Sean Ogle, founder of Location 180, blogged about ten reasons why one should “move to Asia to start [their] lifestyle business”. As an avid traveller, I have always yearned to go to Asia in hopes of developing both my character and my business skills. He conveys how Asia really is the place to go to intertwine business efforts with living a unique and exciting lifestyle. Living is inexpensive, the food is great, it is easy to travel to nearby countries, the networking is extremely international and diverse, and, most importantly, “every day is an adventure”.

To me, living an adventurous and diverse lifestyle is one of the most important influences to shape one’s character. It is easy to stay in the comfort of your own home, in the city where you grew up but easy is never the right answer. Discovering your values and who you are as a person will directly relate to your ethics and attitude in the business world. Travelling to Asia would not only allow me to form life-long connections, but would also push me out of my comfort zone – something that is crucial to self development. With Asia’s rapidly developing industries, it seems like a fantastic place to explore.

Sources: http://www.seanogle.com

http://www.seanogle.com/travel/move-to-asia

Photo: https://www.happycow.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/hongkong1.jpg

I came across Kexin Cheng’s blog post which discusses how Amazon is planning on launching a drone delivery program. Rather than hiring someone to drive across the country and deliver a package, why not have a machine do it for you? Logistically, the drones will cut costs, conserve gasoline, and lower CO2 emissions. But is this really a viable mean of transportation? Not necessarily. The main focus of the Amazon drone delivery system regards sustainability – something we recently learned about in class. However, sustainability is not just revolved around the protection of the environment. It also must take into consideration its people, and cutting people of jobs will only have negative effects on the economy. This ties into my previous post on Maria Starko’s blog regarding Eatsa Restaurant. It’s the same concept – people being replaced by machines.

There’s also the question of, what happens when a package fails to be delivered because of a number of different factors? How are these drones supposed to withstand unpredictable weather conditions? How does Amazon know that the package has been delivered into the hands of the right person? The rapid escalation of technology abilities interests me very much. I am curious to see how the economy will react to certain industry replacements, because technology may not always be on our side.

Sources: https://blogs.ubc.ca/kxchengcommerce/2015/10/12/amazon-drones-delivery-a-revolution-of-logistics/

Photo: http://images.technewstoday.com.s3.amazonaws.com/tnt/amazoncom-can-now-test-its-drone-designs-with-faas-approval.jpg

One of Maria Starko’s blogs conveys how machines are replacing people in many industries. Specifically, Eatsa Restaurant allows people to have a meal without the necessity of having to engage with a single employee. This is supposed to be a Point of Difference for the company, but is it really? Or is it just a simple way to cut costs?

In my opinion, Eatsa will leave customers without the experience that a typical restaurant has to offer. The restaurant business revolves around ambiance – the mood or atmosphere of a place, and often people are an essential component to a good atmosphere. Yes, this approach is different and may attract customers because it is unusual, but does this really add value to the company? Technological advancements have allowed people to be replaced by machines, which makes it difficult for certain employees to keep their jobs. Some think this advance in technology will give companies the ability to cut costs with efficiency and ease, however the economy is in for a rude awakening. Typically, simple tasked jobs are easily replaced by machines, but it is these jobs that many people rely on to survive. The prestigious positions of CEO, CFO, etc. are not easily replaced and very few people hold these positions in companies. A new source of competition has arrived – will people let technology prevent economic opportunity?

Sources: https://blogs.ubc.ca/mariastarko/2015/10/01/man-vs-machine-is-innovation-always-better/

Photo: http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/homer-robot.jpg

Warren Buffet’s Grandson, Howard Warren Buffett, has decided to take a futuristic approach in his new investments. The 32-year-old plans on investing in companies that focus on the better of tomorrow and future generations. He is interested in companies that target issues such as water scarcity, clean energy, and sustainable agriculture. Steering a different direction than his grandfather, his concerns involve the people, rather than the acquisition of personal capital.

This futuristic approach to business is one we just learned of, and can be very valuable when looking to meet consumer needs. Giving back to the community is an important aspect of entrepreneurship, as it directly involves the well-being of the people. Water scarcity, for example, is a huge global issue that many developing and even developed countries face. Having already established himself, Howard can use the capital he has previously acquired and use it towards supporting good causes, helping out new and “undervalued” businesses, and addressing issues that are occurring right now. The idea of approaching social issues with an entrepreneurial mindset has only recently been labelled as “social entrepreneurship”.  It is important to put things into perspective – step back and see what good can be done in the interest of the people, not oneself.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/dealbook/buffetts-grandson-seeks-own-investment-route-social-change.html?ref=business

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53714acce4b0bb13e3c90e93/537264d3e4b04835e33db007/55cbb293e4b03b9f7f27a891/1439413030290/?format=1500w

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has approved the release of genetically engineered salmon into the market place. AquaBounty Technologies has been pushing for this approval for almost 20 years, and only in the last 5 has it been sure of its product’s safety. Making for a more efficient process, the Atlantic Salmon has been genetically modified to grow double its normal size in half the amount of time. The real question is: is this humane?

Arguably, fish are not harmed in the process and the fishing industry will reap great benefits from these bigger and “better” fish. But will demand really increase? If people knew that their fish was genetically modified, they would be less likely to purchase it. Here’s the catch – this company does not actually have to advertise the truth about their product. Is this ethical? The answer is left quite unclear. The fruit and vegetable industries have no problem producing modified foods and people have no problem purchasing them. When a person looks at a juicy, ripe strawberry they don’t take into consideration that its been genetically modified and may contain cancer-causing cells. Instead, they are lead to believe that it’s been a good season and the strawberries are larger than usual. This logic will soon become weaved into everyone’s brains as technology improvements have given people the ability to modify any food that exists. Ethical or not – the industries using this process will expand until everything we eat has been skewed to be visually attractive.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/genetically-engineered-salmon-approved-for-consumption.html?ref=business

As Michael Matheson Miller states, the idea of a one-to-one business model merely provides impoverished people with a “Band-Aid” that only fixes one injury. It does not prevent future injuries from occurring, but it is a short-term solution for the one that is affecting that mother, father, child, or sibling now.  This rationale is extremely short-sighted. Lacking the “infrastructure” and knowledge to attain wealth, these people are left hopeless when given something. Yes, they may be slightly more comfortable in their new pair of Toms, that is only until the Toms become worn and unwearable. Giving these people a singular pair of shoes is not the answer to solving the big picture of poverty. Not to mention, it destroys their own local businesses, which puts even more pressure on already struggling economies.

The solution to this one-to-one business model is to teach these impoverished people. Teaching them how to make basic things while also influencing them to have entrepreneurial mindsets will be more promising in the long run than just giving them materialistic goods. Providing them with these basic skills will propel them to do much more with their lives –it will propel them to escape the destructive cycle of poverty.

Sources: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one-one-business-model-social-impact-avoiding-unintended-consequences/

Photo: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCNzV4ey9mMkCFYmUiAodGrQKXw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msh.org%2Fnews-events%2Fstories%2Fno-more-bare-feet-msh-and-toms-distribute-shoes-to-children-in-lesotho&bvm=bv.107763241,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNG4Q967kJI0htm9EjaUw4ULnP3v6g&ust=1447884842384864