A Question about Equality

[fromderinside]

How can equality of outcomes be an extreme position if it is commonly used as an index for equality of opportunity which I presume, since it's implied in the US Declaration of Independence, is a mainstream democratic position? How does one determine equality of opportunity? One tests outcomes. What is that? Equality of outcomes validation of equality of opportunity.

You cannot make outcomes equal without extreme measures. I Think this is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people that cannot accept it. Equality does not occur naturally. Great force is required to attempt to bring it about.

I disagree.
1. Evolution is an exercise in equity. Organisms survive, conditions changes, organisms adapt, organisms survive, etc. It is common to life on earth so why shold anyone consider equity extreme.

2. equal rights expressed as equal opportunity is the same process as evolution except via social groups. People have equal opportunity, conditions change and advantage is gained, societies adapt people regain equal opportunity.

The measure of equity is in changes in outcomes toward being equal. Equal outcomes is fundamental to balancing opportunity.

This is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people who do not accept it. Societies are machines for bringing people under a common umbrella. Keeping that machine in balance is necessary for continued society existence. so some degree of equity is natural to society existence.

I agree that equal outcomes are not normal in a Chaotic world. In some systems equity is required, osmosis comes to mind. Societies are one of those systems that require equity. Dynamic balances are the key to societal success.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You cannot make outcomes equal without extreme measures. I Think this is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people that cannot accept it. Equality does not occur naturally. Great force is required to attempt to bring it about.

I disagree.
1. Evolution is an exercise in equity. Organisms survive, conditions changes, organisms adapt, organisms survive, etc. It is common to life on earth so why shold anyone consider equity extreme.

With an equality of outcome there would be no evolution! Evolution is the survival of the fittest--to have a fittest you must have inequality.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

actually it is. Once you leave extremes, define your terms, and engage in nuanced and realistic thought.

No.

1) It doesn't apply to the disabled.

2) A 2.0 GPA isn't the same as a 4.0 GPA.

what the fuck are you babbling about and why do you insist on proving my point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No.

1) It doesn't apply to the disabled.

2) A 2.0 GPA isn't the same as a 4.0 GPA.

what the fuck are you babbling about and why do you insist on proving my point?

The point is that you didn't show an equal outcome.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They are not mutually exclusive. You can motivate the least motivated and least talented person a bit more, but then if you believe in equal outcomes you must dumb everyone down to the lowest achiever's level...

...or you raise everyone to the highest achiever's level. Both are equally fitting approaches in your strawman scenario, and there's no specific reason to chose one or the other.

Lets say you have a class of 4th grade students that in our current system have some who read at the 6th grade level, some at the 5th grade level, some at the 4th grade, some who read at the 3rd grade level, an 1 kid who reads at the 2nd grade level.

In the world of equal outcomes even if you get that 1 kid who reads at the 2nd grade level up to the 3rd grade level you have to hold all those kids who would be reading at the higher levels back...

... or you have to find a way to get all of those kids reading at a sixth grade level, producing the same net result and satisfying your "equity of outcomes" strawman. Again, there's no specific reason why holding them all back is preferable to pushing them all forward.

And frankly I can't imagine what about the world of equal outcomes would cause that 1 kid to read better.

I would assume the same thing that causes all the kids who read at the higher grade levels to read worse.

That IS what you mean by "equity of outcomes", right? That those students who read at a higher level would have to be DE-educated somehow, with their reading abilities actively compromised with, say, the installation of some sort of medical implant that kicks in and causes their vision to blur if they're reading too fast?

While I'm sure you found it very impressive when you were 15, Harrison Bergeron wasn't actually all that clever OR thought provoking, and using it as the premise of a bizarre strawman position isn't either.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You mean the real world? The pool of money isn't infinite

Implying that it would require an infinite amount of money to help a struggling student catch up with the rest of his class.

Verdict: Bullshit.

And you're still not addressing the dumbing-down issue. You teach to the poor students and the good students will be totally bored.

You teach to the poor students and EVERYONE will be totally bored, especially the poor students.

