Here's what's trending this week...
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So goes the idiom and the lesson learned by Brett King founder of Moven. Nathaniel Popper (@nathanielpopper) of The New York Times reports on a recent trend that has Wall Street re-evaluating its relationship with Silicon Valley. Drawing from a recent report by McKinsey, Popper highlights the changing tide: "...this change [...] is now expected to come from the banks themselves as they absorb new ideas from the technology world and shrink their own operations." King recently pivoted his company's offerings to serve the same banks he once tried taking head-on.
The biggest news from the past week's Oscar wasn't so much the snafu by PwC, rather its 83-year long involvement with the Academy with nary an issue—considering the rather low-tech method used in tabulation. Valentina Zarya (@valzarya) of Fortune reports. The accounting duo—Martha Ruiz and Brian Cullinan—count each and every ballot multiple times—committing everything to memory. "We go through the process of memorizing who all the winners are," Ruiz begins. "Until the presenters open up the envelope on stage and announce [the winner], not even they know who wins."
Before you never left home without American Express and long before Capital One asked what was in your wallet, there was Diner's Club. Claire Tsosie (@ideclaire7) of Nerdwallet interviews Matty Simmons, the then marketing and sales wing to Diner's Club, and takes us back to its origin story. An interesting read.
In point-counterpoint, we pin two compelling and opposing stories and let you, the reader, determine who made the most convincing argument.
POINT: The title says it all—"the robot that takes your job should pay taxes." So says Bill Gates—who may know a thing or two about automation. Simply put, Gates opines that the only way to stave a declining economy is to supplement lost jobs by taxing the profits company's make from outsourcing jobs to automation.
COUNTERPOINT: The Economist comes out swinging by asserting how Bill Gates is an unlikely Luddite. Trash talking aside, The Economist rests its argument on robots—and by proxy, automation—being considered capital investments and how "taxation that deters investment is thought to make people poorer without raising much money."
So who made the best argument? You be the judge and vote for the winner:
About the Author
Ralph is a Research Analyst at Nvoicepay. He's passionate about marketing technology and creating engaging content that delivers value to the consumer.More Content by Ralph Perdomo