Rachel Emma Silverman

You are currently browsing articles tagged Rachel Emma Silverman.

retrofuturedoct876 Genetic tests to screen individuals for a predisposition to obesity or cancer or some other health-threatening condition are a great thing, but they need to be uncoupled from workplaces. Companies can claim to remain unbiased toward workers who shows tendencies of poor future health, but insurance costs incentivize misuse of such information. Right now the costs of the tests make them a prime perk for employers to offer to those who voluntarily want subsidized lab work, but those prices shouldn’t remain prohibitive in the long run. Going forward, it’s more a question of what corporations will be legally allowed to require. I have a feeling, though, they’ll find out regardless.

The opening of Rachel Emma Silverman’s WSJ report:  

Employers want workers to know what’s in their genes.

A handful of firms are offering employees free or subsidized tests for genetic markers associated with metabolism, weight gain and overeating, while companies such as Visa Inc., Slack Technologies Inc., Instacart Inc. recently began offering workers subsidized tests for genetic mutations linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

The programs provide employees with potentially life-saving information and offer counseling and coaching to prevent health problems down the road, benefits managers say.

Screening for genetic markers linked to obesity is the latest front in companies’ war on workers’ weight woes.

Obesity-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes comprise a large share of overall health-care costs, estimated to run more than $12,000 a worker this year, according to a recent survey from Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health.

Employers are hoping to help bend the cost curve—and make their workers healthier—by more aggressively targeting obesity and coaxing workers to lose weight.•

Tags:

The automation of the workforce is good in the long run but difficult until the new normal becomes, well, normal. How can a roboticized economy and a free-market economy coexist? New industries will be created, of course, but there still may be a shortfall in employment. One solution: an economic output tax. From Rachel Emma Silverman at the WSJ:

“Carl Bass, the chief executive of Autodesk, acknowledged that workplace automation has eliminated or reduced many manufacturing jobs, and will continue to do so in the future, leading to major shifts in the labor market. Entire industries, such as trucking, will eventually be disrupted by robotic advances like self-driving cars, he said. (Bass cited the book, The Second Machine Age, by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee as a source for this robot-heavy scenario.)

But, Bass asked: ‘Are the jobs lost to automation ones that you would want for your children?’ Few parents, he said, dreamed their kids would someday become fuel pumpers or elevator operators, jobs already replaced by automation. In the next 30 years, Bass added, smart machines and robots will outnumber humans on the planet.

Bass presented some outlandish ideas to help societies deal with the structural changes generated by a robot-heavy workforce, including taxing economic output rather than income, or implementing a ‘negative income tax,’ in which governments pay citizens a stipend in order to guarantee a level of income.

‘With our creativity and imagination, we will find harmony with the robots,’ Bass said.”

Tags: , , ,