
Unfit for work - ilamont
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
======
FD3SA
Means-tested social assistance is now a vestigial remnant of an economy
strictly dependent upon labor as its primary input for growth. As the share of
economic inputs tips increasingly in favor of capital (via automation), most
laborers will steadily become unemployable at a subsistence-level minimum
wage. As a result, we will see dependence and abuses of means-tested social
welfare by these laborers who can no longer participate in the market.

The only long term solution is a basic income system, which rewards
consumption and allows the market to continuously reward innovation and
efficiency. Without a redistribution mechanism to fuel consumption, the market
collapses entirely as wealth is further concentrated.

Further reading:

1\. [http://www.naturalfinance.net/2013/02/nearly-all-of-us-
suppo...](http://www.naturalfinance.net/2013/02/nearly-all-of-us-support-
slavery.html)

2\. <http://amzn.com/B005WTR4ZI>

3\. <http://amzn.com/B002S0NITU>

~~~
dia80
I often discuss this with friends. It often comes down to:

Big technology disruptions have happened before. The market adjusted and
something new came along for people to do.

I like to argue: There were about one million working horses in the UK in 1900
but only 20k by 1914. No one found new jobs for those horses... [1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_horse_in_Britain>

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Except when a horse became a cost instead of providing income, it would likely
have been slaughtered. I don't think that's the path we want to take with
people.

~~~
nollidge
Add to that the fact that we can control domestic horse breeding, whereas
controlling human breeding is, you know, _frowned upon_.

~~~
benologist
Is it? Contraceptives and to some extent education are pretty normal in a lot
of societies.

There's no stigma involved in buying or using condoms or other means of
avoiding pregnancy, although there is with abortion.

~~~
wonderzombie
The OP means such as forced sterilization. There's precedent for it, and it's
widely (and IMHO correctly) regarded as monstrous.

~~~
pyre
Or "one child" policies.

------
shawnee_
_Part of the rise in the number of people on disability is simply driven by
the fact that the workforce is getting older, and older people tend to have
more health problems._

This is probably one of the key points the article could be making, but it's
kinda glossed over. As the baby boom generation (the one born ~1946 –> ~1959)
nears retirement, it makes a lot of sense. That generation - my parents'
generation - really did a large portion of the work involved with building out
the physical infrastructure that allows our economy to operate as it does
today: buildings, roads, power lines, mining, machinery, warehouses, etc.
Physical work tends to create more injuries and disabilities than sedentary
work, and people who do that kind of work simply cannot do it for as long as
people who do sedentary work. How can we forget there was an entire generation
of people who turned the 1940's USA into the one of the 1970s?

I know I've mentioned this on here before but it's relevant: my dad hung
sheetrock for living. He stopped going to school after 6th grade. There was
_no way_ he could have made to age 64 -- people thought he was crazy to be
doing it until age 53 -- which is when he died, almost 10 years ago. From a
combination of issues related to what his work did to his body.

But the sheer idiocy of the system which has rewarded and continues to reward
neat-suit Realtors and loan officers and salesmen (those "educated" ones who
tend to work the sedentary jobs) -- instead of the workers meant that he was
left with no options for healthcare, retirement, or even being able to leave
his children a dime.

It's not like none of them have a work ethic. . . many of them have worked
long and hard already; they're just "prematurely" tired and worn out. Not to
mention the system keeps trying to move the dangling carrot of retirement
further and further away from their grasp by attempting to increase retirement
age.

[edit -- apologies for the awry double pasted text in the original post]

~~~
mdasen
I appreciate your post and your pain. However, one thing that I will point out
is that one data point is not something one can draw conclusions from. A
friend of mine's father (Ph.D. and desk job) died in his early 50s too.

Looking at data, it seems that the sedentary-jobbed have a life expectancy of
79.3 while the manual workers have a life expectancy of 75 years. So, there is
a difference of 4.3 years (males, UK 2002-2005). It should also be noted that
life expectancy for the manual group has gone up about 7 years since 1972-1976
(the sedentary saw a similar 7 year increase).

Governments aren't looking to increase the retirement age to dangle some
carrot in front of people they consider too stupid to know better. If life
expectancy is going up by 7 years, that means that a pension needs to provide
income for more years. That means higher taxes, raising the retirement age, or
putting more onus on the individual to save for retirement. There's a genuine
question: where would the money come from to give someone a retirement at 50?
To provide the average 50 year old male a $50,000 salary for the rest of their
life costs over $1M - and that isn't $50,000 adjusted for inflation. What does
that come out to per year? Assuming the kind of conservative planning that the
government does, over $20,000 pear year. Essentially, we would need a tax of
40% for people to be able to retire at 50 and replace their income for life.
Now, maybe 75% income replacement is ok and a 33% tax would do it. But then
you have to think about providing inflation adjustments and healthcare for
that period and it's just not good. Health costs are rising substantially
faster than inflation. Should we lock people into the standard of care at the
year of their retirement with newer, more expensive treatments unavailable to
them?

