If you could hire an able bodied person for $16/hr, and they can glaze 100 pieces of pottery a day, or you could hire a disabled person for the same pay who can only glaze 25 a day because of their disability, who are you going to hire? I’m talking about a local small business pottery shop who hires people to glaze the pieces.

If a lazy but able-bodied person took the job and refused to meet the 100 pieces a day quota, they’d be fired, and rightfully so. So why are disabled people special? Why do they deserve a pay rate and a quota that an able-bodied person would be fired for? Or maybe you think that firing a lazy person is calling them “less than” and is unethical. Well, at least you’d be consistent.

If you think a small business could survive hiring people who can only produce 1/4 of the normal output at a full wage… I don’t know what day. It’s just not feasible.

I’m sorry for the harsh truth, but sometimes in some ways some disabled people are “less than”. As in sometimes they can only do less work per hour as an an able bodied person. A small business can’t survive while being charitable to disabled workers.

These disability wage laws exist so businesses can legally hire disabled people and pay them something when otherwise they would have no job at all. In my state, the business has to prove they can’t produce the same work in the same time as an able-bodied person. And their wage has to reflect whatever percentage of the work they can do.

I’m 100% in favor of government subsidies for making up the wage difference for disabled people, and not making any benefits dependant on having such a job. The job would be purely a choice for disabled people.

I know it sounds weird in this day and age to say this, but having a job can be very rewarding. I can totally imagine a disabled person preferring to work a job at low pay, having a routine, and interacting with coworkers rather than staying home all day doing hobbies and watching TV.