3 ms·

> Disabled person pays isnt correct either because there are many near zero cost things we could do if we just thought about it at design phase. ??? This is th

by jnovek 2mo ago

> Disabled person pays isnt correct either because there are many near zero cost things we could do if we just thought about it at design phase. ??? This is the social model on a nutshell.

snapplebobapple 2mo ago
No it isn't because it isn't cast in cost/opportunity cost/etc. The reality of implementation is top down dictation without apparent consideration of cost (For example, I redid the front door of our office and I now have two buttons to open the automatic door that look like crap and are at waist height and at the floor. This was dictated in the code in my region as a new concession that I never would have done because it is broadly stupid in my context.) Maybe highly cost sensitive and more optional social model would be a better description.
- jnovek 2mo ago
  Are you the disabled person using these automatic door buttons? If not, have you asked someone with a mobility-related disability what they think of it? It’s absolutely possible for laws around accommodations to be stupid. Once again, that’s the medical model, when able-bodied people write policy for disabled people, there are stupid outcomes. The social model says that there should always be a person with a relevant disability involved with designing accommodations unless it’s absolutely impossible to do. The saying commonly used in the community is “nothing about us without us.” So perhaps your implementation sucks, but if it does, there’s a good chance it’s because of the medical model.
  - snapplebobapple 2mo ago
    lets say I think the correct model is the social model which then has every change priced vs the cost of not changing it (cost incurred changing it > cost incurred to disabled persons). That's probably a reasonable approximation you can internalize. I am also skeptical of your second paragraph. I think that's just how government works except in a very few spots with some characteristic that drives better behaviour (I think social cohesion or very limited government being the main qualities that can drive better outcomes but I'm not willing to outline why because this is already too long) Everybody ass covers and you get an explosion of stuff in favour of the loud people that harm the majority more than the loud people benefit, which is deadweight loss to society and everyone is worse off. Loud people being the place holder for people complaining, of which disabled people are a tiny minority.

by jnovek 2mo ago

> Disabled person pays isnt correct either because there are many near zero cost things we could do if we just thought about it at design phase. ??? This is the social model on a nutshell.

snapplebobapple 2mo ago

No it isn't because it isn't cast in cost/opportunity cost/etc. The reality of implementation is top down dictation without apparent consideration of cost (For example, I redid the front door of our office and I now have two buttons to open the automatic door that look like crap and are at waist height and at the floor. This was dictated in the code in my region as a new concession that I never would have done because it is broadly stupid in my context.) Maybe highly cost sensitive and more optional social model would be a better description.

jnovek 2mo ago
Are you the disabled person using these automatic door buttons? If not, have you asked someone with a mobility-related disability what they think of it? It’s absolutely possible for laws around accommodations to be stupid. Once again, that’s the medical model, when able-bodied people write policy for disabled people, there are stupid outcomes. The social model says that there should always be a person with a relevant disability involved with designing accommodations unless it’s absolutely impossible to do. The saying commonly used in the community is “nothing about us without us.” So perhaps your implementation sucks, but if it does, there’s a good chance it’s because of the medical model.
- snapplebobapple 2mo ago
  lets say I think the correct model is the social model which then has every change priced vs the cost of not changing it (cost incurred changing it > cost incurred to disabled persons). That's probably a reasonable approximation you can internalize. I am also skeptical of your second paragraph. I think that's just how government works except in a very few spots with some characteristic that drives better behaviour (I think social cohesion or very limited government being the main qualities that can drive better outcomes but I'm not willing to outline why because this is already too long) Everybody ass covers and you get an explosion of stuff in favour of the loud people that harm the majority more than the loud people benefit, which is deadweight loss to society and everyone is worse off. Loud people being the place holder for people complaining, of which disabled people are a tiny minority.