Why do some autistic people earn much less than their peers even when, on paper, they appear to be doing similar work?
I repeatedly hear autistic people complain that they are underpaid. Sometimes they genuinely are. Employers can undervalue people, salaries can become outdated, discrimination can occur, and autistic employees can have difficulty demonstrating or negotiating their value. But there is another possibility that is much less comfortable to discuss: Sometimes we really are providing less economic value than the colleague we are comparing ourselves with.
That does not mean we are inferior human beings. It means employment is an economic transaction. If we want to understand why our salary is low, we have to look not only at the value we add, but also at the costs and limitations associated with obtaining that value.
Then there is a second self-defeating pattern: some of us stay for years with an employer that pays poorly because changing jobs is frightening, while continuing to complain about the salary.
We can therefore shoot ourselves in the foot in two opposite ways:
- expecting an employer to ignore genuine economic costs associated with our work; and
- refusing to test whether another employer would value our abilities more highly.
The hidden part of your salary: value subtraction
People like talking about the value autistic employees add. We hear about attention to detail, technical ability, reliability, specialist knowledge, pattern recognition and systematic thinking. Those strengths can be real. But there is another side of the equation that is discussed much less often: value subtraction.
A simplified way of thinking about an employee’s economic contribution is: Net value = useful work produced – additional resources and problems required to obtain that work.
This is not literally how an HR department calculates salary but it is a useful way of understanding why two people with similar qualifications or job titles may not be equally valuable to an employer.
Suppose somebody pays $50 to change a light bulb. Person A can bring the ladder, change the bulb safely, clean up and finish the job alone. Person B has the technical ability to change exactly the same light bulb, but needs another person to hold the ladder, pass the tools, remind them of the sequence and deal with the customer. Both people can truthfully say “I changed the light bulb“, but economically, they did not perform the job in the same way. The second job consumed the labour of two people.
The same issue can occur in professional employment. Suppose two programmers each earn $4,000 and produce similar amounts of code. Programmer A independently discusses requirements, organises the work, asks for clarification when necessary, tests the result and delivers it. Programmer B writes equally good code but requires a supervisor to spend several additional hours each week breaking tasks down, repeatedly checking progress, resolving interpersonal problems and correcting misunderstandings.
The supervisor’s time has a cost. Programmer B does not literally have to hand part of the $4,000 salary to the supervisor. A job coach might also be externally funded, the extra support may be temporary, or Programmer B may contribute exceptional value elsewhere. Nevertheless, somebody is paying for that additional labour. If the employer bears a substantial continuing support cost, it makes little economic sense to pretend that it does not exist.
The same job title does not necessarily mean the same contribution
This distinction is particularly important when autistic employees compare salaries. Someone might say: “My colleague and I are both engineers. Why is my colleague earning more?” The answer cannot be determined from the job title alone.
Does the colleague independently handle customers? Mentor junior employees? Travel when required? Respond to emergencies? Present work to management? Negotiate requirements? Coordinate contractors? Take responsibility when a project fails? Make decisions without constant approval?
If you perform mainly the technical portion while somebody else quietly performs these surrounding responsibilities for you, you may both be called engineers while performing jobs of different economic scope.
This is one reason autistic employees can genuinely feel that they are “doing the same job” while their employer sees a difference. We should investigate that difference rather than immediately assuming either discrimination or unfairness.
Value subtraction can be surprisingly expensive
Some examples of value subtraction include:
- requiring unusually intensive supervision;
- needing another employee to repeatedly check or correct work;
- frequent interpersonal conflicts that consume management time or disrupt a team;
- being unable to perform important customer-facing or coordination duties that colleagues at the same level normally perform;
- repeated lateness where punctuality is genuinely important;
- very low productivity in an unsuitable environment;
- requiring substantial changes to essential work processes;
- being unable to adapt when the work changes; and
- requiring colleagues to take over significant parts of the role.
None of these behaviours is unique to autism, and not every autistic employee has them. Some may also be caused or aggravated by poor management, inaccessible workplaces, unclear instructions or an unnecessarily inflexible organisation.
The objective is therefore not to blame autism. The objective is to identify the actual bottleneck. If written instructions eliminate repeated mistakes, use written instructions. If noise causes productivity to collapse and headphones solve the problem at negligible cost, use headphones. If software automation removes a task that repeatedly causes difficulty, automate it. If additional training eventually eliminates the need for intensive supervision, obtain the training.
A good accommodation can actually reduce value subtraction. That is one reason employers can benefit economically from accommodations rather than merely tolerating them.
But some accommodations really do have an economic cost
We should not go to the opposite extreme and pretend that every accommodation is free. Consider a job that genuinely requires employees to be physically present most of the time because they supervise people, meet customers, inspect equipment or handle work that cannot be performed remotely.
An autistic employee might be unable to tolerate that environment and therefore need to work mainly from home. The employer might reasonably redesign the position so that the employee performs analysis, documentation or other back-office work remotely while colleagues perform the on-site responsibilities.
That can be a very successful accommodation. But if the resulting position has a narrower scope, fewer responsibilities and less operational accountability, it may also be a lower-paid position.
The important distinction is: The employee should not be paid less merely for being autistic or for working from home. But if the accommodation materially changes the job being performed, comparing the salary with someone performing the full original role may no longer be an apples-to-apples comparison.