There's just a big money issue when it comes to retirement age that's hard to
ignore. Ideally, none of us would ever have to work. Unfortunately, that isn't
our reality. Not to become too weird, but it's really tragic when you think
about it. We're these biological beings trying to strive against what would
happen to us if we stopped working to survive. And we've created some
awesomeness to make our existence a lot better (medicine, for instance), but
it's a thin veil over the harshness of what happens to us in the absence of
working to survive. To come back down to earth, it's really crappy that we
can't have the same retirement age that we used to have. However, I'm not sure
how to go about talking about retirement ages without talking about the money
we need to support it. Maybe it's time we raised social security taxes
realizing that we don't care as much about iPhones as we do about our
retirement. Ultimately, it isn't about governments trying to hurt people, but
governments not having the money to offer it.

It should also be noted that a lot of these jobs pay better than similarly
skilled jobs that are more sedentary. Construction salaries average $44,630.
Office and administrative work averages $34,120. Sales $37,520. Personal Care
$24,620. Part of the higher salary might be because of the nature of the work
you speak of. The additional money per year could go toward providing an
earlier retirement via individual means. I know that most people won't save
and that's why I like social security. Maybe we should have a lower retirement
age for certain professions along with higher social security and medicare
taxes on jobs in those professions.

\--

I can't imagine how hard it is to lose a parent so young. I'm sorry.

~~~
naa42
> Where would the money come from to give someone a retirement at 50?

Well, it looks completely different if we take out the money from this
situation.

Consider this: we have big unemployment, a lot of part-time workers, a lot of
people not working because of disabilities, there are also millions of college
and university students who are obviously not working full time. But the
economy keeps going, it has no shortage of workforce, number of workplaces is
limited and less than total number of people.

Then you propose to increase retirement age.

The number of workers will increase, but the number of workplaces is the same.
Wages are decreasing, tax revenue is decreasing and we again have no money to
pay welfare, pensions etc. So we don't need more workforce.

Redundant workers rely on disability pensions, unemployment payments, food
stamps etc. All these welfare programs have obvious deficiencies, but we need
to feed the people anyway. If these people were working it would be much
better. But there is simple way to increase number of working people without
extra resources.

We just need to limit working hours. And it is possible, because it was
possible to introduce 40 hour work week. Now cut it to 35, and you get 12%
increase of number of working people and unemployment completely disappears.

~~~
sheefrex
That train of thought is known as the lump of labour fallacy.

What you propose would reduce output; if it was optimal for firms to hire the
unemployed, in place of those already employed, then they would do so - unless
they are prevented from doing so by labour legislation, which doesn't seem to
be the case the U.S.

That the unemployed are not hired might make sense when there are costs to
hiring and training a new worker, which don't exist for a worker already in
place. On an aggregate level, this policy would increase the cost of labour,
and consequently reduce its demand, so less overall would be employed (though
the rate of employment would probably stay about constant because you reduced
the denominator by reducing the labour force).

Probably a better explanation here: <http://www.economist.com/economics-a-
to-z/l#node-21529454>

~~~
eli_gottlieb
"In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, they're not."

A fair portion of the Western world's underemployment and unemployment problem
derives _directly_ from the _over_ employment of those who have the jobs. As
people keep putting it, "Whatever happened to the 40-hour workweek?"

For example, among those sedentary professionals who can keep working for
decades upon decades, most in the United States are classified as Fair Labor
Standards Act _exempt_ , and are therefore _often_ made to work overtime.
Health insurance is a fixed cost that _needs_ to be driven down both through
socializing medicine and, preferably, through requiring _per-hour_ National
Insurance taxes, but only the latter action would actually change the fact
that firms find it cheaper to hire two professionals working 60 hours/week
each than to hire three professionals for normal 40-hour workweeks.

And, here's the trick, neither of those two professionals actually receives
overtime pay. The company is literally getting a 1/3 boost to their
productivity-per-employee solely by using a legal loophole to not pay for all
hours worked. This is not the lump-of-labor fallacy, it's straightforward
exploitation.

To paraphrase many Hacker News-targeted blogposts, "Fuck companies, pay
workers."

~~~
raintrees
Thanks, I like the quote re: theory and practice and will swipe it for my own
re-use...

Attribution?

------
jareds
As a blind individual in America I’m an example of someone on the disability
bubble. What allowed me to avoid going on disability was college. By being
blind I got some additional financial help to get through college. Even though
I could have probably gotten full disability it made a lot more sense for me
to get a degree and a programming job. I never considered going the disability
rout since I easily make three times what I would have on disability and
expect that gap to grow wider as I become more experience. If college hadn’t
been an option for me I could easily see myself going on disability. I can’t
think of a lot of jobs I could do that wouldn’t have required a college degree
since most physical labor is not an option for me. Even with the help I got
from the government with college I’ll still wind up being a plus on the
governments balance sheet since I don’t receive any disability payments now
that I work full time and pay taxes. Unfortunately from reading the story most
people don’t have the opportunities I did, and even if they do some refuse to
take advantage of them. While I think we should expand opportunities for
education and job training there’s no way to force people to take advantage of
them.

~~~
rthomas6
I am curious: How does one program while blind? Obviously it's just as easy in
your brain, but what is the process for reading and writing code?

