Employment questions for autistics
It’s well known that autistic unemployment, for those that are able and wanting to work, is well over 60% in the US. Many autistic people work at below the poverty line wages. Parents of autistic people, myself included, rightfully worry about their children’s future once they’re gone and no longer there to provide support. Yet, here, topics like affordable housing and the living wage are hot-button topics.
I came across an article recently about the new laws in California that sought to blame our governor for the rising prices of cheeseburgers. The article noted that our governor recently signed a law raising the minimum wage for fast food workers at large chains to $20 per hour by 2024. In response, McDonald's CEO warned that this will increase costs for franchise owners in the state, likely leading to some price increases for customers. However, the CEO believes McDonald's is well-positioned to absorb the wage hike compared to competitors. Though intended to improve conditions for low-wage workers, the law only applies to large chains, sparking concerns that small businesses may struggle to keep up. Overall, the minimum wage increase represents a major change to the economics of the fast food industry in California, with potentially significant impacts on restaurants, workers, and consumers across income levels. This is of concern for disabled workers, who are disproportionately represented in the fast-food workforce (source).
What is “the cost” of a job?
From a objective standpoint, the true cost of a low-wage fast food job is subsidized by workers, communities, and taxpayers, as the wages paid are less than the value created by the labour. Capitalists, on the other hand, see wages as representing the cost of the labour rather than labour’s full value.
Many here in California argue that the $20 minimum wage still leaves workers poor, forcing reliance on public assistance to meet basic needs (source). This amounts to a public subsidy of fast food companies’ labour costs. Corporate boards counter that wages are based on market rates rather than value created. If workers feel underpaid, they say, workers can command higher wages elsewhere.
From a theoretical perspective, corporate profits come from surplus value extracted from workers. On the political right wing, pundits contend profits compensate owners for risk-taking and capital investment. On the left, most view corporations as exploiting their power advantage over workers to maximize profits at the expense of fair pay. The right-wing finds no problem with this imbalance, seeing corporations as driving innovation and efficiency through free market competition via the profits they extract from the surplus value of labour.
Where Marxists see class conflict in this stratification of labour into “wage grades,” capitalists see voluntary agreed upon trades of time for money. Marxists focus on the collective working class whilst capitalists focus on individuals maximizing personal utility through market exchanges. Overall, Marxists highlight disparities in power and broader social costs whilst capitalists emphasize mutually beneficial transactions between free agents. But are they mutually beneficial when one side is purchasing NFL teams with their profits and the other side is relying upon food banks and subsidized electricity to get by?
The true costs of low-wage employment?
The true costs of low-wage fast food jobs are, in reality, subsidized by workers, communities, and taxpayers. Consider that:
Wages only represent a portion of the value created by a worker’s labour. The owner extracts the surplus value in profits. With the minimum wage so low, the surplus value extracted is even higher.
The $20 minimum wage is still not enough for workers to afford basic necessities in high-cost areas like LA without government assistance or taking on debt. This amounts to a public subsidy of fast food companies’ labour costs.
Low wages force workers to rely on food assistance programs, Medicaid, housing subsidies, and other safety net programs funded by taxpayer dollars. This indirectly subsidizes companies like McDonald’s - allowing them to pay less than a living wage as the community picks up the rest of the cost of the job.
Low pay leads to high worker turnover, which passes costs onto workers for training and onboarding. It also hurts productivity and service quality, which corporations offset by pushing workers to work harder and longer.
The health impacts of poverty wages, like stress, poor nutrition, and inadequate healthcare, place a burden on publicly-funded health services. This enables companies to skip providing benefits.
By keeping frontline fast food workers in poverty even with a $20 wage, communities must bear costs of social problems associated with poverty - crime, blight, homelessness, and more. This further subsidizes corporations as they face no consequence for the situations they help create.
In short, low wages allow companies to externalize costs onto workers, government programs, communities, and taxpayers. This amounts to a mechanism for increasing the profits (surplus value) appropriated by owners/shareholders - a key driver of inequality under our system.
