5 ms·

Outcome is opportunity. I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity. (I am hesitant to argue outcome should always b

Outcome is opportunity. I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity. (I am hesitant to argue outcome should always be equal, but it seems that's what I've done.)

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Exactly right — what an odd statement to make. It reads to me like: “Society should be equal but not measurably so.”
mulmen 4y ago
Outcome is not opportunity. Those words are not synonyms. With equal opportunity people are free to make choices on how they live their lives. With equal outcomes nothing an individual does matters. Failure is as valuable to society as success. We learn what works and what doesn’t. What is important in a free society is that everyone has a chance to try and that we have adequate safety nets in place so failures aren’t ruinous.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  Can you name one desirable outcome that is not also a desirable opportunity? If we draw a Venn diagram of desirable outcomes and desirable opportunities, and they exactly overlap, then what's the difference? I do agree with everything you said. I think I'm arguing philosophy and you're arguing more concrete economic policies. In realm of policy, I agree with you, in the realm of philosophy, I'm not sure I see a distinct difference between outcome and opportunity (see my first question).
  - ghufran_syed 4y ago
    Consider a multitude of people who are going to buy food at a fast food place, and they all have $10 to spend. They all have the same opportunity to buy food there, but the outcomes (the actual items they buy) will likely be very different. If we then decide that "salads are good, meat is bad", then we can start to talk about "inequality of outcomes" with respect to salad eating. But is this really a problem? I would argue it's only a problem if we don't want humans exercising free will, and want to impose our "enlightened" views on them.
    - Buttons840 4y ago
      I was thinking of "outcomes" in a broader, more meaningful sense. Yes, if one person orders a red bracelet, and another orders a blue bracelet, they both had the opportunity but got different color bracelets. Is that a different "outcome"? I guess so, but it's not quite what I was referring to in my question. To continue your example, I think the outcome of the people's meals would be how the meal makes them feel. This is a real outcome rather than the illustrative "salad good, meat bad" dimension you propose. The people who ordered healthy food feel more energetic, and thus they have more opportunities for several hours, because they have energy while their colleagues are bloated and lethargic. Their equal opportunity resulted in unequal outcomes, which resulted in unequal opportunity. So, I'm still seeking a desirable outcome (beyond red bracelet / blue bracelet, and "salad good, meat bad") which does not also increase opportunity. My original question remains.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
makeworld 4y ago
I think when the distinction is made it's because people are imagining that those who work harder will have better outcomes than those who don't, even when given equal opportunity.
- dolni 4y ago
  Working hard isn't sufficient, you also have to work smart and invest in your future. If you spend 80 hours a week mowing grass, or raking leaves, or shoveling snow (season dependent), then you are working very hard. But if that's all you do you will not amount to very much relative to a more lucrative occupation.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    > Working hard isn't sufficient, you also have to work smart and invest in your future. What does "invest in your future" mean? I think a good definition would be "increasing your future opportunities". Given that definition, what you're saying is that a good outcome also requires having opportunities. Another example of how outcome and opportunity are deeply intertwined.
    - dolni 4y ago
      You operate on the assumption that the choice is between "work 80 hours per week" or "starve and be homeless." You have painted a false dichotomy and that destructive mindset is _exactly why_ people get stuck in shitty situations. There is more than enough opportunity in the USA for someone to be born with relatively little and work their way up to a middle-class lifestyle EASILY. Many people do.
influx 4y ago
I am confused what you're saying. Let person A practice Chess 2 hours a day. Let person B practice Chess 2 hours a week. Person A makes the cut to join the high school Chess team, while Person B doesn't. Most people would say if both person A and person B had the same opportunity to practice Chess that's sufficient. It seems like you are saying they should both be allowed to join the team. Regardless of the effort they expended. Am I misunderstanding your point?
- Buttons840 4y ago
  I don't think they should both be allowed to join the team, but if our goal is equal opportunity, then going forward person A is going to have more opportunity and thus we will not achieve our goal of equal opportunity. I guess I'm saying that unequal outcomes lead to unequal opportunities. "Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes" sounds nice, but it's inherently unstable, because the unequal outcomes will result in unequal opportunities. I think: 1. It's an impossible ideal, but that's ok. It's not the only impossible ideal. 2. Sometimes, we should just focus on concrete ways we can help equalize opportunities. 3. Sometimes, we can talk about the difficult philosophy behind it all, and probably wont come up with concrete solutions in the process, but it might be a worth while thought exercise. (I'm doing 3 right now.)
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    > Sometimes, we can talk about the difficult philosophy behind it all, and probably wont come up with concrete solutions in the process, but it might be a worth while thought exercise. The term you're looking for here is Free Will or Determinism, in respect to the State. Different folks have different views on these. Your views seem to place a large weight on Determinism. I personally think Determinism in the State is a philosophical dead end based on the evidence of the last century.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Most people would say if both person A and person B had the same opportunity to practice Chess that's sufficient. What if person A and person B had, in theory, equal opportunity to practice chess, but person B has a whole lot of other things demanding his time and energy due to lower socioeconomic status? Or, what if person B never really considered trying out for the chess team a viable thing, because "people like him" don't become serious chess players? That's the thing that gets tricky here. Equality of opportunity is a nebulous concept. And to the extent that it's tilted towards some, it tends to stay that way in subsequent years and in subsequent generations. But putting our finger on the scale to favor those who we are guessing had less opportunity to try and even it out screws up in lots of ways, too.
