In a recent article for Psychology Today, Jennifer Gerlach notes that, according to a 2019 study by A. M. Mai, 83% of autistic adults in 2017 were unemployed. That number may sound improbably high, yet Paolo Peralta cites evidence that up to 85% of diagnosed autistics with a college education are unemployed as of late 2023. Higher-functioning autistics may be more likely to be employed without being diagnosed, a fact that may not be reflected in these studies. Nonetheless, this disparity is concerning.
Unemployment is the source of numerous social problems. I will present three reasons why we should prioritize increasing autistic employment. First, it would reduce rates of homelessness among autistics and increase their standard of living more generally. Second, it would increase the quality of life for autistics by providing them with social status and recognition for their achievements, which may prove considerable as research suggests autistics have uniquely valuable contributions to make to the economy. Third, it would increase diversity within workforces, which has a net positive impact on efficiency and innovation.
Regarding the first point, a study of homelessness among autistic women in 2022 suggested that over 12% of homeless people may be autistic, a number grossly disproportionate to the 1% of the total population that autistics comprise. There is a strong positive correlation between unemployment and homelessness, particularly in areas with a high cost of living. Mahwish Moiz cites a 2018 study of homelessness in Seattle which found that 45% of those surveyed were unemployed (a figure some might find surprisingly low, and which may be more an indication of the cost-of-living crisis in my beloved hometown).
In the United States, autistic people are eligible for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration if their condition prevents them from working, but it is difficult to successfully apply for those benefits. According to Jackie Jakab, autistics only account for 0.4% of those who receive disability benefits. (Note that, since autistics comprise roughly 1% of the total population, they likely represent a much larger percentage of the disabled population.) This may be one reason why autistics are disproportionately represented in the homeless population.
This brings us to the second point: reducing unemployment rates among autistics would strengthen the economy as a whole.
According to Peralta, employees on the autism spectrum “are 20% more productive than their neurotypical peers if they’re given the right environment and right opportunities” (emphasis added). If increased economic production is a net positive, then autistics and non-autistics alike seem bound to benefit from a larger portion of the workforce being comprised of autistics. If what is good for workers and the economy serves the common good, autistic employees disproportionately contribute to the aggregate level of utility.
As Gerlach explains: “A different view of the world naturally lends itself to innovative and creative thinking. Neurodivergent traits like hyperfocus, attention to detail, an affinity for pattern recognition, and deep interests (sometimes called ‘perseverations’) are treasures in many work pursuits.” Gerlach and Peralta both take aim at unfair standards in the hiring process, particularly in job interviews. Gerlach lists eight communication patterns to which autistic people are prone which often heavily undermine their interview performance: lack of eye contact, literal interpretation, difficulty with demand recall, nervous tics and twitches, specialized interests, difficulty balancing tasks and social aspects of an interview, varying or monotone voice tone or volume, and being very honest. (Each of these issues has plagued my own experience interviewing for jobs; I have only, so far, ever held jobs for which I was not required to interview.) For each of these issues, Gerlach suggests practical ways interviewers can address their own biases to make the process fairer for autistic job applicants.
Peralta goes further, exploring the hiring practices of Aspiritech, a tech company specifically designed to facilitate autistic employment. Aspiritech’s hiring process relies largely on simple games crafted to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to perform their job functions. This company also seeks to accommodate its autistic employees by giving them spaces where they can work in solitude, spaces where they can retire for quiet time, and various options relating to working hours and remote versus in-office work.
Aspiritech, in other words, recognizes a fundamental truth: employment endows individuals with economic status, a sense of purpose, social connections, insurance, skills, savings, stimulation, and numerous other benefits. Workforces provide all our public utilities and private goods and services. Human labor may someday be supplanted by robots and artificial intelligence, which may or may not be able to provide utilities, goods, and services of superior quality. Either way, this may not be good for humanity itself, given the benefits we derive from working and from having some claim to the fruits of our labors. These benefits are already unavailable to the unemployed, and therefore to most diagnosed autistics. There may be some situational benefits to unemployment, but these are demonstrably outweighed by the disadvantages, which reduce the utility of the unemployed and thereby harm the economy, at least when someone who is unemployed could be more productively utilized as an employee than someone else who is currently employed.
