I think you raise some good points, but I don't really know what it's like working with autistic individuals. People working hourly jobs present a wide variety of staffing problems. They don't show up for their shifts on a whim because they had something better to do, or they had an emergency or are sick and don't call in or find someone to cover. People lose their tempers at difficult customers, they stand around talking or playing on their phones instead of working the line, they step out on unauthorized breaks, etc. etc.

I'm sure autistic individuals will have some of these problems, and some unique ones, but I suspect they are free of some others. If someone is living in a controlled environment they are less likely to have scheduling difficulties or a busy social life that interferes with work, for example. Some will be completely unfazed by any sort of conflict or confrontation and will go on doing their best regardless. On the whole, I bet a lot of them are actually exemplary employees that simply require a different but no more onerous set of accommodations than a "normal" employee.

Oh I follow your thought process and definitely feel like agreement is natural. I guess that's kind of what I was itching at - that even starting from a blank sheet of paper, finding good, reliable, mature employees in many respects is difficult. I always hated when a "slacker" employee or a habitual "no show" meant more work for me, and that's probably a pretty natural condition. Thus when the article does mention - albeit somewhat politely - that some accommodations shouldn't be that difficult, I'm incredulous. "Regular" people already come with their own litany of issues, it's just modern life!

I can say that for years and years a local grocery store I frequented had a few employees with Downs Syndrome. They were able to perform some menial tasks like bagging quite well. They arrived as a group, and from what I recall, the system worked as intended.

On the other hand, down the street was a grocery store that hired teenagers - run of the mill 15 and 16 year olds - to be bag people and possibly a cashier. These were the only jobs the teenagers were qualified to do. I'm not intending to take sides here, but it does strike me as an economic puzzle where now there's two groups of people - the handicapped, and the immature youth - both competing for the same low-level job. That's...not good.

Add in a 3rd group - the "must work because Social Security doesn't pay enough" elderly seeming to not leave the workforce, and it's no surprise a consumer-centric economic system like the US grinds to a halt. The natural cycle is, in my view, busted.

I was one of those teenagers who was able to get into the workforce early, and I genuinely believe it has helped my growth both as an employee, but also a citizen. I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had, and it genuinely does pain me to survey the current US workforce situation and lament conditions which I have no real solution to offer.

I'm a little bit puzzled by your statement, "These were the only jobs the teenagers were qualified to do."

Surely there's other work, possibly more of it these days, for teenagers to do. For instance, with an increase in the percentage of dual-income households (as opposed to the single-income households which dominated in the past), there are more families in need of babysitters or tutors.

When I was a teen, there was a high demand for tutoring services, dog-walking, and minor web development work to be performed by teens. And wouldn't the teenagers for whom this bagging gig isn't a permanent sort of job be better suited in a position that offered more educational opportunity (e.g., tutoring younger students, or learning some web dev and making a website for a local SMB).

One could argue that the employees with disabilities are freeing up the teenagers to do work that gives them more educational benefit, like the power looms freed up textile manufacturing workers to find more economically valuable work in the long run.

>a local grocery store I frequented had a few employees with Downs Syndrome. They were able to perform some menial tasks like bagging quite well.

I found that downs syndrome workers are often the most cheerful and pleasant to interact with.

There is one girl with downs that works at collecting the grocery carts at the supermarket. She greets customers really happily, like she's living that "Everything is Awesome" song on a loop, and even remembers some customers' birthdays.

Also see: http://www.theonion.com/article/developmentally-disabled-bur...

> We can't even take care of Gifted and Talented students with any systemic, national and local support, to fulfill their potential.

I'm not sure what is meant by that. There are plenty of gifted and talented students who are nowhere near the autism spectrum.

Why "start" at either end? Different problems call for different solutions.

In short, my answer to your "why" actually rhymes: ROI, that's why.

A gifted, talented, socially well adjusted person has an extensive potential to do amazing things. Thus, it's my perspective that starting with those who have un-actualized talent - those with the capacity, aptitude and attitude to rise high in achievement - is more compelling than spending extensive time and money on maximizing the use of a limited capacity. That's kind of the whole thought behind trying to identify smart and capable people - it's their potential.

what kind of physical ailment?

Inherited and incurable, that's the most I disclose publicly. I grew up in a pre-HIPAA world and still keep some things as private as possible.

He has a kuato. Let's try to be mature about it.