Skip to navigationSkip to content
Alessandro Cripsta

Good afternoon.

Reflecting on Volcker's rule

The New Purpose of Companies

Beyond the fintech hype

Deep-pocketed investors are pouring money into fintech companies, but which are for real and which will fade? Quartz's latest field guide surveys ten unicorns to explain what's changing in financial services, and what's just driven by fear of missing out. ✦

Beyond the fintech hype

Is there a fintech bubble? Our guide uncovered a distinct fear of missing out among investors—venture capital funds are shoveling cash into money losing startups, and even more money into the few that are profitable.

A few themes emerge from the haze of hype: many of the most valuable fintech startups

Is there a fintech bubble? Our guide uncovered a distinct fear of missing out among investors—venture capital funds are shoveling cash into money losing startups, and even more money into the few that are profitable.

A few themes emerge from the haze of hype: many of the most valuable fintech startups are in emerging markets, as investors hope to make bundle by extending financial services to people who have traditionally lacked them.

Another theme is that many of these companies have unremarkable business models. Among them are banks, brokers, and payment companies. They seem more like finance companies that tech companies. If that's right, they should be valued accordingly.

This paragraph stands out: "Perhaps the most surprising thing about the most highly valued fintechs is how ordinary some of them are. They usually rely on software that’s hosted in the cloud, and their apps have whizzy interfaces. Otherwise, many of them act a lot like regular financial companies. They

This paragraph stands out: "Perhaps the most surprising thing about the most highly valued fintechs is how ordinary some of them are. They usually rely on software that’s hosted in the cloud, and their apps have whizzy interfaces. Otherwise, many of them act a lot like regular financial companies. They process payments, take deposits, make loans, and, in one case, provide brokerage for stock and options trading."

Quartz at work

The gig is up

The nature of cities

Impeachment today

Big Tech discovers Africa

Global freedom of expression

Rohingya get a day in court

Making space for women

Most cities aren't built for women cyclists. Women are much less likely to commute to work by bike than men, and many cite safety as their main concern. By building out bike infrastructure, cities like Copenhagen have reached cycling gender parity—and made the roads safer for everyone.

Women love bikes—so why don’t they cycle to work?

As a woman cycling to work in suits on the regular I was pretty pissed about this headline, which like so many stories about gender apparently reflects a truth but sounds like more of the same old dated tale about women being exceptionally delicate creatures. Anyhow, it's true that it's more fun to bike

As a woman cycling to work in suits on the regular I was pretty pissed about this headline, which like so many stories about gender apparently reflects a truth but sounds like more of the same old dated tale about women being exceptionally delicate creatures. Anyhow, it's true that it's more fun to bike where it's safe but I doubt very much that men don't also appreciate bike lanes. Unfortunate approach to this story that sells short all cyclists, and especially women.

In the world of transit advocacy there is a useful rubric called the 8-80 rule, which encourages us to think about designing cities in such a way that both an 8 year-old and an 80 year-old can comfortably and safely get around. Instead, most cities prioritize cars and leave everyone else - cyclists and

In the world of transit advocacy there is a useful rubric called the 8-80 rule, which encourages us to think about designing cities in such a way that both an 8 year-old and an 80 year-old can comfortably and safely get around. Instead, most cities prioritize cars and leave everyone else - cyclists and pedestrians alike - to fend for themselves. This has led to a survival of the fittest view of urban life that is wildly discriminatory and outdated.

Thankfully, urban cycling benefits from a well-documented safety-in-numbers effect. By choosing to ride a bike you're not only benefitting yourself, you're also making your city a safer place for everybody to enjoy.

This validated and confirmed so many of the internal and external questions I have had to face as a bike owner (and aspiring cyclist) in NYC, more often than not my bike stays home for all the reasons that were broken down

"That was totally worth it"

Close
A shorter workweek should be a key part of the Green New Deal

A shorter workweek should be a key part of the Green New Deal

Read more on Fast Company

Contributions

  • Remote work should be more encouraged If the problem is CO2 emissions from cars. It’s more realistic and feasible for most of companies from the perspective of business impacts.

  • We need to stop looking for silver bullets to the world’s climate challenges. Sure it would be nice to have a shorter work week, but this will not solve our environmental challenges. In order to protect our planet, and the health and well-being of our species, we need to change the way that we manage

    We need to stop looking for silver bullets to the world’s climate challenges. Sure it would be nice to have a shorter work week, but this will not solve our environmental challenges. In order to protect our planet, and the health and well-being of our species, we need to change the way that we manage resources. No more single-use plastic that pile up in the sea and in landfills. A circular economy approach, in which we take into account the end-of-life of our products when we build them. And continuing the move to renewable energy, rather than burning all the black stuff. The bottom line is that we need to stop living as if there is no tomorrow to worry about. There is one and it is looking grim if we don’t take action now.

