This comment is overly reductionist -- 'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable.

Just eyball the proportion of working adults in the 50 to 60 year range. It is only ~5x the number of disabled. In other words, that is a huge %--maybe 20%--of potential workers in that age bracket.

Any employment process that disables 20% of its workforce would be normally considered a problem.

But instead we call the un-employable 'diabled', to sweep the data under the rug.

It almost certainly helps keep other people in their jobs, tho (like burecrats and academics).