The only subjects where material difficulty is even a factor in that way is the hard science disciplines, particularly math and physics, which most students find boring for reasons that have nothing to do with their difficulty. In those classes, the difference between a good student and an under-achieving one basically comes down to study habits and foundational skills. And yet we now live in a country where very few people are ever less than seven feet from a calculator and foundational math skills have become less and less important; the difference in study habits and disciplined time-management then becomes the ONLY meaningful difference between those two groups of students.

I don't suppose it would require an infinite amount of money to teach struggling students effective studying habits? Or is that just for students whose parents can afford private one-on-one tutors?

No. We are after equality of opportunity.

And the equality of EDUCATIONAL outcomes is the only way to achieve that. A high school dropout does not have the same opportunities as the valedictorian from an elite college prep school, or for that matter, even from most college graduates. Those who favor equity of outcomes proceed from the assumption that raising all students to or above a minimum level of achievement will give them opportunities to live a happy and productive life and become functional, well-adjusted law-abiding citizens eventually raising functional, well-adjusted law-abiding children.

And then there's people like you, who respond with "Let them study cake."

Leftist thought 101: There is a good solution to every problem.

See the screen name:

"But man, it's a start!" said Whitebread, "There's got to be a way--"

"I am not a man, and there doesn't got to be a way. And that's another reason I don't want contact between your species and mine. You're all Crazy Eddies. You think every problem has a solution.

It's not "leftist" to think it is worth the effort to try and prevent bad things from happening; it's not "leftist" to look at someone who is having trouble and think "Maybe there's a way to help that person." It's not "leftist" to look at a child who is struggling in school and decide that whatever it costs to give that child a brighter future would be money well spent.

It's called "being a decent human being."

I do not know that you are actually capable of doing this.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

so expecting school children, fairly free of any learning disability to graduate from high school able to read, write, and do arithmetic is an extreme?

This is not equality of outcomes.

Yes it is.

It is, in fact, precisely what everyone except for rightists are describing when they use the phrase "equality of outcomes." They are referring to a minimum baseline that every person in a particular situation should be allowed and encouraged to achieve.

Equality for the sake of equality is a rightist strawman position that even Marxists don't accept as a reasonable thing to strive for.

Expecting people to receive equal protection under the law is an extreme position? Expecting that citizen have equal access to the voting booth is an extreme position?

These things are fine. But they do not guarantee equality of outcomes.

They DEFINE equality of outcomes. Two people in identical circumstances will have identical treatment under the law, identical punishment and identical rewards. Their outcomes remain equal because their positions are equal.

What I find disturbing is how some people, instead stating that equality of outcomes is sometimes possible and sometimes not, depending on to what specifically we applying the concept, jumped to arguing extremes because outside of extremes, their arguments fall apart.

You asked a very particular all or nothing sort of question. Don't turn around and bitch at the people who answer it.

Except you're not answering the question that was asked. You're answering the imaginary Herrison Bergeron bullshit question that nobody in history has ever seriously asked and then accusing "leftists" of being too extreme for asking it.

Therein, basically, lies the answer to the OP:

Why is equality of outcomes bad?
Because dismal read a short story once where equality of outcomes made everything suck.

 

[ksen]

Implying that it would require an infinite amount of money to help a struggling student catch up with the rest of his class.

Verdict: Bullshit.

And you're still not addressing the dumbing-down issue. You teach to the poor students and the good students will be totally bored.

You teach to the poor students and EVERYONE will be totally bored, especially the poor students.

The only subjects where material difficulty is even a factor in that way is the hard science disciplines, particularly math and physics, which most students find boring for reasons that have nothing to do with their difficulty. In those classes, the difference between a good student and an under-achieving one basically comes down to study habits and foundational skills. And yet we now live in a country where very few people are ever less than seven feet from a calculator and foundational math skills have become less and less important; the difference in study habits and disciplined time-management then becomes the ONLY meaningful difference between those two groups of students.

I don't suppose it would require an infinite amount of money to teach struggling students effective studying habits? Or is that just for students whose parents can afford private one-on-one tutors?

No. We are after equality of opportunity.

