Are AS unemployment stats reliable?

Post Reply New Topic

I've seen unemployment stats on here ranging from 66-88% of Aspies are unemployed and as high as 98 % Autistics are unemployed. I think there are lots of reasons to question these numbers:

1. Autism was not givin a separate DSM category until 1980, and even then the diagnosis criteria were stringent, it was only in 1992 that the DSM was revised and the diagnosis criteria for Autism was expanded to allow for todays broader definition

1(a) Those diagnosed post 1992 are likely still in school. AS people seem to be late bloomers as many problems associated with AS fade over time. Also many AS friendly jobs (own business, professionals, professors) take a significant degree of preparation time or education to get started.

1(b) The older AS people, diagnosed prior to 1992 were diagnosed under a more stringent criteria of he DSM III which would have missed many higher functioning’s.

1(c) The older AS people diagnosed post 1992 are people who were more likely to have experienced significant problems as a result of their AS (including problems obtaining or mainting employment. After all, as adults, if their AS was managable, they would be much less likely to seek medical help.

2. How is the data collected? The means don't seem to be too transparent but the high numbers come from Autism charities. The 88% is by an Autism charity (National Autism Society of UK)

2(a) This is not an unbiased source as charities have strong incentives to over-state disabilities for political and funding purposes.

2(b) Data collected by charities is unreliable as it will likely involve surveys of their own service recipients This is unreliable because higher functioning who are employed will not need as much support and therefore are less likely to utilize the services of charities.

Last edited by viv on 11 Jul 2012, 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is one last thing that you might have missed, that is those in the older generation were less likely to receive effective therapy. It's still an on going process. We should also compare these figures to other employment figures (ex. women, Schizophrenics, people with other disabilities) to see it is reasonable.

That's a good idea, I don't have time to do it now, but I'll try and find the stats by tomorrow or the day after.

1. None of the studies saying that this is the unemployment rate say that this is because we're unemployable. It's because they say we need help. They're all arguing for help for autistic people specifically when it comes to employment, saying that we're an underutilized group of people.

2. This is off the top of my head, not looking it up now, but what I'm remembering is people with disabilities overall, either the unemployment rate or the unemployment or underemployment rate is 60%. I don't remember which. The unemployment or underemployment rate for people with ASDs is repetitively found to be about 85%.

That's true none of the studies claim this - but it's still implied by the stats. If 88 % of a population is not employed it strongly implies that the population is largely unemployable. I understand that they are just trying to get help. But my worry is that stats like this might actually be counter-productive. I think just saying we are under utilized (without the dreadful stat) and focusing on how we can benefit organizations might be a better apporach. I feel like stuff like the current apporach perpetuates negative sterotypes when painting a more positive image might be better at getting help. If we paint AS as something positive for a business and society at large, it will make employers more likely to hire us and bring more effort into getting Autistics the help some need to utilize their abilities to benefit society and businesses. I believe a discourse based around how we can help society might be better at getting help that a discourse focusing on how society should help us.

Last edited by viv on 11 Jul 2012, 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unemployment stats are generally a very unreliable statistic because of the way in which "unemployed" is often defined.
E.g: Many governments skew the unemployment rate in the following (or other) ways:
- If you are unemployed and start studying, to make yourself more employable, many governments will not count you as unemployed.
- if you have been looking for work and give up looking, you may not be counted as unemployed because you are not "actively looking for work"

LOL I heard an economist go on about employment statistics in response to a radio interview I did about my lack of employment despite sky high academic credentials. Bottom line is that there are lies, damn lies and unemployment statistics and they have little bearing on reality even though everyone quotes these stats like they are the final authority on the economy.

It's similar to how appromiately 70% of the population here in Canada is supposedly Christian yet nearly everyone I run into is an agnostic or atheist. The data is manipulated in the same way to render it meaningless.

Even if you are actively looking, but age off unemployment benefits or otherwise don't qualify, perhaps due to how you left your last job, you still are unlikely to be counted.

Whenever looking at statistics, always look at who is quoting them and what ax they may have to grind. As has been mentioned, charities find it in their best interests to paint us as crippled as possible to maximize contributions. Governments want overall unemployment figures to be as low as possible to make themselves look as good as possible -- if they segregate out a group, it will only be to stigmatize them in some way.

