Well. Today I chose quite an inconvenient location to blog – on my weekly bus trip which lasts around an hour. I am typing in the slightly laptop-illuminated space, surrounded with 3 bags and one case of water bottles. Yesterday I heard for the hundredth time that art requires sacrifices and blogging can be art? Right? Anything can be art, depends on how you deliver it… Okay, here we go.
Today’s post is about an article I read. It was in one of those useless cheap magazines through which one skims to get disappointed, wrongfully realize that life has no meaning, close it, and continue staring into a wall while waiting for their haircut appointment. Surprisingly, today something caught my eye as I desperately tried to procrastinate doing accounting, as much as I like doing that.
The article talked about Rich Donovan, a graduate of my University. Some Wall Street big shot quit Wall Street because he thought that making money on disabilities is more profitable. He even created a company [Lime Connect] which had a goal of convincing other companies that this is true. That intrigued me since usually disabled people are respected on a personal level, but are marginalized on a socioeconomic one.
First, the argument states that “disability dollars” are mostly spent on extreme cases, which is true. He argues that if we re-direct a portion of those dollars to helping people with minor disabilities in the workforce then it will be a major boost for everyone. True, but what exactly does he suggests would be criteria upon which to help? An insignificant question perhaps, considering that the implementation of this social policy will not be executed – it would just piss off too many social workers.
Second, Donovan argued that hiring people with disabilities isn’t a burden but an asset. He says disability is a radioactive brand which is dissociated with value. However, usually people with mild disabilities are as capable of performing most tasks as regular people are. He even went on to say that he himself has a disability, cerebral palsy to be exact. Yet he is better at what he’s doing than many healthy born individuals. By ignoring candidates with disability because of the disability, employers potentially lose value since these people may turn out to be better workers than others.
Third, Donovan provides the readers with some statistics. 1.1 people globally report having a disability. Two billion additional people are either friends or relatives of those people. Also, people with disabilities control an aggregate annual income of more than $1 trillion in the United States.
The point is clear. We often judge too quickly. That is not what I took out of this. What surprised me is the following quote in the middle of the article: “How many times do you get the opportunity to be a global expert about a marketplace the size of China?” Donovan is referring to himself. That is true, disabled people seem to be indeed a marginal niche to many, but in reality it is a HUGE market. My question is – how many other markets do we ignore in a similar manner?
No comments:
Post a Comment