And the equality of EDUCATIONAL outcomes is the only way to achieve that. A high school dropout does not have the same opportunities as the valedictorian from an elite college prep school, or for that matter, even from most college graduates. Those who favor equity of outcomes proceed from the assumption that raising all students to or above a minimum level of achievement will give them opportunities to live a happy and productive life and become functional, well-adjusted law-abiding citizens eventually raising functional, well-adjusted law-abiding children.

And then there's people like you, who respond with "Let them study cake."

Leftist thought 101: There is a good solution to every problem.

See the screen name:

"But man, it's a start!" said Whitebread, "There's got to be a way--"

"I am not a man, and there doesn't got to be a way. And that's another reason I don't want contact between your species and mine. You're all Crazy Eddies. You think every problem has a solution.

It's not "leftist" to think it is worth the effort to try and prevent bad things from happening; it's not "leftist" to look at someone who is having trouble and think "Maybe there's a way to help that person." It's not "leftist" to look at a child who is struggling in school and decide that whatever it costs to give that child a brighter future would be money well spent.

It's called "being a decent human being."

I do not know that you are actually capable of doing this.

actually, being a decent human being is leftist these days

 

[dismal]

...or you raise everyone to the highest achiever's level.

Not possible to take you seriously at this point. Check reality and try again.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

...or you raise everyone to the highest achiever's level.

Not possible to take you seriously at this point. Check reality and try again.

It is exactly as realistic (meaning not at all) to raise everyone to the highest point as it is to reduce everyone to the lowest point. This is especially true in education, where no known method currently exists to REMOVE education that a student has already obtained from one means or another, nor is it possible to prevent highly intelligent or motivated students from learning lessons on their own. Simply put: you can't "dumb everyone down" for precisely the reasons you can't "smart everyone up."

In between those extremes are two possibilities that deviate dramatically from your strawman.
They are
1) elevate all students to an minimal standard of competence so they will have an opportunity to support themselves in adulthood
2) elevate only the gifted students to a VERY high standard of competence so they will have an opportunity to enter extremely lucrative and high-paying fields as soon as they enter the workforce

And even between those two possibilities are variations of implementation, school and district policy and even circumstantial outcomes of individuals, collectively known as "nuance."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since the OP declined my invitation to address exactly which outcomes she was talking about, all I can do is guess. In the politics forum, it probably means political and economic outcomes.

Not all people have the same abilities. Not all people have the same desires. Therefore equality of outcome is highly unlikely.

Take a case of three people, let us call them Tom, Harry, and Mary.

Tom likes to work hard, to earn a high income, and to save money and reinvest it in his work. Based on that alone, he is likely to earn a higher income than other people.

Harry works because he has to. He isn't very skilled, so he doesn't earn a high wage. He'll never be as wealthy as Tom, all other things being equal.

Then there is Mary. She is more competent than Tom, so could earn more than Tom. But she likes a life of leisure, hiking and camping and resting on the beach. She works only hard enough to support that lifestyle.

As you can see, Tom and Mary have very different outcomes, but both achieve satisfaction in their own different ways with their own different desires. Poor Harry, on the other hand, is unlikely to be very satisfied with his outcomes. Different skill levels and different desires produce different outcomes. So which of these outcomes should be made equal?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Since the OP declined my invitation to address exactly which outcomes she was talking about, all I can do is guess. In the politics forum, it probably means political and economic outcomes.

Not all people have the same abilities. Not all people have the same desires. Therefore equality of outcome is highly unlikely.

Take a case of three people, let us call them Tom, Harry, and Mary.

Tom likes to work hard, to earn a high income, and to save money and reinvest it in his work. Based on that alone, he is likely to earn a higher income than other people.

Harry works because he has to. He isn't very skilled, so he doesn't earn a high wage. He'll never be as wealthy as Tom, all other things being equal.

Then there is Mary. She is more competent than Tom, so could earn more than Tom. But she likes a life of leisure, hiking and camping and resting on the beach. She works only hard enough to support that lifestyle.

As you can see, Tom and Mary have very different outcomes, but both achieve satisfaction in their own different ways with their own different desires. Poor Harry, on the other hand, is unlikely to be very satisfied with his outcomes. Different skill levels and different desires produce different outcomes.

Which isn't what anyone is referring to in describing "equity of outcomes."

