Robots and the Disabled

“The ‘automation bomb’ could destroy 45 percent of the work activities currently performed in the United States,” David Ignatius in the Washington Post stated this week, citing a study completed by McKinsey & Co.

Ignatius concluded:  “Politicians need to begin thinking boldly, now, about a world in which driverless vehicles replace most truck drivers’ jobs, and where factories are populated by robots, not human beings. The best way to cushion this future is to start planning for how Americans will be able to take care of their families — and find meaningful work — in a world where most traditional jobs have vanished.”

One way this “automation bomb” currently impacts Social Security disability claimants, the most fragile members of the workforce, should be corrected now.

Two of the five steps in the Social Security disability evaluation involve jobs.  The fourth step concerns the job(s) that the disabled claimant used to do, and the fifth step, the potential jobs that the claimant might be able to do.

Social Security finds that if you can do your prior relevant work, you are not disabled.  The Supreme Court has endorsed the Social Security administration’s position that even if your job no longer exists, you are not disabled.  See, Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003).  In that case Thomas had been an elevator operator (prior to the time her job was eliminated), and at the time her case was considered by Social Security (she applied in 1996), very few elevator operators’ jobs existed.  See http://disabilitydisability.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-grammatical-rule-of-last-antecedent.html

When the sequential analysis moves on to the fifth step, Social Security considers whether there are a “significant” number of other jobs the claimant can do.  Social Security projects a 2019 start date for a new system of jobs analysis.  See https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/occupational_info_systems.html

Given the automation crisis, we are now experiencing and will experience in the future, Social Security law has to change to overturn the Thomas decision and provide that if a claimant can do his or her past relevant work, but that the job no longer exists, the disability evaluation must proceed to the fifth step, rather than there be an automatic denial at step four.

Our Stone Age Brain & Disability

Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics by Rick Shenkman discusses cognitive science, psychology and evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychologists argue, according to Shenkman (p. 116), that “our biases are not ‘design flaws,’ they are ‘design features.’”  The book’s conclusion (p. 247) is that citizens, with Pleistocene brains, have to work at reforming themselves to have a democracy that works.

Shenkman analyzes what he calls (p. 109) “some of the most common cognitive biases identified by social scientists.”  They are: availability bias, perseverance bias, source confusion, projection bias, self-serving bias, superiority bias, planning fallacy and optimism bias.

This is an interesting, “big picture,” work.  Sadly, in one respect, I would argue that the author suffered from some of the biases that he described.

Shenkman made overly broad statements on Social Security disability and put too much faith in an April, 2013, National Public Radio (NPR) series (pp. 210-211). 

Shenkman states:

“While the welfare rolls were going down [after 1996 laws], the number of people on Social Security disability was going up.” [p. 210]

“It appears plausible that after they left the welfare rolls, a lot of them simple moved onto the disability rolls.” [p. 210]

“It makes no sense for people who cannot find a job to go on disability if they are not really disabled.” [p. 211]

“According to NPR, the criteria by which people are designated disabled are arbitrary.” [p. 211]

Not only did Shenkman fail to provide independent evidence for his conclusions, innuendos and generalizations, he failed to note the objections to the NPR series and failed to include citations of organizations and individuals taking issue with the NPR series—see below.

The NPR series was criticized by many, including the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR) and by eight former commissioners of Social Security, who said that “the series failed to tell the whole story and perpetuated dangerous myths.”

See:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/03/29/nprs-unbalanced-portrait-of-disability-in-america

https://www.nosscr.org/news/2013/04/harmful-allegations-about-social-security-disability-programs-perpetuated-misleading

http://socsecnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/open-letter-from-eight-former-social.html

Additionally, Shenkman did not make clear that there are two Social Security disability programs.  One disability program is part of Social Security insurance; retirement and survivors' benefits are other parts--these three programs are based on workers’ contributions (FICA—the Federal Insurance Contributions Act). The other program, a needs-based program that provides for disabled children and others who have not worked under FICA (or who have not worked recently or long enough under FICA), is Supplemental Security Income.

So on the one hand Social Security disability is a contributory insurance system and the Supplemental Security Income disability program is a welfare disability program.

Shenkman also did not describe the backlog of pending Social Security disability cases, the sequential evaluation process, the out-of-date vocational methodology used by Social Security, the reliance on state disability determination services to make medical determinations, and so many more factors that impact the ability to get approved.

Don't Vote for a Bully

Although the term, "pithy expressions," may not be trending these days, most people know what "sound bites" and slogans are.

The 2016 presidential election has already contributed many sound bites and slogans, and more should be expected.  Unfortunately, insults are also trending.


My one-liner is:

Don't Vote for a Bully.

Suicide And Disability Applicants

Every Social Security award letter, determination, decision, and notice should include information about suicide hotlines or on­line communities that provide immediate prevention aid by trained professionals

Attorney N. David Kornfeld, writing in the Social Security Law Section of the Federal Bar Association’s newsletter expressed the hope that researchers will be funded to study the issue of whether there is “an increased rate in suicides by Social Security dis­ability claimants or recipients.”

Kornfeld stated that his “working thesis continues to be that there is a suicide epidemic which is only getting worse with increased denials and increased waiting times in the Social Security disability process.” 

Kornfeld called upon the Social Security Administration to engage in suicide prevention and awareness efforts by adding information in every Social Security award letter, determination, decision, and notice. He said that every communication from Social Security should include information about suicide hotlines or on­line communities that provide immediate prevention aid by trained professionals including the National Suicide Preven­tion Lifeline (1-800-273-8255, also available in Spanish 1-800-784-2432).

This article was cited by Charles Hall in his blog, http://socsecnews.blogspot.com/

Social Security News of The Social Security Law Section of the Federal Bar Association can be found at http://www.fedbar.org/Image-Library/Sections-and-Divisions/Social-Security/Winter-2016.aspx.  See pages 10-11, 22-23.