A Question about Equality

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You guys want this for sports as well?

Yeah, let's do that.

Equality of outcomes both for team recruitment and for game results. There aren't enough midgets in the NBA.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If I'm a sports fan, a reader of books, a listener to music, a watcher of movies, an eater of food, a student, a driver of cars, a liver in houses, a participant in pretty much anything meaningful in life I don't want to see "equality of outcomes".

I want to see the best teams, the best writers, the best musicians, the best actors, the best chefs, the best educators, the best mechanics, the best architects, the best providers of anything meaningful in life thrive and have incentives to produce more high quality things.

And if not the best, at least someone more capable and motivated than the average guy off the street who gets paid the same whether what he produces is crap or not.

Every single highlighted best in your list is subjective and based on your reaction to these operations including your notion of the ability to absolutely judge these them. Could a great chef cook food you don't like? Could a great architect design a building you think is atrocious? You make a thing of the best sports teams, when a lot of people have exactly zero interest in sports and in fact may resent it when public money is spent building a stadium for these sports. You are speaking from the position of boss of your culture, but actually only reflecting your boss' view of "anything meaningful in life." You are suggesting that "all things that are meaningful in life" are subject to your judgment. A lot of people would disagree with you on that.

That sounds like pretty much the entire point he was making. Equality of outcome necessitates someone enforcing that equality and making those judgement calls as opposed to all those groups competing for fans and supporters and winning or losing based on their ability to attract those supporters.

 

[dismal]

You guys want this for sports as well?

Every game played by average people of ordinary skill picked off the street. Every game officiated to generate a tie. Who wouldn't want to watch that?

 

[dismal]

.

If I'm a sports fan, a reader of books, a listener to music, a watcher of movies, an eater of food, a student, a driver of cars, a liver in houses, a participant in pretty much anything meaningful in life I don't want to see "equality of outcomes".

I want to see the best teams, the best writers, the best musicians, the best actors, the best chefs, the best educators, the best mechanics, the best architects, the best providers of anything meaningful in life thrive and have incentives to produce more high quality things.

And if not the best, at least someone more capable and motivated than the average guy off the street who gets paid the same whether what he produces is crap or not.

Every single highlighted best in your list is subjective and based on your reaction to these operations including your notion of the ability to absolutely judge these them. Could a great chef cook food you don't like? Could a great architect design a building you think is atrocious? You make a thing of the best sports teams, when a lot of people have exactly zero interest in sports and in fact may resent it when public money is spent building a stadium for these sports. You are speaking from the position of boss of your culture, but actually only reflecting your boss' view of "anything meaningful in life." You are suggesting that "all things that are meaningful in life" are subject to your judgment. A lot of people would disagree with you on that.

Do you not judge the quality of food, books, movies, etc?

Do you consider every book ever written or that could be written equal?

My guess is you exercise judgement and have preferences.

 

[bilby]

I just think it is such a shame that the only options we have are to either abandon the idea of seeking equality altogether, or to impose the idea upon every aspect of every field of endeavour.

If only there was a way to (for example) hire people without reference to their skin colour, gender or sexuality, that did not require us to also hire basketballers without reference to their height, doctors without reference to their medical qualifications, and footballers without reference to their physical abilities.

But sadly, it is impossible. We must either discriminate on the basis of all features, regardless of their relevance to the task at hand; or we must never discriminate on the basis of any features, despite their necessity to the task we are attempting to accomplish.

You think a compromise might be reasonable? It's a two party system. Go ahead, WASTE your ideas.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's equality of opportunity, this thread is about equality of outcome.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I never ask the wrong questions.

Wow. That is a massive mountain of hubris. You'd be the first person in history for whom that is true, if it were true, which is isn't.

I just don't ask your questions. Luckily, it's a free forum. You get to ask your own, for yourself.

If no one thinks that equality is wrong, then asking why they think that is objectively the wrong question (or at least meaningless and without a possible answer).

Note, even if someone seems to offer and answer, it doesn't make the question meaningful.
Nearly ever poster in the thread has had to reformulate it to make it meaningful. Most posters are saying "It isn't wrong, so there is no "why", but methods of achieving it can be, and here is why that is the case". 1 or 2 people seem to be saying that it is wrong and here is why, but in fact that are saying "Equal outcomes in the context of unequal inputs is wrong", which is not what you asked. IOW, every reply is some form of "not applicable, but here is something more qualified that is applicable."