Is the labour market “free” in the US?
But … you can get a job elsewhere, right? Here, the so-called “free market” means you can walk out and get a better job whenever you want, right? Hmmm … Unfortunately, the labour market in the US is not as “free” as it may appear on the surface. Here are some key reasons why:
Firstly, there are substantial disparities in bargaining power between workers and employers. Individual workers have little leverage to negotiate wages or conditions. Unions, which could bolster labour’s bargaining power, have been substantially weakened over the past few decades in the US. The large corporations are able to exert political influence through lobbying and campaign finance (both fancy terms for “bribes” and “corruption”) to shape labour laws and regulations in their favour.
Secondly, whilst workers are free to quit a job, the underlying threat of unemployment and deprivation of livelihood gives employers disproportionate power. Most workers lack the resources and financial security to risk leaving jobs, even if they are unsatisfactory. Real freedom is limited by these material constraints.
Additionally, most workers in the US are dependent on employer-tied health insurance, forced savings plans, and other job-related benefits. This limits their ability to seek alternative employment that may not offer similar benefits, hindering free choice. An example of this is relevant in my life. My employer is the only one of it’s type in the area that pays for the employee’s family in its insurance offerings. If I choose to leave and go to another school district in the area, they all only cover the employee. This would amount to a substantial cut in pay as I would then have to cover that cost. That I enjoy such a benefit at my place of work is a testament to our very strong and active union.
Finally, some see ideological conditioning in our society as constraining the imagination of workers to see alternatives beyond wage labour for income. The dominant ideology propagates wage labour as the norm, though other modes like cooperatives exist. Such ideological conditioning sustains existing relations of production. You can see this in the recent mess around the almost demise of the Anchor Steam brewery (source).
In short, the constraints of unemployment, inequality in bargaining power, employer-tied benefits, and ideological conditioning contradict the notion of a “free” labour market. Genuine freedom would require democratization and decentralization of economic institutions and relations.
Lobbying is just another word for bribing
So, how is this messy and unfair system kept in place? Large corporations often lobby for labour regulations as a way to consolidate their power and crowd out small businesses, who cannot absorb increased costs as easily. This allows big business to further monopolize markets.
Large chains like McDonald's have massive revenue and profits to absorb higher wages, whilst small restaurants and fast food franchises operate on thinner margins.
Big corporations are also more capable of automating and cutting labour costs in response using self-serve kiosks and other technology. Small businesses lack capital for big tech investments.
Lobbying for wage laws can be strategic for large corporations (most countries consider lobbying to be a form of corruption and ban the activity completely). They know higher costs will bankrupt competitors, allowing them to dominate market share. This concentrates wealth and narrows consumer choice.
Monopolization is a tendency of late-stage capitalism. Regulations often abet it by disproportionately harming small companies unable to afford compliance.
Higher wages without small business exemptions or protections accelerate market domination by mega-corporations. This contradicts free market ideology that regulations blunt competition.
Dominance of a few huge companies translates into lower wages across industries as labor power is suppressed. Corporate concentration also leads to higher consumer prices.
Thus, corporations cynically embrace labour regulations as a tactic to monopolize markets by crushing smaller competitors. This ultimately harms workers and consumers as corporate power expands.
Why does it seem that there is no place for autism in the workplace?
The increasing dominance of large corporate chains like fast food restaurants has broad implications for marginalized workers. Autistic individuals face particular challenges in accessing stable, living-wage employment that provides needed accommodations. A thorough analysis reveals how the competitive pressures and profit motivations within our capitalist system tends to exclude and disempower disabled workers. As corporations monopolize low-wage sectors through mechanisms like minimum wage laws, it will likely deepen existing barriers to equitable paid work for neurodivergent populations. Let’s see how this will play out.
Firstly, large corporations like fast food chains have the resources to invest in automation technologies that could potentially displace many low-wage manual jobs currently employing autistic adults. Smaller community businesses are less likely to automate as rapidly. This could further limit already scarce job options.
