. So in 1930, you could hop on a train called the Flying Hamburger that easily went at an average speed of 124 km/h from Berlin to Hamburg. Today, if I left Berlin tomorrow, I would arrive in Hamburg after 1 hour and 38 minutes at an average speed of about 173 km/h. So +50 km/h in 85 years? Not that much faster.

Of course that was just an example; yet, it still shows that transportation has not really changed in the last century all that much. Why? We are still stuck with the same old options as before. We are limited only by our budget and by the inventions of another time.

And this is where the new Hyperloop, Elon Musk's invention, comes in. It's basically a pod that travels above ground in a pressurized tube. But it has lots of perks, from being charged by solar and wind energy to virtual reality experience instead of windows. But what is important for us is the speed and cost of this new method of transportation.

San Francisco to Los Angeles in 35 minutes. Los Angeles to New York in 155 minutes (compared to around 7 hours of normal flight). The Hyperloop could reach speeds of about 760 mph. On paper at least. So this new technology claims to be faster than air travel. If it becomes a reality, the tickets would only cost around 20$; a lot less than traveling by air.

Yet, I have my doubts about this new idea. The idea is being taken by an architecture studio and a start-up based in downtown LA because Elon Musk is busy with other projects (mainly Space X and Tesla Motors). A Hyperloop of 400 miles would cost around 6-10 billion dollars. But the real problem in my opinion comes from the fact that one of these tracks would take a lot of time to build. The test track (5 miles) will be open in 2018. Essentially, the future predicts that this new way of getting around will cover the entire USA. But who knows how much time that will take. If everything goes according to plan, this might revolutionize transportation one day.

Still, if everything turns out just fine, I agree it will make getting from point A to point B faster, making flying obsolete (except for when you want to go from one continent to another). Who knows, maybe this technology could one day cross the oceans and connect us to anywhere. All we can do is wait, and hope it stays inexpensive, fast, eco-efficient and of course, safe.

For a bit more drops of future, visit:

- https://transportevolved.com/2015/06/08/elon-musks-hyperloop-becomes-reality-as-agreements-secured-for-5-mile-track-in-california/
- http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1095990_engineers-continue-work-on-elon-musks-hyperloop?km
- http://gizmodo.com/heres-a-glimpse-at-what-the-hyperloop-might-actually-be-1710274900