I worked with mentally handicapped kids a lot as an educator when I was younger (albeit in a different country). This wonderful article captures perfectly how, in the right environment, children with Down Syndrome can blossom, but how hard it can be for them as adults once society & red tape & bureaucracy all come into play. (I also worked with children who had Down Syndrome and had not grown up in the right environment- think abusive/dead/incarcerated/etc. parents. That got very depressing very fast, and I'm not sure I could do it again).
I think this also highlights how the increasingly geographically fragmented familial unit is problematic: in a culture where several generations of the same family lives under the same roof, the situation wouldn't be as dire. However, in our culture it is typical to have only small portions of a family living together, and for children to move away and live on their own, potentially hundreds of miles away. No situation is perfect, of course - but it's still something to ponder (and it affects other social groups as well, for instance the elderly).
There was a wonderful American Life a while back on a similar topic, about a mother dealing with her adult son who had a mental disability (can't remember if it was autism or Down), and fearing for what would happen once she passed away. Can't find it right now; will edit this post if I do.
There was a satirical article in the Onion that exposed a similar truth. I wish I could find it now but it was along the lines of "Learning Disabled Man is Only Decent Employee in Local Burger Bar". He was the only diligent employee and the rest were teenagers that couldn't give a shit.
Is it Act One from the episode called Neighborhood Watch?
"Reporter Ruth Padawer tells the story of a woman goes to her neighbors with an incredible request—to help care for her son after she dies—and is shocked by their response."
I believe you are referring to Season 2 Episode 1 of This American Life the tv show titled "Escape". Two sentence summary from the site:
"Mike and his mom get caught up in a fight that lots of kids have with their parents. Except in their case, due to some very specialized circumstances, they go through the fight in slow motion, over the course of years."
I am curious if there are any programs which pair developmentally disabled adults with nursing homes? I think it would be a good mix for them to have jobs in which they knowingly play a role in providing companionship and assistance for the nursing home residents.
I am optimistic enough to believe that this would be worth looking at, but I am pessimistic enough to believe that it would not get a moment's consideration in a risk-averse and/ or litigious society.
I am unsure of the details but there is a "nursing home" for mentally disabled people across from my house (in Canada). It has careworkers there 24 hours. They come and go as they please (the door does lock though and they need to wait to be let it). Families come and visit. It seems like a great thing to have.
It is also close to a university so some will take courses and others find small jobs on campus, if they can.
I think the grandparent poster meant nursing homes where mentally disabled people work taking care of the residents, not nursing homes that care for the mentally disabled.
> this also highlights how the increasingly geographically fragmented familial unit is problematic
My parents didn't usually repeat things to us kids growing up, but one thing they did say over and over again was, "it's not worth moving away from your family." When I had the opportunity to take a fancy job across the country at a "big name" employer, or stay in my home City, ultimately those words came back to me. I'm glad I stayed for many reasons.
I was afraid that this would be a tacky post hinging around hiring a guy solely because of his disability (i.e., charity) and instead it's a really thoughtful, insightful post about what it's like as a father of a young man with a disability and how hard it can be for people with disabilities to get hired.
One thing I wonder (and I don't know if the author comes here): is there no Office of Vocational Rehabilitation or something similar? The author mentions Penn State and I know Pennsylvania has an OVR, even though it can be very hard to communicate with them sometimes.
I had this problem when I was younger and had just gotten a cochlear implant. I always fretted about whether or not I would be able to get a job somewhere since I couldn't hear in moderately noisy environments (think fast food, movie theaters), couldn't use the telephone, and sometimes had difficulty understanding people I'd never met before. It was really scary thinking that I would have to live with my mother for the rest of my life, unable to get a job.
Being rejected from all of the entry-level jobs I applied to at the time only made my fears worse.
I found some good jobs and have a great one now, but I feel for this young man.
I barely made it through this article. After the 10th minute of pushing through my tears to read, I had to resolve that nothing would stop me.