To use your own analogy: Harry is competing in his workplace with Carlos, Bill, Ted and Edmund. All four of them work equally hard, all four of them have the same skills. But Edmund's father is the CEO of the company, Carlos is blind in one eye and Bill and Ted are married to each other. None of these factors should affect their relative standing in the company or their eventual outcomes, and yet Edmund gets a 300% pay raise, Carlos gets his hours cut, Bill and Ted get transferred to the mail room and Harry winds up taking up the slack for all of them, doing twice as much work for the same amount of money. EVERYONE'S outcomes drop in this case, except for Edmund. There is no EQUITABLE reason why their outcomes should be so different, even if one nominally assumes they had the same opportunities. One is receiving preferential treatment, others are receiving discriminatory treatment, and one is being exploited unfairly. And if their current outcomes are inequitable, the future opportunities of their children will be so as well.

What if it isn't arbitrary discrimination? What if Carlos got his hours cut because he's incompetent and management is tired of having to correct his mistakes? Then Carlos should get the same outcome as every other incompetent worker in similar circumstances, not better and not worse. What if the reason Bill and Ted got transferred to the mailroom is because they spend more time making out than working? Then they should be treated exactly the same as any other worker whose personal relationships compromise their work. In such cases, their relative positions are no longer equitable, and their outcomes won't be either.

Equity of outcome isn't about Harry's satisfaction. It's about Harry getting what he legitimately deserves to get based on his actual work and his merits rather than the self-serving whims of his coworkers or employers. If Harry does A, B and C he should get X, Y, and Z, and so should anyone else who does the same.

The only time this is even a point of contention is in Education, in such a case where we are dealing with young people whose habits have not been fully developed and whose potential has not yet been maximally realized. The ONLY justification for avoiding an equity of outcomes is the assumption that a certain number of students cannot be educated and that any attempt to do so would be a waste of money; this further assumes that administrators and policymakers -- rather than teachers and parents -- are capable of knowing who those students are and can make an accurate judgement as to who is and isn't teachable, judgements that will have a lasting effect on them for the rest of their lives.

 

[ksen]

Since the OP declined my invitation to address exactly which outcomes she was talking about, all I can do is guess. In the politics forum, it probably means political and economic outcomes.

Not all people have the same abilities. Not all people have the same desires. Therefore equality of outcome is highly unlikely.

Take a case of three people, let us call them Tom, Harry, and Mary.

Tom likes to work hard, to earn a high income, and to save money and reinvest it in his work. Based on that alone, he is likely to earn a higher income than other people.

Harry works because he has to. He isn't very skilled, so he doesn't earn a high wage. He'll never be as wealthy as Tom, all other things being equal.

Then there is Mary. She is more competent than Tom, so could earn more than Tom. But she likes a life of leisure, hiking and camping and resting on the beach. She works only hard enough to support that lifestyle.

As you can see, Tom and Mary have very different outcomes, but both achieve satisfaction in their own different ways with their own different desires. Poor Harry, on the other hand, is unlikely to be very satisfied with his outcomes. Different skill levels and different desires produce different outcomes.

Which isn't what anyone is referring to in describing "equity of outcomes."

That's what I thought was meant when I initally read the OP.

To use your own analogy: Harry is competing in his workplace with Carlos, Bill, Ted and Edmund. All four of them work equally hard, all four of them have the same skills. But Edmund's father is the CEO of the company, Carlos is blind in one eye and Bill and Ted are married to each other. None of these factors should affect their relative standing in the company or their eventual outcomes, and yet Edmund gets a 300% pay raise, Carlos gets his hours cut, Bill and Ted get transferred to the mail room and Harry winds up taking up the slack for all of them, doing twice as much work for the same amount of money. EVERYONE'S outcomes drop in this case, except for Edmund. There is no EQUITABLE reason why their outcomes should be so different, even if one nominally assumes they had the same opportunities. One is receiving preferential treatment, others are receiving discriminatory treatment, and one is being exploited unfairly. And if their current outcomes are inequitable, the future opportunities of their children will be so as well.