Secondly, the standardized nature of corporate jobs often does not provide the flexibility in tasks or environment that many autistic employees require as a reasonable accommodation. Smaller businesses with more variability in roles may be more accommodating. Corporatization could thus reduce access to accommodated jobs.
Thirdly, corporate cost-cutting incentives discourage investing to train and retain autistic staff, who may have higher initial training costs. Coupled with ableist assumptions, corporations are more likely to exclude disabled employees. Smaller businesses embedded in communities may have more motivation to accommodate.
Finally, unions could be a powerful resource for protecting accommodations needs in larger enterprises. But in the US context, unions have declining bargaining power. This reduces their capacity to advocate for the needs of disabled workers in corporatized workplaces.
A matter of perspective
The framing of minimum wage in the referenced article as overly burdensome on corporations’ rightful desire to extract maximum profits reflects the general opposition of far-right groups to labour regulations and worker protections. Whilst the CEO’s comments about potential cost (as if not being able to extract maximum profits, or accepting less profit is a cost) impacts are factual, the outlet likely chose to report on this issue to bolster anti-regulation ideological leanings rather than out of concern for low-wage workers or small businesses.
It should be noted that many studies show minimal job loss or price impacts result from minimum wage increases. However, the article downplays these nuances. The choice to focus specifically on California and the characterization of the state as expensive and highly-regulated align with conservative tropes about Democratic governance of states in the US.
Whilst Marxists, the frequent foil of the far-right, may share some critiques of minimum wage laws as insufficient or susceptible to corporate exploitation, their core philosophy differs drastically from far-right, free market orthodoxy. Marxian perspectives see collective action as key to empowering workers against structural exploitation inherent in capitalism, whereas right-wing groups seek to minimize worker protections and unions. Yet it’s important to note that there are currently ZERO Marxists in power in any way in the US. None. This merger of corporations and government through lobbying and regulatory capture is a feature of fascism, not Marxism. Shifting the blame away from corporate fascism to a Marxist straw man has been a brilliantly effective bit of miseducation done with the help of corporate media outlets. This is why I’ve been so overtly political in this post, giving the true context rather than repeating tired tropes.
Additionally, incorporating the ideological orientation of the source material adds crucial context. The article likely amplifies selected facts to promote an anti-regulatory agenda, whilst ignoring data that contradicts stereotypes. This underscores the need for balanced sourcing and skepticism when evaluating charged political narratives. The perspectives shared previously still have analytical merit when detached from partisan framing.
What to do?
Here are some ideas that could create more equitable employment outcomes for autistic individuals within the current economic system, with notes on diagnosis barriers:
Expanded vocational rehabilitation programs could provide customized job training and placement services tailored to the needs of autistic job seekers and the employment needs of the community. (But, lack of a formal diagnosis often excludes people from vocational disability services.)
Tax incentives could motivate businesses to hire and retain autistic employees, like the existing Work Opportunity Tax Credit. (But, again, accessing these tax credits requires documented proof of disability status.)
Public education campaigns to reduce stigma and showcase the talents of autistic workers could indirectly improve inclusion in workplaces. (Without visibility as an autistic person, individuals miss potential benefits of advocacy.)
Stronger ADA protections and enforcement could compel employers to make reasonable accommodations for autistics. (Again, ADA protections only apply to those with formal medical documentation of autism.)
Subsidized employment programs like customized apprenticeships, work trials, and sheltered workshops can build skills and experience. (Again, and again … enrollment in these subsidized programs relies on having an official autism diagnosis.)
Trainings for managers, supervisors and employees can build skills in providing accommodations, fostering inclusion, and capitalizing on the unique strengths of autistic peers. (Lacking diagnosis, autistic individuals’ on-the-job needs are less likely to be recognized and supported.)