On HN we dream big. And we all agree that we can dream big and maybe hit it big. Imagine what it feels like to realize at a young age that you DONT get to go after your dreams because you are missing the tools. Imagine what it feels like to believe something is wrong with you because you talk to yourself sometimes. Now get back to starting your company.
And yet, you can be happy to commute, to have co workers, to have some freedom from our parents.
I remember when I worked in an auto-industry factory (as part of my training) in Japan, we wore caps with colored bands that denoted rank/category. New employees were dark blue. Equipment/facility maintenance people wore yellow bands. "Management" inside the factory, as well as the white-collar employees had light blue. Outside guests wore red.
Amidst this, workers with disabilities wore caps with green bands. Many were hearing impaired, but there were some with leg issues and others with some form of mental illnesses.
This kind of categorization perhaps wouldn't fly in the States, but it seemed to aid the company's goal of having 5% of their factory workforce composed of people with various forms of disability (iirc).
As knowledge workers, it's easy for us to dismiss bluecollar positions like these, but working at a enormous Toyota group company, receiving a great deal of training and a respectable wage (you can make quite a bit with overtime), and being part of something that produces countless goods into the world is a pretty good deal for people in a country where it's not illegal for potential employers to ask about your existing medical conditions during the interview process.
> This kind of categorization perhaps wouldn't fly in the States
I see this as a bit of a paradox in the States. There is always some discussion about how everyone should be treated as equal, yet your "race" (whatever that means in the age of genetics!) is recorded by the government, and minorities are tracked by employers even though this is absolutely not related with their skills. If i think too much about it, I'd call it madness.
It's not a paradox. We have a lot of discussion in the U.S. about how everyone should be treated equally as a response to our historical and continuing failure to treat people equally. We keep track of race as a way to monitor our progress on that front.
The problem the US has in this regard is the blunt, stupid way we do it. "Race" is an example.
I work at a consulting company with very competitive hiring. Many of my teammates are "African American" according to the standard US classification, but guess what? Most of them, although born and raised in the US, are the children of Nigerian immigrants.
A candid discussion with one of my co-workers on a recent business trip revealed his issue with this. He is a descendent of slaves, and has roots in Alabama and Georgia. The policies of correcting for slavery, Jim Crow, and its resulting consequences are benefiting people who, due to immigrating in the last 30 years, weren't affected by it. My company is getting credit, the universities who admit these students are getting credit, and none are actually addressing the true group of people who were historically forbidden the right to read, to work, to own land, or to get an education of any kind. He isn't at all angry at our wonderful Nigerian-American coworkers.... he just feels that these hamfisted measures could easily be adjusted to help the groups they were designed to.
Having a broad spectrum of people with different levels of melanin may be one indicator of diversity, but it can be a poor one. I have never, ever worked on a software team with another person who grew up in a trailer park or even has Appalachian roots. But its cool. Another white guy who grew up in Sunnyvale is going to be exactly the same as me, because we both have northern European ancestry. Problem solved.
One of the complicated things about race is that it has to do with not just how we see ourselves, but how others see us. A family of Nigerian immigrants might not feel the legacy of Jim Crow laws in the same way as a family descended from slaves, but racists will apply the same anti-black stereotypes to both groups.
"Race"? In France it is forbidden to ask or record the religion or color of skin. Thus, it is forbidden to make statistics about it. Of course it is not the same about people with a handicap.
By the way, in Germany, they don't track your race, but they ask you for your religion when you move there. And it's actually a trap ! If you answer that you have any, suddenly you'll see a religion tax (deducted from your salary every month) going to your religion of choice. In Germany is literally "pays" to be agnostic.
Yep, Kirchensteuer ... usually between 8% and 9% if you're member of a confession that collects tax. Many people leave the church because of that, but then try and get your son or daughter into one of the many christian nurseries or schools later, and you have a bit of a problem ...
Certain churches are 'Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts' as such they fall under state church law and get priviledges that historically were granted to the catholic and protestant church after they had lost their territorial holdings and financial independence in the 'Reichsdeputationshauptschluss' 1803.