honkdaddy 4y ago
I think outcome is more like opportunity + luck. Identical twins are a great example, plenty of pairs grow up in nearly exactly equivalent environments but still have radically different outcomes in life. Like a Galton Board ('Plinko')[1], seemingly identical balls (people) can start from exactly the same position, but the indiscernible differences in their makeup combined with the exponential chaos of the branching pegs (life) mean they often end up in completely different places. That's how I see it at least :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board
- _uy6i 4y ago
  Opportunity + luck + preferences (I.e. someone values flexibility over compensation, or video games over homework)
CoastalCoder 4y ago
I think that's an interesting point. But I wonder just how much equalization of "opportunity" would be needed to reach an acceptable equality of outcome. As an extreme example, could it go so far as to prevent some parents from passing on their values to their children? E.g. if being of a certain religious viewpoint was negatively correlated with whatever measure of "outcome" was currently in vogue, would equality of opportunity mean barring its adherents from having or adopting kids?
- _uy6i 4y ago
  Which is why there is a visceral pushback - if a parents struggles in providing a better life for their children don’t actually inure to the children, what’s the point (I.e. if I scrimp and save to send my kid to test prep-training to get her into a better high school, and only to have her be handicapped because of her advantage (my sacrifice) won’t that drive resentment, nihilism etc?)
liquidise 4y ago
Outcome is at least the combination of opportunity and desire. The fact that i graduated as a software engineer says nothing about my other opportunities that i _chose_ not to persue. At scale i can see those effects averaging out somewhat, but i see no evidence that a a fully egalitarian society would produce entirely representative outcomes across all subgroups/occupations.
_uy6i 4y ago
Take the gender pay gap for uber drivers, unassailable equality of opportunity, yet there’s a gender pay gap, oh yeah, people/groups have preferences… https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-abou...
- kbelder 4y ago
  I haven't looked at the article yet. I'm guessing: Men are paid more, because they work in more dangerous areas, work longer hours, and are less often primarily responsible for caregiving. --- Ok, I read it, and pretty much nailed it, but the other factor is that men tend to drive faster, and so simply complete more rides in the same amount of time. None of the factors explaining the 7% pay gap seem to have anything to do with (a) Uber or (b) Customers. It's all seems to be based on choices by the driver.
  - _uy6i 4y ago
    This is my point - here is a clear example where equality of opportunity not resulting in equality of outcome, which should imply that inequality of outcome does not necessarily mean unequal opportunity.
gwright 4y ago
> I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity That is only confusing if you also assume that all people have equal skills, desires, preferences, physical characteristics and so on. They don't and so there is no reason to think that equal opportunities presented to a collection of unique individuals will result in equal outcomes. Instead there will be a unique outcomes based on what the individuals bring to the opportunities.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  I'm saying, as another commenter put it, "equality is unstable". Equal opportunity leads to unequal outcomes, unequal outcomes leads to unequal opportunity.
  - gwright 4y ago
    I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say here. I would assert though that in a world of unique individuals there won't ever be "equal outcomes" regardless of the distribution and nature of opportunities, which is not a statement about how to improve or maximize opportunities. I would also assert that there is no agreement that "equal outcomes" is a desirable goal nor is it even a well-defined goal.
    - Buttons840 4y ago
      I agree. I never argue that equal outcomes is possible (the words "equal outcome" never appear in my comment). I argue that even if we have equal opportunities, then we will still get unequal outcomes. I believe we are in agreement on every point.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Statistics exists? Claiming that literally anyone wants every outcome to be equal seems like a strawman. But we should strive for fairly statistically equivalent outcomes, and we aren’t close, even along gender lines.
dolni 4y ago
So on the one hand we have diversity which is touted as a strength because people of different backgrounds bring a wider range of experiences to produce the best results. But also... Somehow those otherwise impactful differences have ZERO bearing on someone's interest in (or even aptitude for) specific career paths? How do you explain that?
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
This is only true if preferences are equal as well. Say group X prefers job 1 to job 2 by a 3:2 ratio, and group Y prefers job 2 to job 1 by a 3:2 ratio. Assume that equality of opportunity exists, and equal numbers and qualifications of both groups X and Y. The expected outcome is that the X:Y ratios would be 3:2 in job 1 and 2:3 in job 2. If job 1 pays more than job 2, then the "equality of pay" outcome is not achieved. Group X is paid more than group Y.
typeofhuman 4y ago
> I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity. You ever been to a gym or a basketball court? Plenty of equal opportunity vastly unequal outcomes. How big of a society are you talking about?
slavik81 4y ago
A lottery could be considered to have an equal opportunity, but an unequal outcome.
troupe 4y ago
Many colleges put courses up online for free. There is a huge opportunity for people who want to put the time in to get a very high quality education (not degree, but an education) by using these resources. Same thing with the knowledge available in libraries. Some people take advantage of these resources in incredible ways. You'll find people who taught themselves to be a software engineer using only free online sources, etc. However there are many people who are not successful software engineers despite having equal opportunity though access to all the same resources.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

