[lbo-talk] disabled find work harder to get and other threads

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Doug quoted:
> Wall Street Journal - October 5, 2005
> 
> Disabled Face Scarcer Jobs, Data Show
> According to a report to be released today by Cornell University,
> based on Census Bureau data, the employment rate for Americans age 21
> to 64 with sensory, physical, mental, or self-care disabilities fell
> to 38.3% in 2004, from 40.8% in 2001.
> 
> Disability researchers say the data offer a clearer picture of the
> situation than previous statistics from the Labor Department's
> Current Population Survey, because the new data rely on a larger
> sample size and a more precise definition of disability. "A lot of
> people have been hammering the CPS for a long time for not being very
> accurate," says Andrew Houtenville, senior research associate at
> Cornell's Employment and Disability Institute. "This really says
> things are indeed getting worse" for disabled workers.

WS:
So if the 2004 data offer a "clearer picture," could it be that the 2.5
percentage points drop between 2001 and 2004 be attributable, at least in
part, to the errors in the 2001 data?  

Doug:


> You're forgetting Congress and the punditocracy. If a president's
> approval rating is around 40, his agenda will lose support of the
> legislature and "opinion leaders." I think that's what Bartels was
> getting after, though I do mean to do a follow-up.
>

WS:
No, I am not.  I said that Congress representatives are also insulated from
public sentiments by "institutional" arrangements - such as duopoly,
gerrymandering, money needed to win etc.  It is consistent with the fact no
matter how people are pissed with the "government in Washington" and status
quo in general, incumbents are almost certain to be re-elected if they
decide to run and the rules of the game do not change (e.g. due to
gerrymandering). Let's face it, Doug, the US is one of the lest democratic
of the developed countries - we have a far greater choice among the brands
of toilet paper than among political parties.

Martin:


> Until the poor decide to share _your_ supper. Maintaining a justice
> system and prison system to protect _your_ supper is the true social
> cost.

WS:
Interesting.  This is the logic of "protection money" paid to gangsters and
extortionists - which many people refuse to pay in principle.  If that were
the only argument that could be mustered in support of this cause, it would
certainly be a lost cause.  This of course does not imply that good argument
in defense of public subsidies cannot be made.  I am just curious what the
self-styled defenders of "da people" can muster - and so far, I am not
impressed.

Dick:


> well, goshes, i lived in subsidized housing for several years, thank you
> very much. tg. otherwise, i wouldn't have saved what i saved and i'd be
> living in a homeless shelter right now. had the housing prices stayed the
> same, i'd have saved enough for a house in that five years.

WS:
I am happy that it worked for you, Dick.  Smart move - I would do the same
thing if I were in your shoes.  But again, why should the public subsidize
your (or mine if I were in your shoes) saving for a house downpayment?

Wojtek