I'm curious where you're from. In the US, the government being separate from religion is a pretty big deal so having taxes going to churches at all would seem strange.
The system in the US, for instance, isn't that non-believers fund churches with their tax money, it's that no one funds churches with tax money at all, members of the church donate directly to the church.
(Before someone comments, yes churches are often tax-exempt like other charities and non-profits, but that is different from actually receiving money from the government)
I'll try not to reach a Godwin point in saying this, but we don't really do that for discrimination but because we're traumatised of lists with people's religions on it. Saying the "race" word is a big no-no too. It's a cultural legacy rather than a real approach.
You know, that's actually a good point. I hadn't really considered the cultural context of that issue in France. Americans tend to be very German focused when thinking about it.
I guess the good news is that sometimes we find European politics about as baffling as I'm sure Europeans find American politics at times.
The employer can't discriminate in either direction based on that information (which is why it gets a special section of the application for that can get torn out).
But they do need to record the charecatristics of people who are applying, and people who are getting hired, so they can spot rascist managers, etc.
How many categories they have for ethnicity ? I'm asking because the whole concept of Race came from White anthropologists in the 18-19th century who wanted to demonstrate that the white man was above every other race around. So it seems very backward to use the same kind of criteria.
I have often been told "Can you please fill this form?" by French IT contractor companies and the subtitle was "Nationality - Age". The title was "Degree and name of the achool", which is just as discriminating after 7 years of experience. Marital status isn't really prompted.
DoB and marital status are not part of modern CVs. They are irrelevant cruft. The employer is legally not allowed to take them into consideration so there is no point in including them on your CV.
Are you still speaking about France or in general? Every guide I've seen to writing a French (and German) CV lists those items as more or less essential. [1][2][3] And even if they are not essential, or not legally required that doesn't mean leaving them off will not affect their decision [4]. However, maybe it really is not a problem. I honestly have no idea. Have you seen other articles saying to no longer include them?
[3] http://conseils-carriere.monster.ch/CV-et-lettres-de-motivat...
"Should I give detailed information about my marrital status?
Write whether you are single, married, widowed, or divorced. If you have children, only mention their age and sex, not their names."
[4] http://www.thelocal.de/20130131/47649
"Unlike most English resumes, German CVs always include a passport-style professional photo in the upper right-hand corner - a detail advisers say you would do well not to leave out.
"German employers are used to seeing a photo on a résumé, they can't explicitly demand in the job advert that you put one because that goes against privacy laws," Störr told The Local.
"But they'll be looking for it so always put one. A photo allows potential employers to make a different kind of personal connection with someone and will help them connect your skills with your face when you come to an interview.""
The "Race" sections on government and employee forms always have an opt-out/no-response option. They're not tracking anyone against their will.
It sounds a bit like you're perceiving the world as it should be, rather than as it is. Of course you and I know that "race" is nearly meaningless in terms of actual ability--but as long as there is widespread, systematic discrimination based on skin color, race remains very real in practice. You can't fight that discrimination by passing a law against it and then pretending everything is perfect forever. You need to be able to see where and how racism persists and fight it on the ground, and to do that you need to track the comparative treatment and experience of different people.
They track it to look for unequal hiring practices. Which is an actual and ongoing problem and one the US Federal government is involved with and interested in fighting.
I'd be interested how they classify someone who is mixed between black and white. How about the people who have mixed blood for 3-4 generations and who do not fall in any category anymore ?
The race classification in a country where people move around the whole time should really be depreciated.
This is actually kinda confusing because the various forms never provide any guidance on how to determine what race you are for the purpose of the form. I have a Black[1] grandfather but look either Italian, Hispanic, or Sephardic Jewish. This led to me incorrectly identifying what race I was and mostly being annoyed by the question[2]. For example, when I applied to MIT I agonized over what to put and just decided to check both "white" and "African-American" and call it a day. When graduation was coming up, I got an email about a kente stole ceremony and...felt awkward. Aside from doing this one small not-valuable program with the Office of Minority Education, I didn't really participate in black life at MIT at all. This was also around the time when people were having a bunch of discussions about Treyvon Martin and white privilege and I realized that the things people were talking about the experience of growing up as a black man in America did not match mine at all. Basically, it wasn't until senior year that I realized that I was probably white and had white privilege.