~~~
jareds
[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you-
progra...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you-program-if-
youre-blind)

------
rthomas6
This seems like what journalism should be. This is shocking to me. An entire
generation of people have slipped through the cracks, and I had no idea this
sort of disability-gaming was occurring. Is this common knowledge?

~~~
kevinskii
Anecdotally, I am closely acquainted with several people who receive
disability assistance from the government. They are all genuinely unable to
perform moderate physical labor _at present_.

However, without exception, their disability was brought about by poor
personal decisions and could be remedied fairly easily. The financial
assistance gives them a strong incentive not to try.

~~~
tjic
> all genuinely unable to perform moderate physical labor

I know of several people who spend all day sitting at home blogging or
chatting on email because they're physically disabled. Yet I've employed
multiple people as customer support techs who's job description is "sit at
home and chat on email".

Our government is unwilling to tell people that they're free to either work or
not work, but if they choose not to work, they won't get paid.

It's a collective action problem: no politician wants to be the first one to
be "mean" and tell perfectly competent people that they can't live off of the
stolen labor of others.

...so we continue to have "disability" for people who are entirely capable of
working, albeit not at wages that they'd prefer to earn.

~~~
wonderzombie
Right, the old "take it or leave it" proposition. But is it _actually_ better
for our society to have all of these people living on the street? Becoming
homeless? Going to our emergency rooms for medical care? Or, better yet,
forcing them to become dependents on the next generation for food, shelter,
and (expensive) medical care?

Realistically, those are the alternatives. A large subset of people have
insufficient education or qualifications for a desk job. And note that "being
old" is itself likely to disqualify you from a lot of jobs.

Remember, this amounts to $13,000/yr, which hardly qualifies as a sinecure,
_and_ health insurance. Do you think they're likely to be able to get a job
which includes health insurance? Because otherwise "get a job" is a non-
starter.

~~~
marknutter
I'm betting when faced with the prospect of living on the street, or worse,
starving to death, these people would figure out a way to cope with their
current afflictions.

~~~
king_jester
This is ridiculous considering that a large number of homeless people have a
disability, physical or mental. To say that this people are just faking it or
overreacting because they don't want to work is really messed up, you are
essentially saying you really don't believe those people actually live with a
disability.

------
gklitt
Wow, surprised that there's no comments here yet about the visual design of
this page. I really enjoyed the long, scrollable page, with readable
typography and just the right amount of flair with the headings. It's also a
well implemented responsive design.

This type of long, scrollable design seems to be growing in popularity these
days -- e.g. the NYTimes Tunnel Creek article [1] or AirBnB's annual report
[2], and I think it's a good trend. Even though this NPR page has less special
effects than those other two examples, it's still a fantastic reading
experience, and I'll take it over a standard paginated article any day.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-
fall/#/?part=tunne...](http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-
fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek) [2] <https://www.airbnb.com/annual/>

~~~
205guy
I came to say the same thing. Also, nobody mentioned the "scrolling window"
effect on the images behind the headings. One problem is that it doesn't show
up with paging (Page keys or scroll wheel), only with smaller scrolling
increments.

As as counter-example, I continue to be baffled by expired pages here on HN.
The parent comment is "below the fold" so I clicked on more comments, read a
dozen comments, clicked on the AirBnB link, and by then--about 5 minutes, the
Reply button (after typing in my comment, not the reply link below the parent)
was expired. I had to back up to the first page of comments, click on more
comments again, and then I was able to submit my reply.

~~~
205guy
Sorry for the multiple posts. I didn't expect that when the page returned Link
Expired. Consider this a bug report.

------
ams6110
The rise in "back pain and other musculoskeletal" disability claims since the
1960s seems to track well with the rise in obesity during that same time. And
I noticed that a fair number of the pictured subjects were obese.

~~~
bluedino
Not to mention asthma. I know of a few people who are disabled because they
have asthma, and they are obese.

~~~
williadc
My sister is a paramedic with asthma that sent her to the hospital regularly
for much of her childhood, but has diminished as she's gotten older.

------
fab13n
We geeks are working at increasing the rest of the world's productivity. And
we're doing great! This means that less people are needed to produce the same
wealth, and that more and more people have nothing left to contribute, because
we improve productivity faster than teachers improve education.

It's not a bad thing: I'd rather have everyone being useful, but I'd rather
pay someone for doing nothing than for doing an unnecessary job; at least in
the latter case, we've got a honest view of the situation, we haven't broken
the compass. A society where half the people are economically worthless and
they don't even know it is doubly broken.

Jobs serve two purposes in our modern Western world: they produce wealth, and
they're our way to redistribute that produced wealth. The latter is a
convention, not a necessity. Exchanging wealth for work proportionally is an
effective motivator for those able to produce actual wealth, but for the
increasing masses who simply can't, it's a cruel joke, a game they're forced
to play and doomed to lose humiliatingly.

So sure, they shouldn't get the same revenue as a heart surgeon; but if
there's a robot which can flip burgers better than them, and thus make them
economically worthless, I'd rather give them their minimum salary and let the
robot do the flipping. My life is interesting enough that I don't need others
to suffer in pointless jobs in order to endure mine.

