My apologies if my tone came off harshly. Let's start over.
My point is that a few people in this thread are so angry at how capitalism often takes advantage of the working class (which is true) that they are hurting the discourse that actually helps people in a vulnerable population.
It feels like this is the case with you regarding this issue. You're so angry at corporations that you think I'm shilling for them. And consequently, you're failing to see how people with disabilities all over the world can actually benefit from these exceptions.
I know this because I worked in vocational rehab in California for a long time. This helps a lot of people with intellectual disabilities. And it's a exception that has very strict guardrails– in this case, it's for people with an IQ lower than 70.
Lol I started out in as a job coach in a place like that
Your concerns are valid. California has implemented a very good but imperfect model for this. It's critical that guardrails are in place to keep people from taking advantage of it.
Everything you said applies to big corporations, not smaller businesses. And guess what? They already do what you're saying. In the Bay Area, companies like Target and EA hire a lot of people with disabilities.
The calculus is very different for small businesses. The y-intercept for payroll is very different. Trust me. I worked in job development. We told them about all the write-offs. It wasn't enough to justify how disruptive it is for their business to have a job coach there with the employee, let alone all the mistakes they'll probably make.
The idea is that we want people with intellectual disabilities to have far more of these opportunities, not just work for the limited positions available in big companies. This is incentive for those companies.
It's frustrating because, having worked in the field, it would be amazing if people supported this. But the very people that want to help are actually becoming enemies to the cause because of their poor understanding of the problem.
If an abled person could do the job, a disabled person could also do it
The problem is that you're lumping all people with disabilities in the same bucket. Not all disabilities are the same.
In California, this exemption has existed for a while now. And it only exists for people whose IQ is below 70. They are severely impaired and interview very poorly, even with help.
If you're a company trying to make money, who would you rather hire:
Someone with no education, no experience, an IQ below 70, poor working memory, and disabilities significant enough to require a job coach to help you with your job.
Someone with no education, no experience, but no disability
I agree. But this is not one of those situations. I worked in vocational rehab for people with intellectual disabilities.
The people helped by a proposal like this are the ones who could never compete for these jobs against the general population. Companies would never hire them.
Why? In the case of our clients, they had an IQ below 70. They could never write a resume on their own, they interview really poorly, no experience, no education, and they will need often need a job coach.
So companies would treat them like you and me. By allowing a wage lower than the minimum, people with intellectual disabilities get a leg up on the competition.
Also, our participants received SSI and SSD. They did not need these jobs to live. They worked these jobs to feel like a part of the community.
Yeah that's what angry people in this thread don't understand. They're assuming it's corporations trying to exploit yet another vulnerable population.
Corporations absolutely do that. But this is not one of those situations. Failure to see nuance in situations often ends up hurting the very people who need the help.
You're not understanding the problem. You're framing it as if they already have the job and now companies will reduce their wages.
The problem is that the people this would help aren't getting hired at all. Why? Because, if you're a company trying to make money, who would you rather hire:
Someone with no education, no experience, an IQ below 70, poor working memory, and disabilities significant enough to require a job coach to help you with your job.
Someone with no education, no experience, but no disability.
If you're discussing this in good faith, you would obviously hire the second person. So what incentive is there for companies to open up positions for people who are less productive and require potentially disruptive assistance to do their job?
You're acting like all disabilities are equal. They are not. I also have a disability, but this exemption wouldn't apply to you and me.
In the US, people who benefit from this have an IQ of 70 or lower. As an intake coordinator in a previous role, I know for a fact that they don't need this money to survive. These jobs are for enrichment, not subsistence.
Help me solve my previous job's biggest problem then. Maybe you're smarter than the thousands of us who work in vocational rehabilitation for people with intellectual disabilities.
I'm a job developer and I'm trying to get people with intellectual disabilities placed in minimum wage jobs. They have no experience, no education, and would be less productive than a person with these same issues but without the disability. They're competing for min wage jobs against everyone else.
How do I convince companies to take a loss I productivity to hire them instead of someone else?
First of all, I have a disability and yes, you're correct that we don't receive enough benefits.
The problem is that you're lumping all people with disabilities in the same bucket. In California, the people who would qualify for this exemption receive sufficient SSI, SSD, and Medicaid. I know because I was an intake coordinator and it was a huge part of the intake process to review what assistance they're receiving.
You don't get it. I worked for programs that provided job placement and job coaching for these folks. They are less productive than other people who would fill that position.
Companies hire folks with disabilities take a loss on productivity for the PR.
It's so ironic how the people who want to help the most often get so angry that they hurt the people they're trying to help.
In the US, the people who benefit from this exception don't work to support themselves because they receive SSI, SSD, and Medicaid. They work because it's far better than being stuck in a group home or day program all day.
Without this, they would have to compete for jobs that everyone else is applying for. This is a cruel game when you have no experience, no education, and will likely require a job coach to help you with your job.