Equity of outcome isn't about Harry's satisfaction. It's about Harry getting what he legitimately deserves to get based on his actual work and his merits rather than the self-serving whims of his coworkers or employers.

I agree with this.

 

[Bomb#20]

A Question about Equality

Why is equality of outcomes wrong?

Not all people have the same abilities. Not all people have the same desires. Therefore equality of outcome is highly unlikely.
...
As you can see, Tom and Mary have very different outcomes, but both achieve satisfaction in their own different ways with their own different desires. Poor Harry, on the other hand, is unlikely to be very satisfied with his outcomes. Different skill levels and different desires produce different outcomes. So which of these outcomes should be made equal?

Which isn't what anyone is referring to in describing "equity of outcomes."

That's what I thought was meant when I initally read the OP.

To use your own analogy: ...
Equity of outcome isn't about Harry's satisfaction. It's about Harry getting what he legitimately deserves to get based on his actual work and his merits rather than the self-serving whims of his coworkers or employers.

I agree with this.

For the benefit of the one or more participants in this thread showing signs of dyslexia:

equality -- equ AL ity -- the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability

equity -- equ <no extra syllable> ity -- the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality​

As can be seen from the OP, the topic of this thread is equALity of outcomes. Nobody in this thread is arguing against equity of outcomes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not all people have the same abilities. Not all people have the same desires. Therefore equality of outcome is highly unlikely.
...
As you can see, Tom and Mary have very different outcomes, but both achieve satisfaction in their own different ways with their own different desires. Poor Harry, on the other hand, is unlikely to be very satisfied with his outcomes. Different skill levels and different desires produce different outcomes. So which of these outcomes should be made equal?

Which isn't what anyone is referring to in describing "equity of outcomes."

That's what I thought was meant when I initally read the OP.

To use your own analogy: ...
Equity of outcome isn't about Harry's satisfaction. It's about Harry getting what he legitimately deserves to get based on his actual work and his merits rather than the self-serving whims of his coworkers or employers.

I agree with this.

For the benefit of the one or more participants in this thread showing signs of dyslexia:

equality -- equ AL ity -- the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability

equity -- equ <no extra syllable> ity -- the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality​

As can be seen from the OP, the topic of this thread is equALity of outcomes. Nobody in this thread is arguing against equity of outcomes.

Pedantry notwithstanding, is there an actual social/political movement in America -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- that is proposing "equality" as opposed to "equity"? And is the usage sufficiently different in actual political discourse for those two concepts to be considered distinct?

And no, I'm not asking about the "possible implications of leftist thought" in enforcing equity or equality. I'm asking if there are so-called "leftists" who actually consider that distinction meaningful to the concept they are referring to?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Crazy Eddie, it isn't about equity of outcomes, it is about equality of outcomes. Bomb#20 is right, and it's not pedantry.

Since the OP asked about equality of outcomes, I gave a scenario with three different people resulting in three different outcomes, and asked which ones should be equalized.

 

[dismal]

Not possible to take you seriously at this point. Check reality and try again.

It is exactly as realistic (meaning not at all) to raise everyone to the highest point as it is to reduce everyone to the lowest point.

Well, then, let's go for equality of outcomes in basketball. I look forward to playing like LeBron James.

 

[arkirk]

It is exactly as realistic (meaning not at all) to raise everyone to the highest point as it is to reduce everyone to the lowest point.

Well, then, let's go for equality of outcomes in basketball. I look forward to playing like LeBron James.

Dismal: Quit fighting it! I am willing to let YOU have equal rights. It's okay.

Life is NOT A BASKETBALL GAME.

 

[dismal]

Well, then, let's go for equality of outcomes in basketball. I look forward to playing like LeBron James.

Dismal: Quit fighting it! I am willing to let YOU have equal rights. It's okay.

Life is NOT A BASKETBALL GAME.

Aw, don't be jealous. You get to play like LeBron James too.

 

[arkirk]

Dismal: Quit fighting it! I am willing to let YOU have equal rights. It's okay.

Life is NOT A BASKETBALL GAME.

Aw, don't be jealous. You get to play like LeBron James too.

But I don't WANT TO PLAY BASKETBALL! Please! don't make me play basketball!