I had some trouble accepting this, as identifying as white felt a bit like a betrayal of my mother and grandfather. So, I started reading a bunch of books like How to be Black, The Souls of Black Folk, and How the Irish became White[3]. I learned some pretty interesting things[4] and accepted that in almost[5] all contexts I am white. if someone (like a friend of mine from Canarsie) says I'm Black, thats fine. But on any sort of form, white is what I put down.
[1] Chromatically about the same as Morgan Freeman. He married a Swede and my mom married an Irish/Polish/German/Dutch/Englishman.
[2] It is plausible that a mixed-race person could put "half-elf" on their census form out of annoyance before learning that doing so is a federal crime...
[3] My strongest actual ethnic identity is Irish. I play the Bodhrán, have been known to jig and sing folk songs, have marched in a clan rally in Co. Longford.
[4] Did you know that 7 out of Homer Plessey's 8 grandparents were white and his legal team had to specifically arrange for him to be arrested and charged with violating the Louisiana railroad segregation statute in order to start the legal challenge that unfortunately led to the "Separate but Equal" ruling?
[5] Exception: watching 12 Years a Slave with my mother.
And really, the Irish shouldn't be expected to change their phrasing because a bunch of fools from Tennessee started a terrorist organization that appropriated the word "clan". Nor should they assume all visitors are from the US.
As long as you track it, you make it matter. That's the point. The observer always has an impact on what is measured. That's a very well know principle.
How would they know? Without tracking race (self-identified or otherwise) as a reference point for other data, countries could have a terrible problem discriminating against people based on the color of their skin and no one would know.
And also levy high taxes on people to support the elderly through social security; the government reduces the ability for individual families to support its own elderly, because everyone's parents are equal.
It certainly seems like it could be handy to have those flags, especially in a labor-based job. From a safety perspective, I'd think it is a win if people are immediately aware that person X has a disability. Then they find out what it is, and act accordingly...
Not downs, but we had a guy with a pretty bad speech impediment interview with us a while back. He had a well controlled stutter which resulted in pauses of 10s+. The guy was awesome (better than the average across our team) and had wonderful written communication skills. That's all we need as we email each other all day (we're a very disparate team). Unfortunately my asshat boss decided that he wasn't suitable for the position due to a number of made up concerns and vetoed our acceptance.
Pisses me off every time I think about it but that's how a lot of companies operate.
God damn, I would've been so furious at that. I'm young and have been known to make irrational decisions at times and don't have many responsibilities, and I don't know I could've stopped myself quitting (though I'm not having a go at you for staying!). That's such a big red flag to me :(
There are ways to make everyone a winner than the asshat though.
Karma was served here. The individual in question got a referral from me to another position, got a call and a job with a golden handshake and I got a £500 referral fee from the agent, which was spent on a nice new oscilloscope (an essential part of my exit strategy).
He won because he got a job at a better company and cash.
I won because I got a rep with the agent, £500 in cash and two steps closer to the door.
Asshat lost because we still haven't found someone for his position and they're two steps closer to finding a replacement for me as well :)
In Germany another young man with Down syndrome is currently much talked and written about. It is about eleven year old Henri who took part in a model experiment to attended regular school classes.
Now that some of his classmates are about to go to high school, his parents try to get him also into high school.
Their reasoning is that it would be cruel and against the idea of the original experiment to separate him from his friends again. They don't argue that does not have the abilities to graduate. The whole argument is if a high schools should accept someone for other reasons than graduating.
The following article is not very good, but the only one I could find in English:
I'm currently working as a tutor in a center for gifted (high intelligence) children. Along with this intelligence, in many cases comes some mental difficulties. As an instructor in this environment, it is actually very difficult to deal with some children who are unable to interpret what I am saying to them. Not only does the child get frustrated when I don't understand what they're trying to tell me, but I get frustrated sometimes when I can't handle the situation, and the other students pick up on my frustration. The net result is that everyone loses out.
