4 ms·

You’re describing equality not equity, in my opinion. Everyone being recognized for their proportional contributions to the business is equality.

snowwrestler 6y ago
Equality means things are measurably the same. 4 = 4 If one team wins the Super Bowl, and one team loses the Super Bowl, then those teams are not equal; that is not equality. But if the game was contested fairly, with no cheating or corruption, then the outcome is equitable, even though it’s not equal. In the U.S. what we generally strive for is equality as an input and equity as an output. If you hire two people, each should have an equal chance of contributing to the business, i.e. neither should be inhibited by irrelevant factors. But it’s expected and ok if one contributes more and advances farther. If it’s based on a fair measurement of their performance, that unequal outcome will still be equitable. That’s why you’ll often see folks talk about “equality of opportunity.” Not equality in general; equality as an input.
- donovanian 6y ago
  > Equality means things are measurably the same. No I think you're loading the meaning of equal. No one would say "you and I are equal" and expect that we're clones. > That’s why you’ll often see folks talk about “equality of opportunity.” Not equality in general; equality as an input. People talk about equality of opportunity because that's the circumstances that people concluded recognize human dignity and autonomy. As soon as you begin the path of equal outcomes, you're talking an expansive micro-managing state optimizing for variables they scarcely understand. And fundamentally there's a lack of faith in people as capable human beings that can manage the affairs of their own life and work to lead the life they want by their own endeavor. It's paternalism.

4 ms·

You’re describing equality not equity, in my opinion. Everyone being recognized for their proportional contributions to the business is equality.

by throwawaysea 6y ago

snowwrestler 6y ago
Equality means things are measurably the same. 4 = 4 If one team wins the Super Bowl, and one team loses the Super Bowl, then those teams are not equal; that is not equality. But if the game was contested fairly, with no cheating or corruption, then the outcome is equitable, even though it’s not equal. In the U.S. what we generally strive for is equality as an input and equity as an output. If you hire two people, each should have an equal chance of contributing to the business, i.e. neither should be inhibited by irrelevant factors. But it’s expected and ok if one contributes more and advances farther. If it’s based on a fair measurement of their performance, that unequal outcome will still be equitable. That’s why you’ll often see folks talk about “equality of opportunity.” Not equality in general; equality as an input.
- donovanian 6y ago
  > Equality means things are measurably the same. No I think you're loading the meaning of equal. No one would say "you and I are equal" and expect that we're clones. > That’s why you’ll often see folks talk about “equality of opportunity.” Not equality in general; equality as an input. People talk about equality of opportunity because that's the circumstances that people concluded recognize human dignity and autonomy. As soon as you begin the path of equal outcomes, you're talking an expansive micro-managing state optimizing for variables they scarcely understand. And fundamentally there's a lack of faith in people as capable human beings that can manage the affairs of their own life and work to lead the life they want by their own endeavor. It's paternalism.