I wonder how many of these people with Autism who have other disabilities which prevent them from working? As opposed to the Autism preventing them from working.

And how many could and would easily work productively if they were to find NTs that are more accepting and understanding. As I've mentioned, I'm currently job-hunting. The one thing I dread more than anything is the misunderstandings that are certain to arise because I don't really blend as much as I used to think I do.

Being unemployed is a likely trigger for diagnosis, particularly for an adult. Those who successfully enter employment and have success, are less likely to touch with those who are generating these statistics. It's support to gain employment where most services are directed.

100% of unemployed people are not working.

Jason.

Not at all. It only implies that they are widely deemed unemployable.



We'd be doctoring statistics to suit.

I think that this notion of the stats implying prejudice against Autistcs is not what the stats naturally imply, rather it seems like an attempt to explain away what these stats naturally imply. For example, lets take the stats. for high crime rate amongst visible minorities. Do these stats. imply that there is unfair prejudice in the legal system, or do these stats imply minorities are more likely to commit crimes? I think it would be fair to say that, as true and valid as the prior interpretation may be, it is the later conclusion that is naturally implied by the statistic. In fact, the former explaination of unfair prejudice might more fairly be seen as an attempt to explain away the high crime rate rather than what is naturally implied by it. The same reasoning applies to the prejudice interpretation in this case, it is not a natural implication of the stat. regarding high unemployment but rather an attempt to explain away the high unemployment rate.



I don't think painting AS as something positive for society and business requires doctoring stats. or giving any misleading info. I honestly believe that Autistics do have something to contribute and we can get that message across without any dishonesty. It's the 'we are helpless and can't get jobs' line, that seems to require the questionable and selective use of information. Consider the benefits:

1. Loyal 2. Honest, less likely to defraud 3. Less likely to waste payroll hours by engaging in chitchat or office politics 4. Can do tasks that NTs will get bored easily 5. Have greater ability to focus than most NTs 6. Can bring passion and purity of purpose to tasks we are interested in. 7. No brown-nosing 8. Can bring unique perspectives to problems. 8. Possible job related special interests that we do on our own for fun while others are socializing.

I just don't see these things as "natural" interpretations, but assumptions based on preconceived ideas.

What I said implies neither prejudice, nor lack of capability. It could be one or the other (ie the perception isn't defined as correct or incorrect, it just is). The statistic doesn't speak to causation, at all, so it's not possible to derive causation from it. You would need to get into more data to even venture an educated guess as to causation.



Neither do I, but you can't approach the statistics with some desired result in mind. It's a bias, and it will taint the accuracy of the statistics. The subject under discussion was these unemployment numbers, not general public education techniques. If it were the latter, why are we discussing the statistic at all?



Agree on all of these and of course I do think it's important to realize that there is so much untapped human capital going to waste ... but again ... what does this have to do with the statistic?

When I signed on at the jobcentre, I told THREE different people I had autism. It still wasn't put on their system and they failed to redirect me to their disability advisor.
When I met the disability advisor they finally put it on the system, but there wasn't even a category for autism, so I had to be put down as having a learning disability- which annoys me because I don't have a learning disability, I learn just fine and it's now going to affect my eligability for employment.

So, in the UK I'd say a definite NO.

I think the notion that stats as just numbers that carry no implications and make no arguements is an unrealistic way of looking at the world. There are natural interpretations to numbers and how they are presented. In a way you awknowledge that in your earlier post when you said "not it just implies that we are deemed unemployable" - you suggested a different natural interpretation, that someone is deeming us as unemployable.

Also, your line of reasoning about not implying caustion may be valid if the stat was being used in a scientific study, but that's not how the stat is being used here. It is being used by charities in press releases. So why are they using this stat, is it just a number given for fact or is it being used to paint the AS community in a certain light that helps obtain more funding? I think it's very hard to say with a straight face that it's an innoculous number done purely for fact finding purposes. I think it's very reasonable that it's being presented with the goal of painting the community in a certain way. This is very problematic when, as discussed in above posts, there is reason to question the accuracy of the stats.

The main issue here is a two part issue

1 The accuracy of the stats here are already tained (as above posts have already argued).

2. These tained stats are being used in a public forum in a manner that gives the wider public a largely negative picture of AS which also happens to be of questionable accuracy.