  • Or we should let employers and workers decide for themselves rather than requiring by force of law what people choose to do?

  • It is not the matter of how many hours a week that one works, but how efficiently and how productively. Working fewer hours, and expending cycles and energy does nothing either as a contribution to the economy our society. to make an impact on climate change, what we need to do is to focus on renewables

    It is not the matter of how many hours a week that one works, but how efficiently and how productively. Working fewer hours, and expending cycles and energy does nothing either as a contribution to the economy our society. to make an impact on climate change, what we need to do is to focus on renewables and focus on operational transparency and efficiency.

  • For those who think this is laughable and will never happen, it's already starting to happen here in the UK:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/string-of-british-firms-switch-over-to-four-day-working-week

    The dominant idea that work and its influence on our lives is normal needs to die.

    For those who think this is laughable and will never happen, it's already starting to happen here in the UK:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/string-of-british-firms-switch-over-to-four-day-working-week

    The dominant idea that work and its influence on our lives is normal needs to die.

    The upsides of less work are well-documented. Workers are less stressed and happier both at and outside of work. Productivity tends to increase so it's a win for businesses too.

  • Perhaps a politically viable climate change solution. As the global stakes rise.

    “The new report is intended as a provocation, not a recommendation–and it’s hard to see how the economy in the U.K. could survive a sudden shift to nine-hour weeks. Still, even smaller changes could help. A 2006 study

    Perhaps a politically viable climate change solution. As the global stakes rise.

    “The new report is intended as a provocation, not a recommendation–and it’s hard to see how the economy in the U.K. could survive a sudden shift to nine-hour weeks. Still, even smaller changes could help. A 2006 study suggests that if U.S. companies moved to working hours that were more similar to Europe, that could cut energy consumption by 20%. A 2015 study found that each 1% decrease in working hours could lead to a 0.8% decrease in emissions. A four-day week, then, might cut emissions by 16%. Obviously, the amount of time people spend working is not the only thing that needs to change. But as we move to renewable energy and other pieces of a zero-carbon society, the time we spend working could play a role. “Ultimately, we want the shorter working week to be at the core of any kind of Green New Deal or economy that is sustainable,” Stronge says. “We think this should be part of it.”

  • The level of work that our world requires to function properly will not allow us to change the number of hours in our work week so drastically. Realistically Texan certainly limit the number of days that an individual works,but that will probably lead to more hours being worked on those days.

    I am

    The level of work that our world requires to function properly will not allow us to change the number of hours in our work week so drastically. Realistically Texan certainly limit the number of days that an individual works,but that will probably lead to more hours being worked on those days.

    I am sure that there are jobs where superfluous hours can be cut, but that will not be the case in every industry. This needs to be explored more before this recommendation can be made. The economics of these changes need to be looked at as well. The functional base unit of pay would need to be looked at. A person used to earning 35 - 40 hours of pay can hardly break even in our society,reduce the work week to 9 hours and now what? How do the social safety nets co operate for that?

    There is still a lot to work through if this is the route we decide to take to mitigate global warming.

  • Keynes imagined that his grandchildren would work just 15 hours a week.

    No, he wasn’t anticipating our current dystopian economy where employers limit workers’ hours to avoid having to pay them benefits, or the “freedom” to be independent contractors exploited by technolibertarian gig-economy apps like

    Keynes imagined that his grandchildren would work just 15 hours a week.

    No, he wasn’t anticipating our current dystopian economy where employers limit workers’ hours to avoid having to pay them benefits, or the “freedom” to be independent contractors exploited by technolibertarian gig-economy apps like Uber or TaskRabbit. He imagined that the gains in worker productivity that were already accelerating in his time would continue—and he was right. But instead of those gains being more broadly shared, allowing people more freedom from work for their own enjoyment and enrichment, virtually all of the massive gains in worker productivity has accrued to the top.

    We work harder so the rich can become richer, and the rest of us poorer. Instead of hiring more people, we’re told to absorb the slack due to staffing cuts, fearful that our jobs, too, might get cut so that upper management can get a bigger bonus. As the ranks of the unemployed grow, the fear of joining them helps to keep the rank and file in line.

    But what if a 32 hour work week was mandated, with 80% of full compensation, and full benefits. Additional workers would be hired to fill in the gaps in the workforce, and we could slowly ratchet down the number of work hours (while mandating that compensation didn’t decline further, by linking CEO pay to a fixed multiplier on worker pay). Eventually, most people work less, but more people get to work. In the near future, we’ll need a strategy like this, otherwise we’ll suffer from massive unemployment.

    Our purpose as humans is not to work, and especially not to work for the enrichment of some capitalist overlord. Imagine the creativity, the care for one another, and healthier living that we could all enjoy if we just slowed down the pace of our lives a bit.