Exactly right — what an odd statement to make. It reads to me like: “Society should be equal but not measurably so.”

mulmen 4y ago

Outcome is not opportunity. Those words are not synonyms. With equal opportunity people are free to make choices on how they live their lives. With equal outcomes nothing an individual does matters. Failure is as valuable to society as success. We learn what works and what doesn’t. What is important in a free society is that everyone has a chance to try and that we have adequate safety nets in place so failures aren’t ruinous.

Buttons840 4y ago
Can you name one desirable outcome that is not also a desirable opportunity? If we draw a Venn diagram of desirable outcomes and desirable opportunities, and they exactly overlap, then what's the difference? I do agree with everything you said. I think I'm arguing philosophy and you're arguing more concrete economic policies. In realm of policy, I agree with you, in the realm of philosophy, I'm not sure I see a distinct difference between outcome and opportunity (see my first question).
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  Consider a multitude of people who are going to buy food at a fast food place, and they all have $10 to spend. They all have the same opportunity to buy food there, but the outcomes (the actual items they buy) will likely be very different. If we then decide that "salads are good, meat is bad", then we can start to talk about "inequality of outcomes" with respect to salad eating. But is this really a problem? I would argue it's only a problem if we don't want humans exercising free will, and want to impose our "enlightened" views on them.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    I was thinking of "outcomes" in a broader, more meaningful sense. Yes, if one person orders a red bracelet, and another orders a blue bracelet, they both had the opportunity but got different color bracelets. Is that a different "outcome"? I guess so, but it's not quite what I was referring to in my question. To continue your example, I think the outcome of the people's meals would be how the meal makes them feel. This is a real outcome rather than the illustrative "salad good, meat bad" dimension you propose. The people who ordered healthy food feel more energetic, and thus they have more opportunities for several hours, because they have energy while their colleagues are bloated and lethargic. Their equal opportunity resulted in unequal outcomes, which resulted in unequal opportunity. So, I'm still seeking a desirable outcome (beyond red bracelet / blue bracelet, and "salad good, meat bad") which does not also increase opportunity. My original question remains.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

makeworld 4y ago

I think when the distinction is made it's because people are imagining that those who work harder will have better outcomes than those who don't, even when given equal opportunity.

