RIP, Basic Path Through Life
I got this idea from here. Let’s look at the “standard first-world life path:”
Pretty simple, yes? You start in a “safety net” — meaning your parents are economically responsible for you, then you learn (K-12, college), and then you leave the “learn” stage and can contribute. This leads you to a job/career. You do that for decades, and then you eventually fall back to “safety net,” which is your retirement savings. This has been the conventional model for about 100 years, but definitely since WW2. However, it’s changed quite a bit in the last 10–20 years. Now it probably looks a bit more like this:
Indeed, it’s all over the place. Sometimes you’re contributing, sometimes you’re back in the safety net, and learning has to happen pretty much at all stages. It’s much more about “adaptability” than it ever was before.
This has an insane amount of off-shoots for the very structure of society, including:
Now, obviously every person’s path through life is very different. (“We’re all snowflakes, baby!”) But … we almost need a full-scale re-evaluation of how we think about the progression of learning, career, and retirement. It’s not linear anymore. It’s very much that second graphic.
领英推荐
Here’s an idea from the writer of that Forbes article up top:
It can also broaden our skills away from becoming specialized in one thing until we decide to. We become Neo-Generalists, revolving our insight and experience across from multiple domains to solve new challenges. I would also postulate that we try working on multiple things in parallel, and reduce the dependency on a single job.
And here’s a speech from the same guy, Rawn Shah:
I like his ideas, but I worry they represent too big a change from how our brains are ultimately wired, you know? People are very comfortable with linear paths and ideas they understand; it takes a really long time for people to become comfortable with an opposite idea.
For example, IMHO, no one should be going to a four-year, $60K/year college anymore. It’s ludicrous, especially with a mid-level job market on the back end. But for middle-class white people, do you know how ridiculous it is in most families to say “Eh, I don’t want to go to college?” It’s hopefully getting easier, but it’s not there yet by any means (best I can tell). Most of us like ideas and people that are familiar to us, and that’s exacerbated by “the algorithm bubble.” It’s hard for us to think of “insight and experience across multiple domains.” Most people would rather say “I’m a finance guy!” or whatever. That’s how I see it.
But maybe we’ll just absolutely need to evolve our thinking on learning, development, career and retirement over time.
--
5 个月Interesting
Intra-day Operations Analyst at Accenture | Skilled Researcher & Analyst | Strong Background in Casino Finance & Data Analysis
5 个月"It’s hopefully getting easier, but it’s not there yet by any means (best I can tell)." I agree. The parents who still push for their kids to go to university at all costs won't accept that employers today absolutely DEMAND to see lots of directly job-related experience on the resume. Most employers are NOT about be impressed by your kid's BA, Masters, or PhD, even if it cost a fortune and (GASP) your kid was the first person in the family to get one. So many parents of teenage children today are hearing horror stories from parents of unemployed or underemployed university graduates who are stuck in debt, in low wage jobs, and living at home. And the cost of living crisis today basically guarantees that they will be stuck there even longer.
It's true that the pressure to pursue a costly four-year degree is still strong, especially in certain demographics.
Podcast Enthusiast ??| Wanderer ?? | Business Development ??| Digital Security 1??0????| Financial Analysis??| Published Contributing Author ?? | altMBA ??
5 个月I completely agree….the traditional path has become rarer and rarer. Additionally, I think very few people have any business being on a campus that charges $60k+ annually...really only geniuses that get full rides (a tiny percentage of the population), or millionaires (about 6.6% of the population). The only way this will change is if people stop paying for it in mass.