~~~
zanny
I think you touch on one of the greatest problems of the 21st century - coming
to terms with the reality that maximizing for wealth creation rather than
redistribution means very few people are doing things anyone can predictably
assume is beneficiary - such as research, arts, etc. Almost every job lost in
the last 50 years due to globalization and automation have been jobs very few
people would _want_ to do with their lives, and people always dodge that over
some preconceived notion everyone should be putting in 9 - 5 hours.

Though, I think the more acceptable solution is to just drastically cut the
hours of the uneducated grunt work that still isn't automated (while spending
the time to automate it, because we are at the threshold of eliminating
traditional labor and that is a good thing) and just divvy up the available
work to the many, maybe even as little as an hour a day, or an 8 hour shift a
week.

The problem is changing the entrenched century old agriculture / housing /
trade industries to accept a lack of scarcity and dramatic price drops across
the board. You want the income from that tiny work week to be the disposable
income after providing food, warmth, shelter, and transportation, since it
seems silly to even think of anyone living today unable to enjoy their life,
when we have so much plenty.

~~~
kefka
I worked for about 4 months at a factory. My job was thus:

.5 sec: Put bracket in tapping machine. .5 sec: Press Tap button. 4 sec: wait
to Tap bracket. .25 sec: Air blows tapped part into crate \--Goto Beginning
until 120 parts are in crate Change Crate \--Then Goto beginning.

Do this for 8-12 hours. Yes. a 5.25 second loop.

Other things in this job was if a part was in the crate that wasnt tapped
properly (I found out Im also in charge of QC as well..)I would have to
manually check the last day's work all by hand.

I was hired temp labor, at 8$ an hour. The machine that would replace me would
cost $.5 million. That was one of the worst mind numbing jobs I had ever done.
I figured once I started to contemplate suicide, I should probably get out of
there.

------
unclebucknasty
What' s interesting is that this move to disability is just another
manifestation of the unanswered question, "what do we do with all of these
people for whom the economy no longer has use?"

Between globalization, automation/technology, and "increased productivity"
(aka working people like slaves), we just don't need as many U.S. workers. Yet
the wealth is still flowing, corporations are realizing record profits, and
more billionaires are being minted.

We here on HN tend to feel immune, due to our skillsets. And, while it is true
that the shift currently most affects those with high school educations and/or
in other sectors (manufacturing), our time is coming. With continued
outsourcing, gains in automation (software writing software), and other
shifts, we will all experience this. While the software and technology we here
produce are helping to facilitate the shift for others, some day the focus
will be on us as too costly or ineffecient.

So we will have wildly profitable corporations, an extremely wealthy
investor/executive class, and an economy that produces all that the world
needs while employing only a tiny fraction of the world's population.

Either these entitlement programs will continue to bloat to unprecedented
levels or we will require a fundamental restructuring of society.

~~~
wildgift
They can continue to bloat. Eventually, they will cause so much debt that the
wealthy will have no choice but to pay for it.

------
jdietrich
We have very similar problems in the UK. The number of people claiming
Incapacity Benefit grew from 0.75m to 2.75m in less than thirty years. Two-
thirds are claiming for reasons of mental health or back pain. In the most
impoverished parts of the country, nearly 20% of the population is officially
"too sick to work".

The issue is currently the most contentious of many welfare benefit reforms, I
suspect in large part because discussing the issues raised in this article are
almost totally taboo. Everyone knows perfectly well why disability rates are
10x higher in the poorest parts of the country, but there's a political taboo
that prevents anyone from saying "Incapacity Benefit was used for decades by
governments of both parties as an accounting trick to keep down the official
unemployment figures".

~~~
citricsquid
I don't think it's a taboo to discuss it, it's not being discussed because it
shows very clearly what a big problem we have (just like America) with waning
job numbers and really awful support for the poorest. We're not in as deep is
as America is (from my basic understanding of our benefits vs. American
welfare) but if the government were to talk about the problems with Incapacity
Benefit they would also have to address the problem of _another_ 2 million
unemployed people with no recent job history and no jobs for them even if they
could work.

Things are just about ticking over now, imagine the shit storm that would
occur if every unemployed person was told they're now competing with another 2
million people, keeping this a "secret" is as much in the governments interest
as it is every person that votes. No good would come of this issue being out
in the open now, it needs to come out when there are jobs available or proper
support for the unemployed, neither of which is true at the moment. I could be
missing an important factor (due to aforementioned shallow understanding of
benefits) so please correct me if I'm wrong and there is an advantage or
proper way this can be addressed.

------
e40
In the city where I live, I walk to work. On the way, I see an uncountable
number of cars with handicap placards. They are especially dense near large
office buildings. My wife once drove to my work to have lunch, but ended up
going home without us having lunch--there were no free parking spaces she
could find after 30 minutes circling. This has got to hurt business.

I'm not saying there are a lot of disabled people in my city, but it shows the
mentality. People want something for nothing and a lot more people that I
would have thought don't mind pretending to be disabled.

My favorite is watching people pull up next to Lake Merritt to park, but
before they get out they put up the placard, then proceed to walk 3+ miles
around the lake.

My wife works in social services, and people are constantly trying to game the
system by claiming disabilities.

On the flip side, our social safety net in the US is horrible and unemployment
is very high. I don't really blame people to trying to use any means they can
to live.

The bottom line is that if we had a real safety net that caught people
slipping into poverty, there would be many fewer people claiming disabilities.