dolni 4y ago
Working hard isn't sufficient, you also have to work smart and invest in your future. If you spend 80 hours a week mowing grass, or raking leaves, or shoveling snow (season dependent), then you are working very hard. But if that's all you do you will not amount to very much relative to a more lucrative occupation.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  > Working hard isn't sufficient, you also have to work smart and invest in your future. What does "invest in your future" mean? I think a good definition would be "increasing your future opportunities". Given that definition, what you're saying is that a good outcome also requires having opportunities. Another example of how outcome and opportunity are deeply intertwined.
  - dolni 4y ago
    You operate on the assumption that the choice is between "work 80 hours per week" or "starve and be homeless." You have painted a false dichotomy and that destructive mindset is _exactly why_ people get stuck in shitty situations. There is more than enough opportunity in the USA for someone to be born with relatively little and work their way up to a middle-class lifestyle EASILY. Many people do.

influx 4y ago

I am confused what you're saying. Let person A practice Chess 2 hours a day. Let person B practice Chess 2 hours a week. Person A makes the cut to join the high school Chess team, while Person B doesn't. Most people would say if both person A and person B had the same opportunity to practice Chess that's sufficient. It seems like you are saying they should both be allowed to join the team. Regardless of the effort they expended. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Buttons840 4y ago
I don't think they should both be allowed to join the team, but if our goal is equal opportunity, then going forward person A is going to have more opportunity and thus we will not achieve our goal of equal opportunity. I guess I'm saying that unequal outcomes lead to unequal opportunities. "Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes" sounds nice, but it's inherently unstable, because the unequal outcomes will result in unequal opportunities. I think: 1. It's an impossible ideal, but that's ok. It's not the only impossible ideal. 2. Sometimes, we should just focus on concrete ways we can help equalize opportunities. 3. Sometimes, we can talk about the difficult philosophy behind it all, and probably wont come up with concrete solutions in the process, but it might be a worth while thought exercise. (I'm doing 3 right now.)
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  > Sometimes, we can talk about the difficult philosophy behind it all, and probably wont come up with concrete solutions in the process, but it might be a worth while thought exercise. The term you're looking for here is Free Will or Determinism, in respect to the State. Different folks have different views on these. Your views seem to place a large weight on Determinism. I personally think Determinism in the State is a philosophical dead end based on the evidence of the last century.
mlyle 4y ago
> Most people would say if both person A and person B had the same opportunity to practice Chess that's sufficient. What if person A and person B had, in theory, equal opportunity to practice chess, but person B has a whole lot of other things demanding his time and energy due to lower socioeconomic status? Or, what if person B never really considered trying out for the chess team a viable thing, because "people like him" don't become serious chess players? That's the thing that gets tricky here. Equality of opportunity is a nebulous concept. And to the extent that it's tilted towards some, it tends to stay that way in subsequent years and in subsequent generations. But putting our finger on the scale to favor those who we are guessing had less opportunity to try and even it out screws up in lots of ways, too.

honkdaddy 4y ago

I think outcome is more like opportunity + luck. Identical twins are a great example, plenty of pairs grow up in nearly exactly equivalent environments but still have radically different outcomes in life. Like a Galton Board ('Plinko')[1], seemingly identical balls (people) can start from exactly the same position, but the indiscernible differences in their makeup combined with the exponential chaos of the branching pegs (life) mean they often end up in completely different places. That's how I see it at least :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board

_uy6i 4y ago
Opportunity + luck + preferences (I.e. someone values flexibility over compensation, or video games over homework)

CoastalCoder 4y ago

I think that's an interesting point. But I wonder just how much equalization of "opportunity" would be needed to reach an acceptable equality of outcome. As an extreme example, could it go so far as to prevent some parents from passing on their values to their children? E.g. if being of a certain religious viewpoint was negatively correlated with whatever measure of "outcome" was currently in vogue, would equality of opportunity mean barring its adherents from having or adopting kids?