I don't see a single reply that actually takes your OP for what it asks and offers and answer. That should tell you something about the question.

It's quite common in political speeches and suchlike for people to speak positively about equality of opportunity. Not simply equality. Which implies something wrong with equality of outcome, or at least that it's a less worthy goal. Some (usually conservolibertarians) go so far as to directly condemn equality of outcome without reference to specific means of realising it.

Why, then, seems a reasonable question. I'd guess because they tacitly assume the false dichotomy Bilby so wittily exposes above, and/or that they are (or think they'd be) the winners.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Wow. That is a massive mountain of hubris. You'd be the first person in history for whom that is true, if it were true, which is isn't.

I just don't ask your questions. Luckily, it's a free forum. You get to ask your own, for yourself.

If no one thinks that equality is wrong, then asking why they think that is objectively the wrong question (or at least meaningless and without a possible answer).

Note, even if someone seems to offer and answer, it doesn't make the question meaningful.
Nearly ever poster in the thread has had to reformulate it to make it meaningful. Most posters are saying "It isn't wrong, so there is no "why", but methods of achieving it can be, and here is why that is the case". 1 or 2 people seem to be saying that it is wrong and here is why, but in fact that are saying "Equal outcomes in the context of unequal inputs is wrong", which is not what you asked. IOW, every reply is some form of "not applicable, but here is something more qualified that is applicable."

I don't see a single reply that actually takes your OP for what it asks and offers and answer. That should tell you something about the question.

It's quite common in political speeches and suchlike for people to speak positively about equality of opportunity. Not simply equality. Which implies something wrong with equality of outcome, or at least that it's a less worthy goal. Some (usually conservolibertarians) go so far as to directly condemn equality of outcome without reference to specific means of realising it.

Why, then, seems a reasonable question. I'd guess because they tacitly assume the false dichotomy Bilby so wittily exposes above, and/or that they are (or think they'd be) the winners.

well the idea behind the OP is to question the basic suppositions on which we base our first principles, not the least of which is the need to see the world in black and white terms, so to speak.

It is true that equality of outcomes has become a dirty phrase in the rhetoric and theory of some who place their ideas in the public square, and the questioning of why that is, seems all but non existent. And the need to answer such a question, when the rare question is asked, in monochromatic and dogmatic ways always shouts down ideas spoken in softer and more multi-shaded tones.

 

[ronburgundy]

Wow. That is a massive mountain of hubris. You'd be the first person in history for whom that is true, if it were true, which is isn't.

I just don't ask your questions. Luckily, it's a free forum. You get to ask your own, for yourself.

If no one thinks that equality is wrong, then asking why they think that is objectively the wrong question (or at least meaningless and without a possible answer).

Note, even if someone seems to offer and answer, it doesn't make the question meaningful.
Nearly ever poster in the thread has had to reformulate it to make it meaningful. Most posters are saying "It isn't wrong, so there is no "why", but methods of achieving it can be, and here is why that is the case". 1 or 2 people seem to be saying that it is wrong and here is why, but in fact that are saying "Equal outcomes in the context of unequal inputs is wrong", which is not what you asked. IOW, every reply is some form of "not applicable, but here is something more qualified that is applicable."

I don't see a single reply that actually takes your OP for what it asks and offers and answer. That should tell you something about the question.

It's quite common in political speeches and suchlike for people to speak positively about equality of opportunity. Not simply equality. Which implies something wrong with equality of outcome, or at least that it's a less worthy goal.

If you crave chocolate and order chocolate ice cream does that imply you think their is something "wrong with" every other flavor?
In fact, equal opportunity results in equal outcomes, whenever their is equal inputs and use of opportunities. Thus, promoting oppportunity indirectly promotes equality under many circumstances. Thus a person who thought equal outcomes were generally wrong and to be avoided, would not support equal opportunity. Back to the ice cream, opportunity is like chocolate ice-cream with nuts. People order that ice cream, and you ask them "What's wrong with nuts?" Its a dumb question, because those people clearly have no problem with nuts, they just don't prefer an entire bowl of nothing but nuts over all other options.