The reverse is also true. If someone works remotely, performs the full job, produces equal or better results and creates no significant additional cost, there is little economic basis for treating that person’s work as less valuable merely because remote work is an accommodation.
Your personal cost of being disabled is a different question
I once encountered the argument that disabled workers should receive higher salaries because disability itself can make employment more expensive. For example, an autistic employee might find public transport extremely difficult because of sensory issues and therefore commute using private transport. The additional expense is real, but it does not follow that the employer should automatically increase the person’s salary.
Suppose two accountants perform exactly the same work equally well. One spends $150 each month travelling to work. The other spends $1,000. The second accountant may need another $850, but their accounting work has not automatically become $850 more valuable to the employer.
Need and economic contribution are different concepts. An employer may voluntarily provide a transport allowance. A government programme or other support may help with disability-related expenses. An employee with scarce skills might negotiate additional benefits. Different societies may also decide that some disability costs should be collectively supported.
Those are legitimate discussions. But telling an employer, “My life costs more, therefore you must value my work more highly” is a weak salary negotiation strategy. A much stronger argument is: “Here is what I can deliver, here are the problems I can solve, here is the responsibility I carry, and here is what comparable work is worth“.
Do not conclude that accommodation means accepting low pay
The point of understanding these economics is not to tell autistic people to accept poor salaries.It is exactly the opposite. If the economics of one particular job work against you, change the economics.
You may be badly suited to a job where success depends heavily on constant face-to-face interaction, spontaneous social coordination and an unpredictable physical environment. You might nevertheless be extremely valuable in another job where success depends on specialised knowledge, technical judgement, analysis, writing, programming, design, research or systematic problem-solving.
A company that reluctantly allows you to work from home may regard remote work as a limitation. A remote-native company may not care.
A junior employee who needs substantial guidance may have little bargaining power. The same person, after developing scarce specialist expertise, may later have employers willing to reorganise work around them.
A person’s earning capacity can therefore change dramatically by changing:
- work scope;
- occupation;
- industry;
- employer;
- company culture;
- work location;
- specialisation;
- seniority; or
- the technology used to perform the work.
Do not ask only, “How can I force this particular job to pay me more?”
Also ask: “Where is the work I can perform particularly valuable?”
The second trap: being too afraid to leave
There is another pattern I have personally encountered among autistic employees.
Some of us dislike major changes intensely. Once we have learnt the people, routines, unwritten rules, transport arrangements, physical environment and expectations of a workplace, starting again somewhere else can feel extremely risky. A familiar $2,000 job can therefore feel safer than applying for an unfamiliar $4,000 or $5,000 job.
There is nothing irrational about recognising the cost of a difficult transition. A new workplace really can turn out badly. The mistake occurs when we simultaneously:
- refuse to explore other employers;
- refuse to negotiate seriously;
- refuse to take calculated career risks;
- remain in substantially the same role for years; and
- repeatedly complain that our employer pays too little.
At some point we have to recognise the contradiction.
Your employer is not required to discover your market value for you
Loyalty can be personally meaningful, but loyalty alone does not establish market value. An employer that hired you at $2,000 may continue thinking of you as approximately a $2,000 employee even after your skills have grown considerably.
The organisation may have limited promotion opportunities. Your manager may have a restricted salary budget. Your role may sit in a low salary band. The company may simply place less economic value on your particular expertise than another company would.
You can spend years trying to persuade that employer to change its economics. Or you can find out what the rest of the market thinks. You do not have to resign to test the market.
Apply for appropriate jobs while still employed. Attend interviews. Speak with recruiters where useful. Examine job advertisements. Compare responsibilities. Find out what employers are prepared to offer someone with your actual abilities. An unsuccessful application is information. Ten unsuccessful applications are more information. An offer paying substantially more is extremely useful information. Until you test the market, “I am underpaid” may be only a hypothesis.
Employment support should be a tool, not a ceiling
Disability-specific employment programmes can be extremely useful for someone who has difficulty obtaining or retaining competitive employment. They may provide coaching, introductions, structured recruitment or employers already prepared to make adjustments.
But the first job that somebody can successfully place you into is not necessarily the highest-value work you can eventually perform. I once knew someone who was offered service work through an employment route but declined it. She later obtained substantially better-paid IT work at a bank through her own efforts.
That single example does not prove that employment programmes generally offer poor jobs. It illustrates something simpler: a placement and a career are not necessarily the same thing.
If supported employment gets you into the workforce, use it where appropriate. Learn. Build a track record. Develop independence. Accumulate skills. Discover what you can do. Then periodically ask whether the current position still reflects your capabilities. If you can compete successfully in the open market, test the open market.
How to find out why your pay is low
Before concluding that your employer is unfair, investigate. Ask yourself:
- What work do colleagues at the next salary level perform that I currently do not?
- Which parts of my job require extra checking, supervision or assistance?
- Do other people quietly perform responsibilities for me that I have not counted?
- Have recurring mistakes, lateness or conflicts reduced confidence in me?
- Can I perform the complete role or only its technical core?
- Have my responsibilities increased without a corresponding salary review?
- Does my employer simply pay below market rates?
- Would another industry value the same abilities more highly?
- Could technology remove some of the support I currently need?
- Am I remaining here principally because changing jobs frightens me?
- When did I last actually apply for a better job?
The answers may be uncomfortable, but they can guide you to make better choices. If you believe you are worth more, gather evidence, reduce the obstacles that weaken your case, ask for more, and be willing to find out whether the wider market agrees.