_uy6i 4y ago
Which is why there is a visceral pushback - if a parents struggles in providing a better life for their children don’t actually inure to the children, what’s the point (I.e. if I scrimp and save to send my kid to test prep-training to get her into a better high school, and only to have her be handicapped because of her advantage (my sacrifice) won’t that drive resentment, nihilism etc?)

liquidise 4y ago

Outcome is at least the combination of opportunity and desire. The fact that i graduated as a software engineer says nothing about my other opportunities that i _chose_ not to persue. At scale i can see those effects averaging out somewhat, but i see no evidence that a a fully egalitarian society would produce entirely representative outcomes across all subgroups/occupations.

_uy6i 4y ago

Take the gender pay gap for uber drivers, unassailable equality of opportunity, yet there’s a gender pay gap, oh yeah, people/groups have preferences… https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-abou...

kbelder 4y ago
I haven't looked at the article yet. I'm guessing: Men are paid more, because they work in more dangerous areas, work longer hours, and are less often primarily responsible for caregiving. --- Ok, I read it, and pretty much nailed it, but the other factor is that men tend to drive faster, and so simply complete more rides in the same amount of time. None of the factors explaining the 7% pay gap seem to have anything to do with (a) Uber or (b) Customers. It's all seems to be based on choices by the driver.
- _uy6i 4y ago
  This is my point - here is a clear example where equality of opportunity not resulting in equality of outcome, which should imply that inequality of outcome does not necessarily mean unequal opportunity.

gwright 4y ago

> I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity That is only confusing if you also assume that all people have equal skills, desires, preferences, physical characteristics and so on. They don't and so there is no reason to think that equal opportunities presented to a collection of unique individuals will result in equal outcomes. Instead there will be a unique outcomes based on what the individuals bring to the opportunities.

Buttons840 4y ago
I'm saying, as another commenter put it, "equality is unstable". Equal opportunity leads to unequal outcomes, unequal outcomes leads to unequal opportunity.
- gwright 4y ago
  I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say here. I would assert though that in a world of unique individuals there won't ever be "equal outcomes" regardless of the distribution and nature of opportunities, which is not a statement about how to improve or maximize opportunities. I would also assert that there is no agreement that "equal outcomes" is a desirable goal nor is it even a well-defined goal.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    I agree. I never argue that equal outcomes is possible (the words "equal outcome" never appear in my comment). I argue that even if we have equal opportunities, then we will still get unequal outcomes. I believe we are in agreement on every point.
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Statistics exists? Claiming that literally anyone wants every outcome to be equal seems like a strawman. But we should strive for fairly statistically equivalent outcomes, and we aren’t close, even along gender lines.

dolni 4y ago

So on the one hand we have diversity which is touted as a strength because people of different backgrounds bring a wider range of experiences to produce the best results. But also... Somehow those otherwise impactful differences have ZERO bearing on someone's interest in (or even aptitude for) specific career paths? How do you explain that?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

This is only true if preferences are equal as well. Say group X prefers job 1 to job 2 by a 3:2 ratio, and group Y prefers job 2 to job 1 by a 3:2 ratio. Assume that equality of opportunity exists, and equal numbers and qualifications of both groups X and Y. The expected outcome is that the X:Y ratios would be 3:2 in job 1 and 2:3 in job 2. If job 1 pays more than job 2, then the "equality of pay" outcome is not achieved. Group X is paid more than group Y.

typeofhuman 4y ago

> I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity. You ever been to a gym or a basketball court? Plenty of equal opportunity vastly unequal outcomes. How big of a society are you talking about?

slavik81 4y ago

A lottery could be considered to have an equal opportunity, but an unequal outcome.

troupe 4y ago

Many colleges put courses up online for free. There is a huge opportunity for people who want to put the time in to get a very high quality education (not degree, but an education) by using these resources. Same thing with the knowledge available in libraries. Some people take advantage of these resources in incredible ways. You'll find people who taught themselves to be a software engineer using only free online sources, etc. However there are many people who are not successful software engineers despite having equal opportunity though access to all the same resources.