 

[Axulus]

One thing that hasn't been considered: people themselves desire different things and different outcomes. Some people would rather work more hours and make more money, some would rather work less and have more leisure. Having everyone work the same hours and have the same amount of leisure is this a reduction in quality of life for those who have different preferences.

Another thing to consider: if outcomes are equal, far fewer people will invest their financial resources and make sacrifices of time and effort for the purpose of achieving a better outcome for themselves and their family. That makes everyone poorer.

 

[SimpleDon]

Once again we are discussing extremes and not considering the obvious of the moderate middle in between.

I don't think that the OP in tended to argue that everyone should be paid the same no matter what the work is or how well it is done. I read it as equal pay for equal work and outcomes. Certainly incomes are different for different kinds of work and innovation and risk taking have to be rewarded. It is the very basis of capitalism.

The proper question is how much inequality is required to provide the proper incentives? How much more do we have to pay professionals to make them want to pursue all of the years of education that are required? How much do we have to pay investors to risk their money? How much profit is required for corporations to invest in new production facilities?

In my experience there is little correlation between salary and effort and production. I knew the salaries of everyone in the corporation that I worked for, I was involved in a study of the salaries of everyone in the company in the five countries that we had engineering/design/fabrication offices in, Germany, the US, the PRC, India and Russia-Ukraine. There was little to no relationship between the salary and the value to the company that I could see. People are paid the minimum that keeps them happy. The best employees were the ones who enjoyed their work and they were the easiest employees to keep happy.

There is no question that we have much more inequality now than is needed to provide incentives. We are currently overpaying the top and underpaying the bottom. As a bare minimum we should be able to pay everyone who is working enough to keep them out of poverty.

We don't need to pay CEO's 300 times the average workers wages to get enough qualified CEOs. How do I know this? Because when we paid CEOs only 30 times the average workers wages we had no shortage of qualified CEOs willing to work. There is a disincentive when you pay them too much and you base their pay on short term results, they are willing to take too much risk on to earn their bonuses realizing that they can collect their bonuses for three or so years and then have a comfortable retirement.

And no, there is no "natural" mechanism in capitalism that determines the correct pay for everyone. Income distribution in the whole economy is largely determined by the nation's fiscal policies; taxation, support for the unions, foreign trade structure, capital controls, corporate structure, etc. The people who understood this forty years ago now claim that it is not true, that there is some unknown and unknowable change in capitalism over the last forty years that has shifted the nation's income increasingly to the very wealthy and that we intentionally changed our fiscal policies to redistribute more of the nation's income to the already wealthy forty years ago has nothing to do with our current income inequality.

Since we are so enamoured of sports analogies I will use one. What the free market enthusiasts are proposing is the same as having a professional basketball game with no rules and no referees, assuming that the number of paying spectators attracted to the game depends on how well the game is played, how little cheating there is, that this mechanism is sufficient to regulate the game and the players. That is, it would be based on a complete fantasy, totally ignoring history and totally ignoring reality.

 

[SimpleDon]

One thing that hasn't been considered: people themselves desire different things and different outcomes. Some people would rather work more hours and make more money, some would rather work less and have more leisure. Having everyone work the same hours and have the same amount of leisure is this a reduction in quality of life for those who have different preferences.

Another thing to consider: if outcomes are equal, far fewer people will invest their financial resources and make sacrifices of time and effort for the purpose of achieving a better outcome for themselves and their family. That makes everyone poorer.

Not to mention that working fewer hours in a week, fewer days in the year and fewer years in a lifetime is the obvious solution for automation and having too many workers. The average German works 20% less in a year because of shorter work weeks, ~36 hours, more vacation and holidays, a minimum of 38 days a year and they retire at about 62 years old.

 

[SimpleDon]

</snip, already responded to>

Another thing to consider: if outcomes are equal, far fewer people will invest their financial resources and make sacrifices of time and effort for the purpose of achieving a better outcome for themselves and their family. That makes everyone poorer.

And people will always invest their financial resources and those investments in the real economy, the physical economy are always going to pay more than the investments in paper, stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc.

The problem that we have now is that the profits paid are much more than what is needed for investments in the real economy, for building production facilities, for the repair of existing facilities, for modifications to improve productivity. Currently the amount of profits is about four times the amount of investment in the real economy. This is way too much because this excess capital accumulates in paper, often called portfolio, investments.