~~~
dreamdu5t
We need to accept that a byzantine bureaucracy isn't the way to achieve social
welfare.

Simply cutting everyone a check would be far cheaper and equitable.

------
cdjk
While not related to the topic of this article, the UI around the pictures for
the article is impressive. It's modern and clever, but not in a distracting
way like a lot of attempts to do things that are clever. And it's still
perfectly readable on my phone. Normally I don't like "clever" designs, but
this one is pretty neat.

------
scott_meade
And so continues the attitude of "why should I take care to keep myself
healthy when the federal government will give me checks to be unhealthy"?

Nevermind that it's a sure path to continuing the cycle of poverty for one's
family and their kids' families. Sigh.

~~~
mkr-hn
Did you read the whole thing? The system pulls the rug out from under people
the moment they start making progress. The scaling that exists is too abrupt.

~~~
scott_meade
The federal government disability program pulls the rug out from under people
the moment they start making progress? I read the whole thing but missed that
part of the reporting. Maybe I read it wrong. Where is it?

~~~
mkr-hn
The reforms were meant to encourage people to work their way out of welfare:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare-to-work>

This reflects that:

"Jahleel's mom wants him to do well in school. That is absolutely clear. But
her livelihood depends on Jahleel struggling in school. This tension only
increases as kids get older. One mother told me her teenage son wanted to
work, but she didn't want him to get a job because if he did, the family would
lose its disability check."

~~~
scott_meade
I see. It is unfortunate all around.

------
altoz
So the poor get disability and welfare. The rich get bailouts and subsidies.
Guess who comes out behind?

~~~
avenger123
Not you.

Being poor is not fun. Period. Can you imagine living on $20K, $30K, $40K, a
year? Depending on where you are in the US that might just cover your living
costs. There is a large segment of the population that will not get degrees,
not work in jobs that are considered "careers".

In any demographic class there are people that abuse the system, but I
wouldn't consider the poor in that category. These people are as or more hard
working than the middle class.

Also, the government giving disability and welfare doesn't mean they are
bringing in $100K a year in benefits. The government provides enough to live
on.

~~~
qdog
They article states it's $13k/year in cash. Not sure what the value of the
medical benefits, but $13k/year would be pretty miserable on a family. I know
someone who subsists basically on minimum wage and made just about $12k last
year, he's still pretty young and healthy and is looking for a job that's
better (has a degree), but he's spent a significant amount of time having to
live with family/friends to get by. He's always on the lookout for $.99 taco
night, but I think really at some point he'd like to get past that phase of
life.

~~~
genwin
For a family or working person, sure. For an individual who no longer has to
work or live in a city, $13K/yr is a windfall. One could live like a king,
experiencing great nature with all the time freed up, and have money left
over.

For medical, it's a safe bet that many of those on disability go to the
emergency room and never pay a dime.

------
up_and_up
> Jahleel's mom wants him to do well in school. That is absolutely clear. But
> her livelihood depends on Jahleel struggling in school. This tension only
> increases as kids get older. One mother told me her teenage son wanted to
> work, but she didn't want him to get a job because if he did, the family
> would lose its disability check.

This system is completely messed up.

~~~
scarmig
A thousand times, yes.

But people hate the idea of giving people money when they "don't need it." So
for each dollar someone makes that pushes them above bare sustenance, a dollar
is taken away. In some perverse income ranges, more than a dollar is taken
away.

The only way around it really is to either give people nothing, or to provide
a basic income. Most people hate the idea of both of those: if you give people
nothing, you in a very real sense end up starving people. You can pick and
choose who gets aid, but that immediately adds a bunch of administrative
overhead and encourages gaming the system. A basic income, though, gives Bill
Gates free money from the taxpayers, and is very, very expensive.

All told, I prefer the BI, but that has a load of difficulties.

------
thezach
I'm going to reply to this thread against my better judgement because I'm
afraid of getting trolled. I am on SSI, I have Autism as well as severe
longterm depression and PTSD. I get about $700 a month to live off from. In my
area you can't find housing under $450. Then I have to pay someone to pay my
bills for me at $39 a month because social security somehow deems I can't
spend my own money. My point is after necessary things (electric,
transportation, gas, water) I struggle for toilet paper at times.

