This article originally appeared in The Detroit News June 17, 2025.

A movie fan walking into a theater 70 years ago had no idea how easy it would be to watch a movie in 2025. Back in the day, if you wanted to watch a movie, you had to call the movie theater, ask for show times and then drive there to watch.

A major innovation came along when movies started running on television. A few decades later, the VCR gave people the ability to record content on TV.

The entertainment industry saw the opportunity to innovate, realizing that people would pay to watch the same movies at home again and again. The video store was born. You’d drive to Blockbuster, pick out the movie and return it a few days later.

Netflix sparked the next big innovation by mailing DVDs to viewers at their homes. Customers could skip the trouble of going to the video store.

The tectonic plates shifted again with streaming, obliterating video stores and diminishing movie visits. Today you can watch nearly any movie ever created without leaving your couch.

The goal of the entertainment industry is essentially unchanged — to entertain people through visual storytelling — but the delivery mechanism keeps changing. The product gets faster, better and cheaper for the consumers.

This potential for innovation isn’t unique to entertainment. Other sectors, like public education, are ripe for transformation.

We have educated children in essentially the same way for decades. They climb on the school bus, ride to the public school building, sit in a classroom with a teacher up front. Students spend a predetermined number of hours, days and years in class before they walk across the stage clutching their diplomas.

What if we could educate kids for a few dollars a day instead of the national average of $17,000 per student per year? What if curriculum could be customized to a child’s unique learning style? What if the high school could be tailored to a student’s higher education or career goals? The more we learn about neuroscience, behavioral science and artificial intelligence, the more plausible these ideas become.

The goal of public education doesn’t have to change, but the delivery mechanism might.

Another area is employer benefits. Gone are the days when someone works for the same company for 40 years, retires with a Rolex and enjoys his pension in Florida. It happens, but it’s no longer the norm. Instead, people can move from company to company or design a career that looks more like an independent contractor, picking up jobs and clients as needed.

But what gig workers get with autonomy and flexibility has a tradeoff in employment benefits: health insurance, retirement, sick time, paid holidays. What if benefits like retirement accounts and health insurance were portable, following workers like a 401(k), not tied to one employer?

Once again, the goals would be the same, but the delivery mechanism could change.

Finally, permitting. State and local governments issue a variety of permits for construction, employment and environmental impact. Anyone who applies for a permit learns the agony of waiting.

What if permits took only minutes for approval? Permitting could be revolutionized if an agency’s incentives were aligned with speedy approval. What if the default assumption were that a permit will be granted unless it has certain defects?

All this requires a shift in thinking. It’s not easy because nostalgia, tradition and our own experiences influence how we picture the future. But we should care more about the goal than about a specific process. Especially if the process isn’t accomplishing the goal.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.