Inaccessible UChicago

Inaccessible UChicago

Here is just a preview of an inaccessible building around my campus (University of Chicago).  Our campus has to be one of the most inaccessible campuses in the country. I would guess this is due to our old gothic-esque buildings. These type of buildings are probably very hard to modify. Nevertheless, I doubt the University has put much of an effort towards the matter.

Clink on the link above for more information.

Record 10,978,040 Now on Disability; ‘Disability’ Would Be 8th Most Populous State

CNSNews.com- The total number of people in the United States now receiving federal disability benefits hit a record 10,978,040 in May, up from 10,962,532 million in April, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.

The 10,978,040 disability beneficiaries in the United States now exceed the population of all but seven states. For example, there are more Americans collecting disability today than there are people living in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia.

The record 10,978,040 total disability beneficiaries in May, included a record 8,877,921 disabled workers (up from 8,865,586 in April), a record 1,939,687 children of disabled workers (up from 1,936,236 in April), and 160,432 spouses of disabled workers.

May was the 196th straight month that the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments increased. The last time the number of Americans collecting disability decreased was in January 1997. That month the number of workers taking disability dropped by 249 people—from 4,385,623 in December 1996 to 4,385,374 in January 1997.

As the overall number of American workers collecting disability has increased, the ratio of full-time workers to disability-collecting workers has decreased.

In December 1968, 1,295,428 American workers collected disability and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 65,630,000 worked full-time. Thus, there were about 51 full-time workers for each worker collecting disability. In May 2013, with a record 8,877,921 American workers collecting disability and 116,053,000 working full-time, there were only 13 Americans working full-time for each worker on disability.

According to the latest Census Bureau population estimates, if disability were a state in the union it would rank eighth in population, coming in after Ohio but ahead of Georgia:

1. California 38,041,430

2. Texas 26,059,203

3. New York 19,570,261

4. Florida 19,317,568

5. Illinois 12,875,255

6. Pennsylvania 12,763,536

7. Ohio 11,544,225

8. Disability 10,978,040

9. Georgia 9,919,945

Link to Original Article

Ronald Dworkin: Equality of Resources

Dworkin, Equality YouTube Video

In Dworkin’s equality of resources, we are aiming for ambition sensitive or how hard an individual tries/what their goals are, and endowment insensitive, our natural ad innate talents and our social position in society.  If we can establish a proper distribution channel of these resources, we will have an envy-free society. In other words, no one will envy another’s total package (money, talent, education, etc.).

However, this is simply not possible. A big concept in disability theory, is the concept of natural disadvantage. Natural disadvantage can be understood in a number of ways:

1) Physical handicaps- being physically disable

2) Mental handicaps- being mentally disabled

3) Skill handicaps- having a set of skills that are not marketable

It is generally thought that naturally disadvantaged people have to expend more resources than non-disadvantaged people just to establish a basis for a “normal life”.  As Dworkin says, “We want to develop a scheme of redistribution, so far as we are able, that will neutralize-the effects of differential talents.” (Dworkin 313)  Dworkin proposes taking the total holdings of society and redistributing them to those with the natural disadvantages. For example if Andre and Disadvantaged Brandon each have 100 holdings initially, after the redistribution, Disadvantaged Brandon will now have 120 whereas Andre will still have 100.  In my opinion, this is a flawed approach. It does not account for people with extreme natural disadvantages. Some disadvantages are too costly to allow anyone to live the life they want to live. Additionally, there are some disadvantages so extreme, that no amount of redistribution will help the person get to a normal level of ability to live a valuable life.

I understand that complete equality is impossible, or that complete equality isn't even necessarily a good thing, but the insurance market Dworkin proposes is truly the second-best option. In an insurance market each person is allowed not only to bid for bundles of goods in the auction, but also to buy insurance against negative outcomes.  For example, if Matt likes to go sky diving and does not care about injury, he may not buy that much insurance to protect against it. Rather, he spends his money on sky diving. In contrast, if Ryan is highly risk averse, he may spend much more money on insurance of all kinds, and spend most of his days at home working in a safe place.  “Insurance, so far as it is available, provides a link between brute and option luck.” (Dworkin 293) This market provides minor protection and assures as much as possible that people will have an equal start. However, we must remember, this is only a theory, it is much different putting this theory into practice.

References:

Ronald Dworkin, “What is Equality? II. Equality of Resources” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20 (1981): 283-345