I have tried jobs before, got fired in a manufacturing job getting overwhelmed
by the process - got fired in another job because i could not understand "shop
talk". I don't like living off the system and one of the main reasons I'm
really pursuing entrepreneurship is I see it as the only way I can get off the
system.

~~~
wildgift
My sympathies. I know someone with a some similar mental health issue on SSI.
It's tough out there. (And they have relied heavily on basically working at
home online to have a little extra money. It's tough right now due to the
recession and basically nothing comes in, but the process of doing that work
is positive.)

I can also understand being overwhelmed. I don't have autism, but have done
the programmer thing, and have trouble interacting with people so might be on
the spectrum a little bit. I swear, if it weren't for our mechanized society
with machines to repair and computers to fix and program, I'd be a poor dirt
farmer.

I wish you the best of luck.

If you'd like to brainstorm possible jobs or business maybe we can talk on
this thread.

------
ianb
EconTalk had an excellent interview about this:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/04/autor_on_disabi.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/04/autor_on_disabi.html)

This EconTalk is also interesting:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/12/mulligan_on_red.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/12/mulligan_on_red.html)
– the thing that really made me think is the observation that the marginal
benefit of work is often negative for people on different assistance programs,
and that comes up in the first interview too. To try to get ahead, to try to
get off disability, will put you behind where you'd have otherwise been. I
think it also offers something of a solution, to look at the entirety of the
support systems and make sure that there's always a benefit to being more
beneficial to society. I suspect that would largely mean increasing benefits
for the not-quite-poor, or the almost-disabled, etc. But if a well managed
slope of benefits is achieved, the incentives may lead to less total
dependence.

It's also something that, in theory, could be supported by Republicans and
Democrats, as analysis is based on ideas that are appealing to both sides.

~~~
wildgift
I agree about this - the fact is, there's a gradient of disability, and a
gradient of employability, and a gradient on the ability of people to
participate in the market.

Having benefits pulled out doesn't work, particularly health insurance.

------
brownbat
If disability is masking unemployment, we should expect anomalies in other
labor statistics, like labor force participation rate, or per capita
employment.

Labor force participation has been declining the last few years, but at least
some of that is aging population and massive recession. And despite the
decline, the rate remains well within historical bounds. I'm glancing at
Bureau of Labor Statistics charts, not seeing a massive hidden class of people
that are somehow staying off all the books.

On the other hand, there's an MIT economist that totally disagrees with me,
claims that disability DOES explain trends in other labor statistics, like
participation rate:
<http://economics.mit.edu/faculty/dautor/papers/disability>

Full disclosure: I am most definitely not nor have ever been "an MIT
economist."

His paper from 2006 depicts some interesting trends.

(Wait, 2006? This guy has been forecasting disability armageddon for seven
fucking years, when the real threat back then was the imminent housing
bubble!? Now I'm skeptical again...)

====================

Data:

 __UPDATE __Neat labor data infographic:<http://newyorkfed.org/employment/>

Scary labor force participation chart (with really narrow scale to heighten
the effect): <http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000>

A million Census charts:
[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/labor_force_empl...](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/labor_force_employment_earnings/labor_force_status.html)

Employment status, 1970+:
[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0586.p...](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0586.pdf)

A long article on unemployment rate, participation rate, etc., with some
brilliant charts: [http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/graphs-
unemploymen...](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/graphs-unemployment-
rate-participation.html)

Autor and Duggan's 2006 piece I reference above:
<http://economics.mit.edu/files/597> [PDF]

------
bluehat
This article just reminded me to support what is probably one of the last
worthwhile news programs on air. Here's a link for you if you want to too!

<http://www.npr.org/about/support/>

------
chadmaughan
The social safety net and creative destruction discussion is interesting.

However, I'm interested from a design perspective. Does anyone know if this
was built by the "apps team" at NPR? IMO, it's very well done.

More from the NPR "apps team."

