3 ms·

>But they didn't, and their outcomes weren't equal. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and one choice wasn't necessarily 'suboptimal' either. It's easy to say

>But they didn't, and their outcomes weren't equal. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and one choice wasn't necessarily 'suboptimal' either. It's easy to say their unequal outcomes are "not necessarily a bad thing" when you're a STEM graduate living in San Francisco on a $200k, not quite so reassuring when you're an English Lit graduate struggling to make a living as a barista. And when you look at that massive difference in outcomes and say "well you chose skills that aren't in demand" then what you are saying is "you made the wrong choice if you wanted a good life". EDIT: Or alternatively, to finish the analogy, you're saying "some people just inevitably want to study English Lit even though our society doesn't value it, guess it sucks to be them!".

CM30 8y ago
So what's the alternative? The government sets wages across all industries to be exactly the same? That doesn't feel too meritocratic... But hey, if you need another few, what if: You have two jobs to choose from, both make you happy and both pay the same. The outcome won't be identical in both cases, since you'll meet different people, work in a different location and do different work. Or how about the obvious extreme between a job that pays well and nothing? Let's assume everything ends up on basic income and that works out. Fair enough. But now assume one of those people wants to become an entrepreneur and sets up a startup that ends up becoming a billion dollar corporation while the other one sits at home and watches Netflix all day. Their opportunities may be the same, but the outcomes won't be. Is that a bad thing? I doubt many people would say it is, especially given how both have enough to live on and both are enjoying their life doing what they want to do. Or heck, how about another example? Imagine two people are looking for a romantic partner at the same time. They may have the same opportunities (in terms of access to the other gender, wealth, location, etc) but simply by genetics (aka one potentially being more attractive than the other) or interests (more attractive people from one gender might have one interest and not another) they won't have equal outcomes. You will never get 'equality of outcome', simply because a system that aims for that would be ridiculously unfair, completely non market based and likely verging on a dystopia.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  Firstly, I'm talking about big ticket economic injustice here. I'm not interested in small detail differences, and I'm definitely not talking about relationships (and honestly I find it kind distasteful to talk about them in such a commodified way). My argument is not equality of outcome is better, but that the dichotomy is not that coherent. If people truly have equal opportunity to choose good outcomes they will do so. If they do not, they are either being influenced by society towards bad outcomes, in which case we should consider changing society, or they are influenced by innate aspects of themselves towards bad outcomes, in which case our society is structured in a way that privileges certain innate traits. >That doesn't feel too meritocratic... Well honestly, I'm not as sold on the idea of "meritocracy" as most people here. I think the idea that some people "deserve" worse lives than others is pretty distasteful. When people say different outcomes are necessary to motivate people and produce better outcomes overall, I can at least understand that argument. I don't personally agree: I think in reality most people are far more motivated by a sense of purpose and achievement than material wealth (beyond essentials). But the argument does at least have the goal of producing the best outcomes. But when people start to elevate this inequality to morality, and say that "inequality is good" and that some people "deserve" worse lives because they have less "merit", I think that framing discards the goal of achieving the best outcomes, and I find that misguided and self-serving at best, and evil at worst.

CM30 8y ago

So what's the alternative? The government sets wages across all industries to be exactly the same? That doesn't feel too meritocratic... But hey, if you need another few, what if: You have two jobs to choose from, both make you happy and both pay the same. The outcome won't be identical in both cases, since you'll meet different people, work in a different location and do different work. Or how about the obvious extreme between a job that pays well and nothing? Let's assume everything ends up on basic income and that works out. Fair enough. But now assume one of those people wants to become an entrepreneur and sets up a startup that ends up becoming a billion dollar corporation while the other one sits at home and watches Netflix all day. Their opportunities may be the same, but the outcomes won't be. Is that a bad thing? I doubt many people would say it is, especially given how both have enough to live on and both are enjoying their life doing what they want to do. Or heck, how about another example? Imagine two people are looking for a romantic partner at the same time. They may have the same opportunities (in terms of access to the other gender, wealth, location, etc) but simply by genetics (aka one potentially being more attractive than the other) or interests (more attractive people from one gender might have one interest and not another) they won't have equal outcomes. You will never get 'equality of outcome', simply because a system that aims for that would be ridiculously unfair, completely non market based and likely verging on a dystopia.

aninhumer 8y ago
Firstly, I'm talking about big ticket economic injustice here. I'm not interested in small detail differences, and I'm definitely not talking about relationships (and honestly I find it kind distasteful to talk about them in such a commodified way). My argument is not equality of outcome is better, but that the dichotomy is not that coherent. If people truly have equal opportunity to choose good outcomes they will do so. If they do not, they are either being influenced by society towards bad outcomes, in which case we should consider changing society, or they are influenced by innate aspects of themselves towards bad outcomes, in which case our society is structured in a way that privileges certain innate traits. >That doesn't feel too meritocratic... Well honestly, I'm not as sold on the idea of "meritocracy" as most people here. I think the idea that some people "deserve" worse lives than others is pretty distasteful. When people say different outcomes are necessary to motivate people and produce better outcomes overall, I can at least understand that argument. I don't personally agree: I think in reality most people are far more motivated by a sense of purpose and achievement than material wealth (beyond essentials). But the argument does at least have the goal of producing the best outcomes. But when people start to elevate this inequality to morality, and say that "inequality is good" and that some people "deserve" worse lives because they have less "merit", I think that framing discards the goal of achieving the best outcomes, and I find that misguided and self-serving at best, and evil at worst.