  • Every hour you live contributes to climate change. One way to cut emissions: shorter lives

    Dumb right? I completely agree we need to take action against climate change, but it seems people are just using it as a buzzword to justify things they want to happen.

  • You can cut my work week to whatever you feel is appropriate, but I will still work extra hours to ensure I deliver a quality result. Let’s stop fooling ourselves that a shorter work week with improve the environment or our lives, in general.

  • Christian environmentalists have been talking about this for years. Matthew Sleeth, author of "Serve God, Save the Planet" says the the number one thing individuals can do to improve the environment is simply to take a "Sabbath" weekly, that is, to have a day of intentionally doing basically nothing

    Christian environmentalists have been talking about this for years. Matthew Sleeth, author of "Serve God, Save the Planet" says the the number one thing individuals can do to improve the environment is simply to take a "Sabbath" weekly, that is, to have a day of intentionally doing basically nothing. Imagine a society where pretty much everything comes to a halt for a full day a week. That is traditional Jewish Society. Furthermore Mark 2:27 asserts that the Sabbath is "not for God, but for man." But in addition, work animals were expected to rest. Thus, while there were religious ramifications, the point was not pleasing God, but the good of self and society. We need a society with a little bit of intentional inefficiency. This is not a new idea.

  • I suppose if we stopped working, hell, maybe even stopped living, we could easily meet greenhouse targets.

  • Less is more. Human life should be

    enjoyed and self-satisfied by the

    wonders of knowledge and how to

    obtain it, lest the sweat of the brow

    rep instant gratification after ones work.

    Although, our main constituency in this

    discussion is related to emissions, the

    “ work week “ and the number of hours

    delegated

    Less is more. Human life should be

    enjoyed and self-satisfied by the

    wonders of knowledge and how to

    obtain it, lest the sweat of the brow

    rep instant gratification after ones work.

    Although, our main constituency in this

    discussion is related to emissions, the

    “ work week “ and the number of hours

    delegated to individuals to make a so-called

    living, is in itself, inhumane. 8-12 hours a day,

    sometimes even more for those who seek

    a little extra pay is far too much. If one of the

    issues we’re having in today’s economy is

    job opportunities, then we should consider,

    cutting the hours in half and lower the cost

    of living here in America. More jobs.

    More Consumers. More Happy Homes.

    Less Crime.

  • The shorter week thing is entirely inconsistent with the dynamics of modern day jobs and the overall work culture. To bring this change, an entire overhaul would be required of things which made America strong in the first place........anyway, this idea can gain traction due to the upcoming elections.

  • While the GND includes ideas meriting serious consideration, some, immediate action and others a good laugh, the extremely clumsy rollout followed by an uninspired reboot, left the ambitious resolution exposed to commensurate folly from both conservative & liberal critics. It deserved a better introduction and follow through.

  • I’m not convinced. For one, most people work the hours they do because that’s how they make enough money to live. Second, while there certainly are some jobs/fields (mainly low-level office jobs) with superfluous or wasted hours, the huge majority of jobs aren’t like that. If a restaurant, for example

    I’m not convinced. For one, most people work the hours they do because that’s how they make enough money to live. Second, while there certainly are some jobs/fields (mainly low-level office jobs) with superfluous or wasted hours, the huge majority of jobs aren’t like that. If a restaurant, for example, wanted to give its employees a shorter workweek while preserving both their incomes and its own operating hours, it would have to raise their pay AND hire more staff. Even in the office-job realm, I think it’s both more likely and more practical to shift to shorter workdays, not shorter workweeks. If employees have significant wasted time in the day, the logical solution is to shave off an hour or two from each workday, not to cut a day off the end.

    Finally and most importantly, I HIGHLY doubt that a shorter workweek would have any real effect on any environmental issue. The study appears to have reached its conclusion by using a very oversimplified model of how both energy use and jobs actually function. That the article concludes that the workweek would need to drop to under ten hours for the environmental benefits is indicative of how far it is from practical reality. I’m aware that’s it’s not an actual policy proposal, but I think it fails to make its point nonetheless. People still drive and use electricity when they aren’t at work, and again, the entire premise really only applies to office workers.

    For that matter, reducing electricity use on a mass scale is a silly and backwards way to approach emissions reduction in the first place. If fossil fuel power plants were all replaced by solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/etc plants (which is not just possible but likely over the next few decades) than the issue of electricity use contributing to pollution would be solved, totally and permanently.

  • This seems to be a no-brainer. Let those who want to work less hours do so, and those who want to work more, more.

  • Dubious.

  • An interesting argument, but it seems that we don’t need any more for better work-life balance. Another reason to promote education and resources to employees to better optimize the work they can do while increasing their happiness.

  • Working less could not only be healthier for people but also reduce greenhouse emissions