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5279440>

<http://blog.apps.npr.org/2013/02/14/app-template-redux.html>

~~~
azurelogic
I was actually wondering if this was posted here for content or design reasons

------
sliverstorm
The layout reminds me of this story:

<http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall>

I like it. The snowfall article is fancier, but they share an aesthetic, and I
hope we see more of it.

Thinking about it, I'd be willing to pay for a regular stream of articles that
are presented so nicely. (Well, assuming the content itself is also good).
This is significant... I've never been willing to pay for news in my life.

------
wildgift
I just heard the show on TAL, and while it was interesting, some aspects
grated, particularly the one about learning disabilities. That part of the
show is going to end up as a proxy for all kinds of mental disabilities,
making it sound like these things not only don't exist, but when they exist,
they don't matter.

I know some people on disability who have mental issues. Some had
developmental problems, and some had strokes, and some have mental illness,
and there are other situations in between. They aren't employable, at least
not easily and full time. The reason is that as the economy has shifted to a
service economy, the service jobs, which used to be considered "kick back" or
basically low stress, have become high stress. When the profits of the
business depend on the service workers, the stress falls on the service
workers.

That stress is either around increasing production of mentally produced
product (I'm sure programmers here know this), or of producing a positive
psychological experience for someone else. For example, the people working in
retail have to be nice. They can't be grouchy and talk shit to each other like
people used to when they worked in factories.

Maybe Joffe-Walt hasn't really thought about this, but within the class of
sit-down jobs, the ones she has are not the common kind. There's variety in
the work, and a huge need to "think outside the box". Even the stressors have
some variety to them.

Most service jobs are about forcing your mind into the box, and handling the
same stressors over and over. These are easy on the muscles, but rough on the
mind, and the mind, as we sometimes forget, is a manifestation of the brain,
an organ in the body, subject to being overworked and injured.

------
williadc
I lived in Aberdeen when they shut down the mill. I remember everyone saying
how this was the end of the town. It's weird that the article didn't show a
picture of downtown. It's just a bunch of run down buildings with boards over
the windows.

The Wal-Mart there is doing great though, one of the most profitable in all of
Washington state, according to friends that work there.

------
nerdo
The part about kids and SSI abuse is also cited as being the reason for the
uptick in ADHD diagnoses (and not violent video games or high fructose corn
syrup or gay marriage):

[http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/12/13/follow...](http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/12/13/follow_up_process_lacking_in_ssi_disability_program/)

------
alanh
Denying more people disability is not a fix. Solving the question of what to
do in our partially-post-scarcity economy is the fix.

------
d4vlx
"The company has an office in eastern Washington state that's basically a call
center, full of headsetted women in cubicles who make calls all day long to
potentially disabled Americans, trying to help them discover and document
their disabilities"

Why am I not surprised that getting people on disability has become an
industry. I very much believe that governments should look after people who
need help but there seems to be a significant lack of accountability when it
comes to disability.

Does anyone know the details American of politics of disability? Welfare,
social security and health care are constantly in the political news but I do
not recall seeing much about disability. As someone who regular consumer of
political text I find this surprising. Especially given the size of the
program.

------
tsotha
Unemployment benefits run out after a year (or whatever they changed it to),
but disability benefits never run out. If you look at the chart the big
increase from 1961 to 2011 is "back pain and other musculoskeletal problems",
which, as every prospective medical marijuana patient knows, is impossible for
a doctor to disprove.

Of course disability claims are going up - the economy is bad and people are
using disability as an unemployment benefit. The unfortunate result of all of
this is going to be lots of extra paperwork (and potential rejections) for
people who really are too disabled to work.

------
dnr
Relevant:
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_tr...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_1.html)

He argues that the system is "broken" on purpose.

------
VigUi7vv8G2
> People don't seem to be faking this pain, but it gets confusing. I have back
> pain. My editor has a herniated disc, and he works harder than anyone I
> know. There must be millions of people with asthma and diabetes who go to
> work every day. Who gets to decide whether, say, back pain makes someone
> disabled?

I dunno, maybe the difference is that you don't have a job where you have to
STAND ALL DAY?

If you're in a wheel chair you can still do a desk job. Does that mean you're
not disabled?

------
lotsofcows
We're kidding ourselves if we believe that we can continue to find meaningful
work for the uneducated. Given that education for the poor is appalling and
getting worse, it seems that we are kidding ourselves.

At some point we need to accept that an economy based around leisure is
already here. The irony is that adapting people to that mindset is going to
take education...

The bigger irony is that only the (rapidly becoming extinct) upper classes
really know how to entertain themselves.

------
septerr
The fact that more and more people do not have the skills to make it in
America today is the most heart breaking. And with the costs of college
education, the problem will only become worse with the offsprings of those
affected today becoming the most likely to be affected in future.

I think education is what should be provided free or subsidized.

Not related to the topic.. The site is really well designed and kudos to NPR
for a splendid coverage and presentation as usual.

------
sliverstorm
_Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the
government._

Holy cow. The working population in the USA is a little below 140 million;
that's almost 10%.

------
azernik
The same reporter did a more human-interest variant of the story for This
American Life (available at [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/490/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/490/trends-with-benefits)). It's an interesting perspective
on the issue.

------
brisance
I noticed quite a few of the states on the top 10 are from the south. I'm
curious how many of them were ex-military.

------
maerF0x0
With a guaranteed income defined not in dollars but in goods, the government
could automate (much of) the welfare of these people. "You get 10 loaves of
bread, 3 cheese, and 1 elective per month." for example.

Then people wouldnt complain about the big screen tvs, etc. that they think
the poor spend the welfare money on.

~~~
roc
We had that. "Government cheese" was not always a metaphor. Neither were "food
stamps".

As it turns out: it's better to just give people cash and let them make their
own determinations and let the free market and substitution do its thing, than
maintain a huge parallel infrastructure just to avoid hurt feelings over the
idea that someone somewhere may buy a non-necessity with welfare dollars.

It costs the taxpayer less, people get better results, they have a better
opportunity to learn and improve, etc. Some will abuse it, but some sold their
government cheese and food stamps to buy non-essentials as well.

People complaining about the big screen TVs are flat-out disingenuous. They're
either outright ignorant of history and/or of the specifics at hand [1], or
they're lying to effect a policy change they couldn't justify with the truth.