In addition to health insurance (particularly important to the many autistic people with physical and mental health issues), employment provides the means to self-actualize, to live with dignity and independence. Autistics who are able to take care of themselves tend to live much longer than those who cannot. Most low-functioning autistics may never be capable of meaningful work, but improved access to disability benefits might provide them a greater degree of autonomy. Higher-functioning autistics stand to benefit from increased socioeconomic opportunities and the economy would benefit from the unique contributions of autistic employees. What is good for the economy is generally good for everyone.
The capacity of employment to diminish suffering and generate opportunity brings us to our third point: reducing unemployment among autistics would promote workplace diversity, which has many benefits.
The French philosopher and physician Georges Canguilhem, in The Normal and the Pathological (1966), argued that anomalies (for instance, disabilities) should be distinguished from the pathological because they are not synonymous with suffering (which, for Canguilhem, was the definition of the pathological) and can therefore serve a productive purpose. Anomalies, while they can lead to suffering, can also be a source of creativity, imagination, and inspiration. Indeed, it is biological anomalies which provide the unique traits that occasionally allow species to evolve, survive, improve, and flourish. Disabilities are anomalous, not pathological. By definition, disabilities limit the individuals they affect in various capacities, but this can strengthen those individuals in other capacities. A person who loses the use of their legs might develop particularly strong arms in the course of operating their wheelchair every day. Likewise, an autistic person who lacks the “people skills” to interview well might nevertheless be particularly qualified for a job that does not require those skills but requires a strong sense of focus and attention to detail.
This principle applies to all disabled groups. Of course, there is a lot of debate, within the autistic community and without, as to whether autism should be considered a disability. The productivity figures cited by Peralta lend credibility to the increasingly popular aphorism that an inclusive workforce is a strong workforce but may be taken as evidence that autism is not a disability. On the other hand, autism represents a source of many limitations as well, so the case that it is a disability remains convincing. This should not discourage companies from hiring autistics, as disability inclusion seems to benefit workforces as much as other forms of diversity. An HBR study from 2023 by Luisa Alemany and Freek Vermeulen found that disabled employees can give companies a competitive advantage by providing unique talents, making organizations more collaborative, facilitating a reputation for inclusiveness, and attracting positive attention from those who judge companies based on their sense of social responsibility.
It can be difficult for interviewers to set aside their neurotypical biases, as Gerlach proposes. However, the emotional and practical weight of this burden pales next to the net benefit of hiring someone who is 20% more productive than the average employee. By the same token, a neurotypical person working with an autistic coworker may face unique challenges. Interacting with an autistic person often requires people to suspend their usual expectations regarding the nuances of communication, both verbal and nonverbal. This is a process which can require considerable patience and empathy, qualities which to some do not come easily.
Yet there are also tangible and intangible benefits to learning such virtues as patience and empathy, as well as to setting aside one’s biases. These benefits are associated with all forms of diversity, including racial, religious, sexual, and cultural as well as neurodiversity. Indeed, the benefits associated with learning to work and otherwise interact with those who present us with various challenges may be considerably more important than the benefits of higher economic production. Diversity teaches us to value the unfamiliar, to be more objective, to cooperate, to experiment, and to adopt new ideas, all characteristics associated with more peaceful, democratic, and prosperous societies. In its capacity to create individuals with uniquely significant insights and abilities, autism is one of many underappreciated sources of human potential, and we all stand to benefit from tapping into that source.
Daniel Lyons
Daniel Lyons holds degrees in creative writing and political science from Western Washington University and Washington State University, and also studied information management at the University of Washington. He is a contributor and editor at Phlexible Philosophy. Daniel is interested in exploring the intersections between philosophy, neurodiversity, art, and politics.