These students are commonly known as special needs students, and I think this very accurately represents them. Some of the children require just a few minutes extra attention, others require regular confirmation, and others require practically no extra care other than being aware of some issue. I have never personally had to deal with a student with Down's Syndrome, however I know of some family friends with children who have Down's Syndrome. If you have seen and talked to these parents, in very many cases these parents have to dedicate their lives to caring for these children. The same is true for many cases in students; If I as a teacher have two students that require constant attention (for whatever reason) that means the rest of the students don't get the attention they deserve, and the two students I am dealing with don't get the help they deserve either.
I don't know what the best solution is here, but I can't see having a large number of (excuse the wording, I can't think of a better word) difficult students such as those with aspergers/autism, Down's Syndrome etc. being a good one.
The only point I can make on it is that in most cases, the transition to high school involves classes being split, and separation from friends. If students such as Henri can be sent to the same school as their friends, but possibly separated from others (which is what happens currently; students with severe mental difficulties are sent to separate schools) they can receive the individual attention and care that they deserve, but still be in the same environment as their friends and companions.
I tried to be very careful with my wording here, and I apologise if I insulted anyone, it was not my intention.
My son (7) is gifted, his school has no program for children with special needs, and he's having enormous problems in school with other children and his teacher. Would you mind sharing some tricks to share with his teacher that might help her handle my son better?
We told her to keep him occupied, send him for photocopies, give him some extra tasks in class etc. but she doesn't want to do such things since my son sometimes improvise things and messes up.
Your son improvising and making mistakes is a good thing. Mistakes are what cause us to learn. To make them in an environment with little downside is a great way to grow as a person as opposed to making them in the real world where you could get fired for them.
If there's any way you could get him into a school with other gifted kids, it would be a wonderful thing. I realize that may not be possible.
In a few years you might be able to get him started on Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/), but I guess at 7 he's still a bit young for that. There may be other online resources that would work, though... look around.
And as someone else mentioned, homeschooling might be an option.
In any case, I would suggest encouraging his interests and (particularly at this young age) not worrying about the subjects he's not interested in.
If he needs to burn off some energy, permit me to recommend my favorite sport: table tennis. It's a great sport for kids, and 7 is not too young to start learning it. Just a suggestion.
I took french class with Jamie back in high school. He is a great guy, and works incredibly hard. I loved working in groups with him; his french was much better than mine.
It could potentially be rewarding (both monetarily and intellectually) for him to be able to find things he's interested in on Mechanical Turk or Fiverr.
Perhaps he could also start a blog to talk about the things he's interested in. The more publicity he gets, the more likely it is that he would be "found" by someone who has a niche that he would fit into.
Would something like a google glass app, or another semi-automated assistant work for augmenting his capabilities?
Sounds like he's totally motivated and capable to do e.g. the janitorial work, but his capability needs to be paired with intensive supervision. Could that supervision be implemented as wearable interactive instruction or cheat-sheets?
When I first saw Google Glass, my first thoughts weren't of how it could be used to improve my life, but how it could be used to improve the lives of those with behavioural problems and/or disabilities.
While a lot of people think Glass will be largely underwhelming I sincerely hope that it becomes an essential tool for helping people feel more comfortable with integrating into society. If a tool like Glass can accomplish this then I think Google can call the project a success.
I'm a bit ashamed that a similar thought never occurred to me (that is, using something like glass for helping people with disabilities, instead of just recording first-person views of roller coaster rides).
I can totally see the usefulness of an always-on helper that can provide helpful cues, to, say, autistic children who have trouble identifying social or emotional context in certain situations.