[1] Studies have been done. The "welfare queen" and "strapping young bucks
buying steak dinners" do not actually exist. Exceptions do, but they've never
amounted to significant quantities of waste. And we already do search for, and
ferret these people out.

~~~
maerF0x0
The only problem with the "free market" thing is that the current market isn't
really all that free, and a totally free market is full of externalities and
wrong incentives (incentives for A and B to collude to the detriment of C) .

------
arbuge
It seems that a large part of this is a problem with implementing and/or
acting upon rudimentary analytics. If a particular doctor or judge is
referring plenty of patients into the disability rolls, that doctor/judge
should be singled out for special investigation.

~~~
Tyr42
Or they are in an area with more disabled people.

~~~
protomyth
or the local specialist who gets all the referrals

------
CurtMonash
What large number of sit-down jobs do you expect to be available to dubiously-
educated people that can't also be outsourced to poorer/cheaper countries?
It's a problem if you believe the less educated should still have nice rich-
country middle-class lives.

------
pasbesoin
Ok, I haven't read this. The title alone brings an immediate reaction.

I live in the U.S. I've observed, first hand and individually, more instances
than I can count of deliberately unsafe work conditions.

Contractors having e.g. employees deal with lead paint without protection.
Small businesses as well as large corporations having employees work regularly
with unsafe chemicals.

Landlords renovating "under the radar", spreading toxic contaminants
throughout their properties.

People take advantage of other people's ignorance. They "don't want to be
hassled" and "hate the government" and want to "save money".

I'm _one person_. And I can hardly go through a day in life without running
across this. In part, perhaps, because I am at least semi-informed, and
because I pay attention to my surroundings.

It's no mystery to me that our population ends up with so many "unfit to
work", disabled people.

In addition to the above, add the stress of job insecurity, health care
insecurity, bully bosses.

 _A lot_ of people who have to live amidst this (and you, exhalted programmers
and "high technology" wonks, are generally not -- in such roles -- among
these; that is speaking generally, while I do recognize the individual
experiences vary widely), eventually resign themselves that "this is the way
the world works".

The smart ones try to save and earn a retirement before their body gives out.
And/or to move into some sort of management position where knowledge and
experience keep them valuable and employed.

In the U.S., at least, these circumstances continue to exist _because we let
them_ and because many people _continue to take advantage of them_. The next
time you're looking for lower bids on your renovation project, keep this in
mind.

There are the formal rules -- OSHA and all that. Then, there is an entire
culture of "on the side" and "under the table" and loyalty and betrayal, that
changes and morphs somewhat but that remains, on a day to day basis,
apparently largely untouched by all this.

I'm sure it's worse, often far worse, in much of the rest of the world. But...
the U.S. has more -- far more -- than a "few bad actors" that contribute to
the problem, domestically. Lots of people make lots of money, in amounts both
small and large, from taking advantage of this.

And... this is _anecdote_. One guy, just looking around as he goes through
day-to-day living.

Another reason I am disgusted by the health care situation in this country
(where the results of these problems ultimately end up). Another area where
costs and benefits are not at all aligned and balanced, on an individual
basis.

------
atsaloli
Redistribution of wealth is incompatible with liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.

It violates my liberty when my wealth is taken away by force.

Wealth redistribution is morally hazardous to the recipients, getting
something without earning it or doing anything in exchange.

------
prawn
Would it be somewhat fair in this situation of disability as described to say
that disability is a bit like welfare with an excuse? "I'm not too lazy to
work or study, my back hurts."

Easier to say in front of peers/parents/etc.

------
marze
A simple fix would be to give each disabled person a "wage bonus" subsidy. For
each hour they work, their employer gets x$. If they were more disabled, the
number gets bigger.

------
at-fates-hands
wondering why nobody has brought up the fact under Obama, unemployment
assistance has been extended multiple times and it would seem obvious once
your unemployment runs out, you would simply apply for disability.

I wouldn't propose this if I didn't already know several people who have done
this in order to continue supporting their family. Also, my best friend is on
disability and wholeheartedly deserves it, so I'm kind of torn about how I see
people use and abuse this program.

------
Maven911
Has anybody ever had a situation where someone left work for an extended
period of time because of "stress" - and what did the employer do about it ?

------
seivan
ADHD makes one very unfit for work, or not unfit. But it makes it harder.

------
snake_plissken
How do they do that scrolling over the bus image? That's pretty cool.

~~~
sprobertson
`background-attachment: fixed`

------
jnazario
fascinating piece, i'll have a deeper look later. i came here to say it's
gorgeous and presented beautifully and functionally. the designers should be
proud.

------
gwern
Further reading: Charles Murray's _Coming Apart_.

------
ca98am79
Nice job Rich Orris - I really loved the design

------
rabino
That's a really nicely designed article!

------
saadazzz
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol

------
mbetter
Absolutely fantastic content and presentation.

------
youngerdryas
"Charity degrades those who receive it and hardens those who dispense it.”

Self reliance, while not always possible, is always better as it empowers the
individual _and_ the state. I have never met a disabled person who enjoyed
being helped.

------
guelo
Oh no. Poor injured people might be getting money. Stop them!

~~~
marknutter
I'm injured! I want money! Can I get some money?

~~~
sliverstorm
If he gets money, I could be injured too! I bashed up my leg when I slipped on
ice last month. Can I get money for that?

