Neurodiversity And The Elusive Job Quest

(On a recent podcast, Jordan Peterson and Glenn Loury raise the question of whether there can be jobs in the economy for those with certain limited cognitive skills. What’s the answer?)

On a recent podcast, Jordan Peterson is joined by Brown University economist Glenn Loury to discuss the dynamics of “cognitive inequality”, and whether there can be a place in the work world for those with limited cognitive skills. It’s a conversation worth noting in part due to the reach of Peterson’s podcasts—he has over 5 million subscribers for his YouTube channel. And it is noteworthy as both men, usually suspicious of social programs, speak with emotion on why finding jobs for persons with limited cognitive skills should be a far higher priority than it is at present.

Peterson recounts his experience trying to find a steady job for a patient with very limited cognitive skills. He finally helps the patient find a volunteer position at a charity, only to hear after a short time that the charity does not want to keep him on. ”I went and talked to the director of the charity, and said “You can’t fire this guy because it’s going to kill him. He’s 40, he’s got volunteer job at a charity, and he’s going to get fired. How the hell do you recover from that.” The experience leaves Peterson angry about the inflexibility of the charity and other organizations that claim to be compassionate. “It was virtually impossible to find him a niche. And I tried with his mother who was extraordinarily devoted to him in a very positive way. We tried for three years to slot him in somewhere but it was virtually impossible.”

“There are certain kinds of inequality that no tax, program, or social policy will eliminate,” Loury adds. “For instance, what should we do about people who simply lack the cognitive ability to compete in our economy? What do we do with people whose intellectual abilities are so limited that employers are reluctant to hire them, so finding them any steady work is all but impossible? The sad fact of the matter is that such people exist in any society.”

Loury goes on to explain that “you would think that this problem would fall under the remit of a liberal politics that views (or claims to view) helping the disadvantaged as a moral imperative.” But the left is silent, given its focus on benefits rather than jobs, as well as its reluctance to consider any issue that might touch on intelligence. For Loury, this is unacceptable. Peterson declares: “We have a problem and no one will face this, as far as I can tell, liberals or conservatives. Ten percent of the population can’t really function in a complex cognitive environment, and that’s what we’re producing for everyone to live in.”

Neither Peterson nor Loury offer a detailed plan to better integrate persons with limited cognitive skills into employment. But it is enough now that they raise the issue, challenging the prevailing idea in disability policy circles that our current employment strategies of “competitive integrated employment” are on the right track.

Over the past three decades since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, an extensive network has been developed in the United States of job placement programs for adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities. These programs identify job leads, negotiate with employers, inform employers about government wage subsidies and tax incentive, and provide ongoing job coaching and problem-solving support.

The programs have improved over the years and do place a segment of their adults. But among those with more severe intellectual gaps or odd behaviors, job placement and especially retention has proven elusive. Among adults with autism, the largest and fastest growing of the developmental differences, the employment rates have not risen significantly since the early 1990s.

Many of us in the neurodiversity and related employment fields would welcome additional thinking from Peterson and Loury—and others not usually associated with disability employment. The two men come to the subject with recognition of the importance of jobs, deep knowledge of social initiatives, and a needed critical view of government programs.

It’s clear that the current employment system for those with intellectual or behavioral differences needs more than a little tinkering, more than a few more Department of Labor “toolkits” or webinars on best practices/quality jobs. They need a rethinking of job creation in both mainstream and congregate settings.

Increasing employment in mainstream settings continues to suffer from the absence of a financial model to spur hiring and retention. The current tax incentives and subsidies yield minor impacts. What other incentives would yield greater impacts? How much would they cost? Where would the money come from? And what of the workforce culture, the flexibility and patience, that is even more needed than financial incentives? How is that to be achieved? As Peterson discovers, most of the institutions who tout their compassion—charities, colleges and universities, major non-profits—are doing next to nothing today in disability employment.

Beyond limited mainstream employment, the past decade has seen fewer and fewer opportunities for those with most severe disabilities in congregate work settings and workshops. Rather than abandon these institutions, we should be looking at how to rebuild them. What types of new job tasks can be done in these settings and/or in work crews under SourceAmerica and similar structures? And if we want to achieve minimum wage in these settings, what would be the cost?

An irony that both Peterson and Loury will appreciate is that among the general workforce in the post-pandemic economy, workers have been slow to return to work (the civilian labor force is still down more than a half-million workers below pre-pandemic numbers, even with population growth), quit rates are near all-time highs, and jobs are taken for granted. In contrast, workers with developmental differences are hungry for jobs (having somewhere to go every day, being engaged in purposeful activity, having a role in society)—even as they are the ones who have greatest difficulty finding or holding jobs.