I can see value here. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to pick up on non-verbal cues. Often someone will make a statement or ask a question that's primarily meant as normal social conversation "Got any plans for Memorial Day?" And it will confuse me more than it should. (Why are they asking me this? What good will it do for them to know? Do I have any plans? I'm going to look over some things for work but I don't think I'm supposed to talk about that. Oh shit, I never sent in that report, I better do that when I get home. I wonder if I can do it now, if my laptop is still on I can just connect through Screens. I need to set up wake-on-lan this weekend. Did I let the dogs out? What were they saying? Why are they staring at me. Better make a run for it!)
I don't know if this sort of tech would help me or not, but it'd be worth a shot to be able to dial my social awkwardness down to a 10 and even better if it could help people with real disabilities.
I have a strong sense that online work - on CrowdFlower, Mechanical Turk, or Elance - could be the path forward for someone like Jaime. Please do note: I work for CrowdFlower.
The beauty of online work is its promise of operating as a meritocracy. Access to the labor market is not about who you know, or how you appear, but about your ability to perform. Everything about Jaime, from his diligence to his incredible cataloguing memory, struck me as a perfect fit for the type of work that's readily available online: data collection, cleaning and labeling.
Even better, this type of work is going to become a larger and larger part of labor market as the machine learning field grows and the need for clean training data grows along with it.
Online work solves the problem of not having something to do, but in some sense, going on YouTube also solves that problem.
In my opinion, the value of work for someone like Jaime mostly revolves around the perception of independence (I can take the bus by myself) and the social interactions (having co-workers), and online work doesn't fulfill these as well. That Jamie has something to do and that there is useful economic output is a nice-to-have, and likely a subsidized one at that. I would not be surprised if, for example, Jamie's companions cost more ("contribute more to GDP", if you will) than Jamie earns in wages.
Why not get him an office? Either at the workplace for mentally disabled, or somewhere else. He might also be able to combine Mechanical Turk with physical work at the same place...
Researching what someone with Down syndrome did 50 or 100 years ago might also be useful. Quite a few manual labour jobs have disappeared through automation. Looking at those jobs disappearing might also inspire.
Looking at places where hand made/artsianal products or services command a premium might also help.
Or why not set up a small business tailor made to him and the things he can do? Balancing between his autonomy as a person and maximising his economic output will always be a challenge, but I could see it being worth the effort. Mostly, it could offer him a long term perspective, while at a third party he would always be in a more vulnerable position.
This scenario of "his own business" is not without a precedent. I don't have any online references, but I remember a colleague telling me about a local business like that, a woodworking shop. It was owned by a very small trust set up by the parents. The person with the mental disability loved anything to do with wood. He was hired, together with a trusted and skilled local worker a generation younger than the parents. This man slowly built a significant partial ownership stake that tied him to the business. The firm was well known and respected in and around the village where it worked.
The people you work with as colleagues are in cases like these just as important as the work itself, if not more so.
This quite possibly holds true for all people that work from home.
It will be very hard to ride the fine line between providing real work and making sure that you're not exploiting people in an already difficult situation.
If you want I can put you in contact with a lady that set up a courier service for people with what she calls a 'difficult body' that is wildly successful (it has over 1000 employees nowadays). If you feel like reading a bit about it google for 'valid express' and 'Nicolette Mak'.
Why is it strange coming from Al Jazeera? Would you think it strange if it came from the BBC or Der Spiegel? Despite what many in the US believe, Al Jazerra isn't the mouthpiece of terrorists or Qatar's propaganda machine, they're mostly just a very good news source.
Yeah, they're actually too good. Americans (in general) don't want real news, they want to be entertained. Al Jazeera America is a fantastic product, but unfortunately not a product in sufficient demand.
When you combine that fact with the racism because of the name, its future doesn't look too bright. :(
I also find Al Jazeera pretty good. It's definitely good that we have multiple sources of information. As far as Al Jazeera'a future is concerned, I wouldn't worry that it's not so popular in US, I think its future doesn't depend on that, they are well funded by the House of Thani, see the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
Yes, good news for sure. They're eager to show another view from inside countries. Often a troublesome view. (A view the mainstream media often neglect). It does make me wonder: Would they be allowed to show the same view of Quatar, their owner?
