One Size Does Not Fit All
Efficiency.
How to get the most juice for the smallest squeeze.
If the modus operandi of capitalism could be summed up, it would be that. Currently, the majority of the human population lives in a world designed by our current interpretation of capitalism, where we create processes and systems meant to result in the most output derived from the least input. Before I continue, do not get me wrong in that I am not a proponent of abandoning capitalism altogether. Rather, I encourage that we revisit our underlying assumptions to identify where and how we can make things better. Capitalism in its current form has been marketed as a means to advance the economies of developing nations and solve the problems of the pre-industrialized world. Capitalism, has to an extent, been quite successful in solving for various issues around the world but has still either exacerbated long-standing inequities or created new ones. We live in a world where 10% have access to a relatively lavish lifestyle and the remaining 90% do not. The top 1% own 50% of the worlds wealth, and the top 10% own 85% of it [CNBC]. A net worth of $90,000+ or annual salary of $170,000+ qualifies you in the top 10% [Investopedia].
All things equal, we can call this system of capitalism the “10% percent model”. The 10% model is a result of creating a one-size-fits-all production line, in which socio-economic ascent is based off the likelihood that one fits the lowest common denominator on a series of characteristics for a certain archetype of person. This industrial revolution and system that proceeded it has had its merits, such as the reduction in child labor and general increases in standards of living.
This piece will take a look at a series of ideas (most are not new!) that we can consider to revise our current society to create potential gains for groups that may struggle in the cookie cutter system that has dominated much of the modern world.
First off, let’s tackle education. The way in which education is delivered should be customizable to the student’s interests and capabilities. More often that not, students fall out of interest with a subject not because of the essence of the topic but because of the way it is being packaged. What if a math problem were presented to each student under the context of their specific interests? A question about multiplication can be formulated under the guise of an investment, chemical reaction, sports contract, or population growth, etc. Put in another way, one can think about vegetables, which are often critiqued by unwilling consumers for being bland in flavor. However, when one seasons and cooks said vegetables to meet their own preferences, they are able to enjoy the meal and relish the health benefits. The same concept can be applied to education.
Another common complaint about the education, particularly before university, is regarding the rigid structure of the timing. It’s well documented that teenagers have a shift in their circadian rhythm during this period in their lives, and yet we continue (in most places) to keep the start of school at the same ungodly hours [BBC]. Furthermore, these early start times are felt more so by students who have longer commute times and therefore have to wake up even earlier; further increasing their sleep deficit and reducing the quality of their education [NY Post]. There may be some very legitimate reasons for why a certain school may set their hours the way they do but the early start should most certainly not be the default if it can be avoided, given the aforementioned reasons.
Speaking of time, the same inflexible structures are also being questioned in the workplace. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged employers to question whether rigid hours or fixed work settings are necessary to yield the same (if not better) results than the previous status quo. Flexible work locations and asynchronous working hours can help improve the experience for a variety of groups that have been historically challenged with respect to career growth within the confines of the current 10% model. Working parents benefit from asynchronous hours as they can better balance the needs of childcare and work [CNBC]. The remote work environment has been shown to be a preferred to racial minorities as a way to succeed and be viewed equally outside of the context of an in-person office environment and culture that is not always welcoming to such groups [Bloomberg/New York Times]. Flexible working locations allows for easier employment opportunities to those who have disabilities [CNN].
Quick detour: The best parallel for this shift can be seen in the current evolution occurring the in the healthcare space. The next big thing is custom insights regarding one’s personal health based off of individual data collected by a smart device (i.e., smart watch). In the past, insights and recommendations were provided based off data from the general population* and not our own unique individual biometrics.
*This hasn’t always been sampled from a representative population or data set (This is a whole different conversation for another time).
Wrapping things up: If we were to start to analyze our major means of economic mobility (education and employment) through the lens of flexibility based off the individual’s needs, capabilities, background, and lifestyle, we may be able to unlock more opportunities and growth for those in underserved and underrepresented communities. It should be noted that I do not believe that this will necessarily lead to some revolutionary change where we unlock growth that eradicates a major global issue instantaneously (i.e., Eradication of world poverty). Rather, this type of paradigm shift could hypothetically evolve our 10% model to a 12%, 15%, or 20% model (or even more!). That’s still a massive improvement and in a world where socio-economic status continues to become more and more stratified, any gains that we can make as a society are well worth pursuing. How can we design a world that works for everyone?
