Water is everywhere: in our tubs, our bottles, our lakes, our bodies. And with scientific studies, such as in this Journal of Climate, reporting that average rainfall is increasing, it’s difficult to believe that the world’s water supply would ever dry up. But therein lies the irony: our planet is facing a water scarcity crisis no less urgent nor severe than that of climate change or energy. Statistics from UN-Water show that out of the total amount of water worldwide, only 2.5 percent is fresh water. From that fresh water, 70 percent is in the form of ice or permanent snow in mountainous regions and polar regions, and inaccessible for human use. The remaining 30 percent, in the form of ground water (~30%) and fresh water lakes and rivers (0.3%), constitutes all the potentially usable water. In fact, as analyzed by UN-Water, the total usable freshwater supply for the entire ecosystem and humanity is less than one percent of all freshwater resources.
Real World Issues,
The IPO market of the 2000s is different from that of the 1990s in one surprising and unexpected way: Successful tech companies are doing their best to stay out of it as long as possible. According to the Quigley report, the result is shocking. In the new tech cycle, more money is accruing to private investors, not public shareholders.
What is causing this sudden shift, and who are the new winners? To answer this question, we need to go back to the economic theory behind the IPO market and analyze changes that are driving different behaviors from some its biggest stakeholders.
Scholars in economics have long attempted to quantify the most philosophically intangible concepts such as fairness and equity. In the United States, fairness of affirmative action in higher education has become one of the most controversial social issues. The Economist covered this issue as their cover story in April 2013 in a controversial assessment of the need for governments to abolish affirmative action policies. Fairness of these policies has also been questioned publicly
by several recent Supreme Court cases including Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin (where Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas-Austin for reverse discrimination against her “white” race), and the recent case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (which questions whether states should ban schools from using affirmative action and involved the Michigan school system—the ruling is discussed in depth in this Slate Magazine article). Using mathematical theories, economists have already worked on assessing fairness in affirmative action policies for more than a decade. Controlled school choice literature, as I’ll discuss today, is a relatively recent development in the field of economics. The goal of this academic inquiry is to study mechanisms related to matching students to schools while maintaining a balance of diversity. But in this field of inquiry, how is fairness measured? Is the current system fair? If so, why are there so many social concerns arising from the existing system?
The following article was published in Science by Science CEO Mike Jones with contribution from Hippo Reads Staff. The piece has been run in several publications including Forbes and the Chicago Tribune.
Every story about the sharing economy starts the same way. An individual constrained by the limits and demands of a job has found a way to make an easy living, thanks to [Airbnb, Vaunt, Dogvacay, SnapGoods]. You fill in the blank.