The links above are just anecdotal of course, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of interference from Qatar in any of their coverage. It's not the "RT" of Qatar.
I have to say that recently I have found quite a few really excellent articles in Aljazeera. Still fewer than I find in the New York Times, but more than I find from the vast majority of mainstream US news sources.
If anyone is interested in a good film about a young man with Down Syndrome and how he gets on in life (work and love), check out the Spanish film Yo Tambien (Me Too). Here's the trailer, with subs.
I really respect the humanity with which this story is told; kudos to the dad, and Jamie, of course. This heartfelt story makes you realize how little we know about people with mental handicaps and the struggles they face, even is the best of circumstances. It only saddens me to think that similar children/young adults/adults out there, do not have the access to some of these programs because of they do not have such resourceful parents.
Very interesting and moving article. I was surprised by his incredible self-awareness and self-acceptance. Now it makes me wonder about all the reasons why you can't fit in our busier-than-ever society. Why bother trying joining the workforce when it's already broken for most of us? Maybe he could learn to grow his own food, learn to make things at his own pace and become more 'independent' while doing so?
Maybe in Taxonomy? Taxonomists are scientists who can catalogue specimens of animals and plants into species, and argue about what is a species and what is two species.
However, he might be quite good at learning to classify specimens and classifying them. Not in the more academic/scientific role, but it would be valuable work. He might even be able to discover things about taxonomy nobody else has found yet.
very touching young story - I bet this kid is a lot of fun to work with. The fact that he was on time every day for 6 months probably whips all the other employees into shape from an HR perspective. "If this kid can be on time and take the bus, then so can you."
Why are we forcing developmentally disabled people -- or anyone, for that matter -- to get jobs? Is there a dire shortage of low-skilled labor that I'm not aware of?
"Whenever we talked about his employment prospects after the age of 21, we reminded Jamie that he did not want to live a life of watching YouTube, wrestling videos and Beatles Anthology DVDs in the basement."
Would there have been anything wrong with watching YouTube videos all day if Jamie's father had never told him that it was wrong?
And if the purpose of sheltered workshops is to provide busy work for developmentally disabled people, why should it matter whether they pay below minimum wage?
We are not forcing people to get jobs. We are allowing them to get jobs if they wish.
Work has some stron benefits - social activity; economic activity; independance. These spread into health benefits (exercise, mental health resiliance) and also strongly reduce the risk of abuse.
Watching yourube videos all day is not what most people want to do. It would have been a problem for the person doing it, but also a problem for the people looking after him.
I really do not understand what point you're trying to make. This young man wants to be part of society. It's easy to say that his mental capacity is the problem, but perhaps it is our attitudes to his capacity that are the greater problem.
He might not ever be a marine biologist, but he could certainly help at aquariums.
For many years people have left people with learning disabilities to rot. Look at the mortality for people with LD we see unacceptably poor rates for things not connected to their LD, caused by things like doctors making excessive use of DNR for people with LD, or even just people not keeping dental hygiene up to date.
I'm trying to be polite here, and I want to ask a quesion hat I realise might sound very rude. Please, I am not attacking you. I am involved in work on stigma and I am genuinely curious. Do you feel as if your comment is stigmatising at all?
I did not intend my comment to be stigmatizing. But I do feel that one of the most degrading aspects of our society is the expectation that people have to earn a living by working at some kind of job. Especially in an economy where we're continually striving to save labor, employment is becoming an unrealistic expectation for lots of people, not just those with learning disabilities.
Personally, I do not have a job and I'm looking forward to a future in which more people have the freedom not to work without being shamed by their loved ones or by society.
Would you be happy sitting in the basement watching YouTube videos all day? Jamie is clearly happier working a job, he earns some money, the employer gets a job done, and somebody with a normal IQ is freed to do something more mentally demanding. Sounds like a quadruple win to me.
I'm sitting in my mom's attic as I type this. I pretty much sit here all day. And yes, I'm happy. Thanks for asking.