This money causes problems, it is the money that builds asset bubbles. It is the money that Wall Street is trying to get a percentage of when they cook up their exotic pieces of paper to sell, like trances of mortgage backed securities, derivatives that are zero sum gambling, the winners and the losers balance out, like betting on your favorite football team. Paper investments that add only instability to the financial markets.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Wow. That is a massive mountain of hubris. You'd be the first person in history for whom that is true, if it were true, which is isn't.

I just don't ask your questions. Luckily, it's a free forum. You get to ask your own, for yourself.

If no one thinks that equality is wrong, then asking why they think that is objectively the wrong question (or at least meaningless and without a possible answer).

Note, even if someone seems to offer and answer, it doesn't make the question meaningful.
Nearly ever poster in the thread has had to reformulate it to make it meaningful. Most posters are saying "It isn't wrong, so there is no "why", but methods of achieving it can be, and here is why that is the case". 1 or 2 people seem to be saying that it is wrong and here is why, but in fact that are saying "Equal outcomes in the context of unequal inputs is wrong", which is not what you asked. IOW, every reply is some form of "not applicable, but here is something more qualified that is applicable."

I don't see a single reply that actually takes your OP for what it asks and offers and answer. That should tell you something about the question.

It's quite common in political speeches and suchlike for people to speak positively about equality of opportunity. Not simply equality. Which implies something wrong with equality of outcome, or at least that it's a less worthy goal.

If you crave chocolate and order chocolate ice cream does that imply you think their is something "wrong with" every other flavor?

No, but advocating equality of opportunity rather than equality implies you think there's something wrong with equality of outcome. "Chocolate ice cream" rather than "ice cream" on a list of recommended dishes means other flavours aren't. Not that ice cream and equality are really comparable.

In fact, equal opportunity results in equal outcomes, whenever their is equal inputs and use of opportunities.

Frequently not. We couldn't, for example, all own factories even if we were all equally entrepreneurial and determined.

Thus, promoting oppportunity indirectly promotes equality under many circumstances. Thus a person who thought equal outcomes were generally wrong and to be avoided, would not support equal opportunity.

Patently wrong since they do. Because such people typically don't assume equal inputs.

Back to the ice cream, opportunity is like chocolate ice-cream with nuts.

Not really.

People order that ice cream, and you ask them "What's wrong with nuts?" Its a dumb question, because those people clearly have no problem with nuts, they just don't prefer an entire bowl of nothing but nuts over all other options.

If the two typically come together, as you suggest above with equality of opportunity and outcome, it would indeed imply that they have a problem with nuts.

 

[dismal]

This thread is about equality of outcomes.

Generally achieving this requires the extreme.

That should be the lesson learned here.

I'm not counting on it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Wow. That is a massive mountain of hubris. You'd be the first person in history for whom that is true, if it were true, which is isn't.

I just don't ask your questions. Luckily, it's a free forum. You get to ask your own, for yourself.

If no one thinks that equality is wrong, then asking why they think that is objectively the wrong question (or at least meaningless and without a possible answer).

Note, even if someone seems to offer and answer, it doesn't make the question meaningful.
Nearly ever poster in the thread has had to reformulate it to make it meaningful. Most posters are saying "It isn't wrong, so there is no "why", but methods of achieving it can be, and here is why that is the case". 1 or 2 people seem to be saying that it is wrong and here is why, but in fact that are saying "Equal outcomes in the context of unequal inputs is wrong", which is not what you asked. IOW, every reply is some form of "not applicable, but here is something more qualified that is applicable."

I don't see a single reply that actually takes your OP for what it asks and offers and answer. That should tell you something about the question.

It's quite common in political speeches and suchlike for people to speak positively about equality of opportunity. Not simply equality. Which implies something wrong with equality of outcome, or at least that it's a less worthy goal.

If you crave chocolate and order chocolate ice cream does that imply you think their is something "wrong with" every other flavor?

No, but advocating equality of opportunity rather than equality implies you think there's something wrong with equality of outcome. "Chocolate ice cream" rather than "ice cream" on a list of recommended dishes means other flavours aren't.

This is as absurd as claiming that if a guy walks into a room and tells someone "I love you", that means they do not love and even hate everyone else in the room. IT is a false dichotomy. When a waiter recommends the fish to you, do you assume he is secretly telling you there is something wrong with every other item on the menu, and that he does not like anything else? A person who absolutely adores equality of outcomes and wants it to increase can and would speak about equal opportunity, and doing so in no way implies otherwise.

