I’m deaf, and this is what happens when I get on a Zoom call
"we need to make work more inclusive for people living with disabilites" - statements like this are pretty popular, and they sound nice to the first order. However, I have never once seen a statement like this accompanied by a utilitarian/economic analysis of whether this would actually be socially beneficial given the (usually) small number of people involved compared to the (often) large cost of making the change. And whenever someone says "would this really be worth it", responses vary from "Wow, why do you hate the disabled?" to "You should be glad you're not disabled" - in any case, shaming the person asking this question rather than addressing the (reasonable) question.<p>About 2 in 1000 people in the US are deaf, and most of those are deaf due to old age, so they are not working anymore. I think it's very unlikely that the marginal optimum is to spend more money optimizing for this subset of users.