If Jamie is happier working a job, then fine. But was he born wanting to get a job? How much came from him and how much came from his parents placing unrealistic expectations on him?
Do you honestly believe that low-skilled workers are being kept from doing more mentally demanding work because they can't find anyone to take over their low-skilled jobs?
We're born wanting to suck on a nipple and afraid of falling and loud noises. More or less everything else is learned. And getting a job as, say, a grocery stacker doesn't seem exactly like an "unrealistic expectation" even for a kid with Downs.
Your strawman argument is irrelevant. Even assuming that the supply of jobs is fixed, which it isn't (lump of labor and all that), here are the choices:
a) overqualified person, here meaning somebody with an IQ of 100, works at a shit job and hates it; and person with Down's sits in basement watching YouTube all day and hates it, while society subsidizes his existence
b) person with Down's does a monotonous job and is happy with it; and neurotypical person is unemployed and can choose how he spends his days while society subsidizes his existence
I'd go for B, especially given that it gives the other person the chance to do something else useful. They may or may not actually do it, mind you, but at least there's a chance, while there really isn't in the other scenario.
You forgot c) where a person with down's is helped to find meaningful work that they enjoy, and they are not prevented from doing that work by discrimination or stigma and people put in place reasonable adjustments and other people put in place support. This means the person contributes, and their relatives are freed up to contribute. What about the other guy? Fuck that other guy, they can look after themselves.
Low-skilled work is a poverty trap that drains people of energy they might otherwise be using to learn more valuable skills. In fact, it's an anecdote not uncommon that more high school graduates are going to college because filling out FAFSA forms has a greater expected payout than a job search for part-time fast-food wages.
Perhaps the GP didn't get the causality quite right, but we are entering some kind of a dystopian twilight zone with regard to employment. Not too long ago, there was the story about a Walmart opening up in the D.C. area, and that one single store received __25,000__ job applications. That's a lower acceptance rate than Harvard, getting a job at Walmart is literally more cut-throat than getting into Harvard.
This whole discussion, both in the article and in the comments, comes from a perspective that the only options are doing something that pays, and sitting around doing nothing. And sadly that may be the case, but it doesn't have to be that way. The United States today suffers from a severe lack of social connectedness (see Bowling Alone, etc) that could easily be improved by paying unemployed people, including the disabled, to do activities as simple as: hang out with old people who live alone, read a book to a group of little kids. PLAY with little kids. Help someone in poor health walk to the grocery store once a week. There are so many positive activities that would contribute to a better society and they don't happen because the whole concept of the government spending money to improve society has been successfully stigmatized. I won't go ranting about why.
I think the purpose of giving disabled people the opportunity to work has more to do with socialization and fulfillment than some sort of adherence to rules around being "productive members of society".
If you're happy sitting in your basement watching youtube, that's (maybe? probably not really?) okay, but a lot of people would get bored and restless doing that all day.
I mean, yeah, our society is in need of an overhaul in terms of how we value work (especially menial work), but you can't ignore the fact that most of us have something built-in that desires to do something. And right now society isn't structured in such a way that we can[1] provide a more valuable something for disabled people to do, so low-skilled labor will have to do for now.
[1] - I mean, we can, but it's probably not going to happen in a society where we have trouble getting people to even support basic welfare & healthcare for their fellow human beings.
Because it's important to feel like you're important. Not having a job, especially being turned down for jobs, can make you feel worthless and unnecessary. It's a terrible place to be.
I think this also highlights how the increasingly geographically fragmented familial unit is problematic: in a culture where several generations of the same family lives under the same roof, the situation wouldn't be as dire. However, in our culture it is typical to have only small portions of a family living together, and for children to move away and live on their own, potentially hundreds of miles away. No situation is perfect, of course - but it's still something to ponder (and it affects other social groups as well, for instance the elderly).
There was a wonderful American Life a while back on a similar topic, about a mother dealing with her adult son who had a mental disability (can't remember if it was autism or Down), and fearing for what would happen once she passed away. Can't find it right now; will edit this post if I do.