Not that ice cream and equality are really comparable.

The validity of an analogy lies in the comparibility of the logical relations among things. The similarity of the things themselves has no relevance. What is comparable is the logical fallacy in your argument and the one in inferring an anti-vanilla position in a person who orders chocolate. They can adore both, but choose chocolate. There is no logical nor psychological connection between having a relatively higher preference for A over B, and thinking that B is wrong.

In fact, equal opportunity results in equal outcomes, whenever their is equal inputs and use of opportunities.

Frequently not. We couldn't, for example, all own factories even if we were all equally entrepreneurial and determined.

First, I explicitly stated that the relationship is conditional and not guaranteed, so your example that you (wrongly) think doesn't have this relationship has zero relevance to my argument and provides no support for yours. Equal opportunity eliminates one major source of unequal outcomes, thus overall the more opportunities are equal, the more outcomes will be equal. Thus, one is indirectly supporting overall increase in equal outcomes by supporting equal opportunity. Second, your example is invalid because you wrongly presume equal opportunity to own a factory. Opportunity is only partly impacted by law. It is also restrained by logic and the basic properties of reality. The fact is that we absolutely can all own a factory, so long as it is either not simultaneously and/or we each are the sole employee of the factory we own. It is only true that it implausible for us all to own a factories simultaneously that employ other people. That is a constraint imposed by the basic fact of existence that a person cannot be in two places at once. Thus, the moment one person owns a multi-employee factory, that reduces the opportunity of everyone else who doesn't own one from owning one. Thus, opportunity is not equal and that is partly why the outcome is not equal.

Thus, promoting oppportunity indirectly promotes equality under many circumstances. Thus a person who thought equal outcomes were generally wrong and to be avoided, would not support equal opportunity.

Patently wrong since they do. Because such people typically don't assume equal inputs.

You have provided no evidence that the people you refer to as "they" (those who think equality of outcomes in itself is wrong) even exist, let alone are the same people who push for equal opportunity. You claim that pushing for opportunity means you think equal outcomes is wrong. There is no logic that supports this, and objectively since opportunities increase the likelihood (not guarantee) of equal outcomes, it makes no psychological sense that a person who actually finds equal outcomes wrong would support something that even makes them more likely, such as equal opportunity.

Back to the ice cream, opportunity is like chocolate ice-cream with nuts.

Not really.

Oh yeah, you don't understand what an analogy is.

People order that ice cream, and you ask them "What's wrong with nuts?" Its a dumb question, because those people clearly have no problem with nuts, they just don't prefer an entire bowl of nothing but nuts over all other options.

If the two typically come together, as you suggest above with equality of opportunity and outcome, it would indeed imply that they have a problem with nuts.

No, it implies no such thing. They are eating nuts, and thus the like nuts and find nothing wrong with them. They are just not focusing solely on eating nuts. That in no way implies they think there is something wrong with nuts, just that they don't think that nuts are the only thing in the world that is "right" and worth eating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is equality of outcomes wrong?

Because if the outcome is always equal what difference does it make how hard you try?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know if it's wrong or not but I don't think equality of outcomes is something that is necessary.

I don't think people care if outcomes are equal or not. They just want to know that they had a fair chance at success. IMO that's one our problems right now: the game is rigged so everyone doesn't have a fair chance at success.

As an example:

If I shell out $80,000 for my kids education, I am paying for him to be educated, not have a fair chance at being educated.

If you're paying for a degree you're dealing with a diploma mill.

If it's a reputable college you're paying for an attempt to confer knowledge.

 

[dismal]

With equality of outcomes your kid gets the same knowledge as the least motivated least talented student. In the world, presumably, as you could not tolerate some schools outperforming others either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't need to pay CEO's 300 times the average workers wages to get enough qualified CEOs. How do I know this? Because when we paid CEOs only 30 times the average workers wages we had no shortage of qualified CEOs willing to work. There is a disincentive when you pay them too much and you base their pay on short term results, they are willing to take too much risk on to earn their bonuses realizing that they can collect their bonuses for three or so years and then have a comfortable retirement.

You are assuming "qualified" is a binary state.