> If you think they should both be paid the same, who should pay the additional cost?

The taxpayer, in the form of a direct wage subsidy. Comes out to virtually nothing compared to the amount of corporate welfare we shovel out every day. The company still isn't compelled to hire the disabled person if they won't be effective on the job, but companies that were inclined to hire them before still will, pay the same amount as before, and we taxpayers will pay the price tag of a bomber or two to ensure that some people have some independence and dignity.

Which of course is why such a thing will never happen here.

As mentioned on this very thread, "such a thing" is exactly what happens "here", but without you impractical demand to track the productivity of a worker with government-recognized sub-par productivity.

Right but minimum wage exceptions invariably end up with disabled people getting paid 1/10 minimum wage to do 9 or 10 widgets an hour.