Partnering with autism self-advocacy groups and involving autistic voices in policy making ensures solutions are tailored to community needs, drawing on direct lived expertise. (Those without formal diagnosis struggle to be acknowledged as autistic self-advocates.)
Overall, lack of access to diagnosis creates substantial barriers to accessing and benefitting from the kinds of supportive employment policies and programs that could enable more equitable labour market participation for autistic individuals.
Did the Text Revision to DSM 5 make things worse or better for autistics?
Unlike the previous DSM-IV criteria, the updated DSM-5 requires meeting all criteria in Section B related to social communication deficits and restrictive/repetitive behaviors, rather than just a subset. Research indicates this disproportionately impacts diagnosis rates for females and marginalized communities. Without access to specialist providers with training and time to conduct comprehensive evaluations, many lower-resourced families struggle to meet the full criteria burden. Long wait times for appointments and high out-of-pocket costs also deter diagnosis efforts.
This means those who do not present as stereotypically autistic or lack the means for proper assessment are now much more likely to go undiagnosed. Yet they still experience challenges that accommodations could address. The DSM-5 revision, though allegedly intended to increase accuracy, has likely resulted in many on the spectrum being denied the diagnosis necessary to access support services and legal protections.
Might this be the point?
From my view, there are some concerning political-economic dynamics at play in the more restrictive diagnostic criteria found in DSM 5-TR.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which publishes the DSM, relies heavily on funding from pharmaceutical companies. Narrower criteria benefit drug company bottom lines by reducing the population eligible for services and therapies provided by insurance companies at a lower than retail price. These insurance companies get their full payment each month, but the individual must cover the cost those things that remain uncovered by their insurance due to the lack of a diagnosis. Often times, this means that the individual doesn’t qualify for the discounted prices negotiated by insurance companies. (source)
Providing robust care, accommodations, and support for autistic individuals is indeed costlier compared to other groups. Limiting diagnosis access appears to conserve resources in service of profits and efficiency, at the expense of actual people’s needs. This prioritization of costs over human lives is problematic.
Additionally, autism advocacy groups have argued the new criteria medicalize natural neurodiversity into a deficit disorder. Framing human variation as pathology needing control serves economic systems that demand conformity to rigid roles. Neurodiversity challenges capitalism’s conditioning of ideal “productive” behaviours.
Whilst further research could improve diagnostic precision, financial conflicts of interest may have improperly influenced the criteria changes to the detriment of the neurodiverse community. True progress would require decentralized, democratized systems of care managed by patients themselves, removing profit motives (imagine a world where panels of autistic people were the ones to provide autism assessments).
Thus, restrictive diagnosis seems to align with capitalist priorities of cost reduction and worker standardization, rather than solely reflecting empirical research purity. This exploits vulnerable groups, an inherent tendency of Western-style commodified healthcare. Patient empowerment through collective action offers a path to more just, inclusive systems.
Autistic employment and a living wage: a summary
Given the high costs of living and healthcare in Los Angeles, coupled with common autism support needs, achieving true independence would require a substantial living wage for autistic adults. Autistic adults often face costs for medications, specialized diets, and assistive devices that may not be covered by insurance. Transportation and housing in a safe, low-stimulus environment also cost more.
Considering average rents, transportation, groceries, medical copays, and supports in LA, an independent autistic person would likely need to earn around $60-$80 per hour for a modest but fully self-sufficient lifestyle. This far exceeds typical wages for the jobs typically accessible to autistic adults here. I certainly don’t earn that high a wage as a teacher. Thus, even California’s minimum wage hike to $15-$20 per hour will fall drastically short of meeting needs.
Society must recognize that neurodiverse populations require more resources and accommodations to thrive. But capitalism’s inherent drive to reduce labor costs leaves little room for this, necessitating alternative structures. Achieving living wages will require collective action, community support networks, alternative housing/transit models, and a shift to an ethic of interdependence and mutual care rather than individualism. Equity for autistic citizens requires transforming systems, not just piecemeal policy tweaks. Prioritizing people’s wellbeing over profits is key.