Sub-minimum wage jobs provide incentive for companies to hire people who are usually less productive employees to provide enrichment for them.
Tell her to move to a state, like California, that has programs that provide job search assistance to people with disabilities. In my previous company, we were able to place people with hearing impairment, blindness, and intellectual disabilities in a wide variety of jobs across the Bay Area.
If she has a master's degree, that makes our job even easier.
I agree with you but you're so angry about a different (and very real) issue that you're not seeing how you're hurting the discourse that could help people with intellectual disabilities find jobs.
The people who qualify for this exemption receive SSI, SSD, and Medicaid. They don't need a job to live. They want a job because it gives them a feeling of fulfillment and it keeps them from rotting in a day program or a group home all day.
Edit: I have a disability so I understand that we don't receive enough benefits. But this exemption wouldn't apply to people like me. Not all people with disabilities are the same.
The irony is that the people who are criticizing this proposal are the ones hurting potential opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities.
What you don't understand is that the people who would qualify for this exception would never need this money to live on. They have SSI, SSD, and Medicaid. They work jobs for mental stimulation, not to make money to live on.
I worked as a job coach and job developer for people with intellectual disabilities. It was incredibly hard to convince companies to hire our participants because they had to compete for jobs everyone else was applying for. Incentives like this help convince the managers to convert positions that would be open to general population and convert them into positions for our program participants.
The way it works in California is you take a position that pays $30 and split it into 3 positions that each pay $10. That's three people with Downs Syndrome or severe autism that work productive instead of rotting in a group home.
And keep in mind, on average, those three people combined would be less productive than one full-time person doing the job. The job coach often steps in and makes up the difference.
Your heart is in the right place but you're too quick to assume bad faith from companies.
I worked as a job developer and job coach for people with intellectual disabilities.
What most people don't think about when they read these stories is that people with disabilities have to compete for the same jobs that everyone else does. Sometimes big companies like Target will carve out a certain number of positions for them, but the vast majority of other jobs are open applications.
It would've drastically opened more doors for our program participants if companies had the option to pay them less.
What many people don't understand is that the people would be eligible for sub-minimum wage jobs would never need these jobs for subsistence. In California, their federal and state resources make sure they're plenty taken care of. In fact, if they make too much money, their federal and financial assistance gets cut off and they might owe money. It was super frustrating how low that income threshold was.
The angry people in this thread aren't educated in how things work in the field. The people with intellectual disabilities who would benefit from this proposition look for work for stimulation and enrichment, not for actual subsistence.
Yeah but he should log off for his own peace, not for his public image. He keeps pursuing happiness in all the wrong places, and the byproducts left behind in that pursuit gave all his opps too much to work with. That might be the biggest reason he got buried so badly in this beef.
In San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in the country, a rotisserie chicken at Costco is still $4.99, about $1.66/lb. Raw poultry is just a little more than that.
Y'all buying all your groceries at Whole Foods?
Food prices have definitely gone up but are we exaggerating for comedic effect or are we being serious?
In San Francisco, if you buy all your groceries at Safeway or Whole Foods, then you're cooked for sure. But if you buy at Trader Joe's, FoodMax, Costco, or a Mexican or Asian market, food is super affordable.
Maybe I'm just lucky to live in California.
Even in San Francisco, $100 gets you a lot of food if you buy it at Costco, FoodMax, or Trader Joe's. Granted, not as much as this lady. But it's enough to feed my partner and me for a week to a week and a half.
I'm genuinely trying to understand how your groceries get that high. I live in San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in the world, groceries wouldn't run me up that high.
Granted, I go to Costco and Trader Joe's, not somewhere like Safeway. $100 of food wouldn't get me as much as this lady but it would be more than enough for 1 to 1.5 weeks for me and my partner.
We won the same number of games as last season. The West just got better while Klay and Wiggins declined.
I share your concerns about work being devalued. But as you've already said...
This case is an exception. If we use generalities (e.g., "the value of work within a system devalues people") to make decisions about specifics, we may end up hurting people who are in the margins.
The specifics here are:
People with developmental disabilities often get stuck in day programs or group homes doing mind-numbing activities, with no socialization with the community
To provide enrichment and pathways to become integrated into the community, people with developmental disabilities can get jobs
Studies show that people with developmental disabilities that work in the community are happier on average and feel a greater sense of belonging to the community
It is hard for them to get work opportunities because they have to compete for these jobs against people who do not have disabilities
Providing an min-wage exception for them (with strict guardrails for who qualifies) gives them a leg-up on the competition. Every $16/hr position that gets converted into two positions, each making $8/hr, results in two people with severe autism or Down syndrome becoming part of the community and feeling like they are contributing to society
This model has already worked really well for decades in states like California, one of the top states to lead the way towards a progressive minimum wage
The height of discrimination....
clevercomebacks