5 ms·

There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

kennywinker 4y ago
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Hmm, should we just take everyone's wealth every few years and split it evenly? After all wealth is opportunity. Hmm, or maybe set inheritance tax and gift tax to 100%. After all that is also equal opportunity.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    - xvector 4y ago
      Such a society would not fly. Imagine being a parent and unable to be able to give your kids an advantage. It would devolve into pure chaos.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        You just described the situation of millions of parents in the US today. Why does your kid need a financial advantage? If society provided an equal footing for every child, the advantages you could provide to them would be love, advice inspiration, and bettering society so that there was more for them. You say “that’ll never fly”, but I say if we’re going to imagine a better world why not imagine it radically better not just incrementally better.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        It's not radically better. Giving people who at the age of 50 have enough money to live on no way of passing anything on will disincentivise a giant number of things you take for granted.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        Like what? I'm interested in disincentivizing the accumulation of more wealth than you can spend in a lifetime, and the continued sequestering of that wealth into family lines. We abolished the monarchy for a reason - we don't want to be ruled by people who were born into their position.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        There is a big difference between wealth and monarchy. You aren't ruled by people with money, although one of them might offer you a job.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        They literally shape the world around us. Money = speech, so they speak louder than us. It may not be quite so restrictive as a lord-surf relationship, but “giving you a job” is a power dynamic that edges towards feudal when the choice is homelessness and starvation or work.
      - Kbelicius 4y ago
        It is a sad world in which the only thing one could give his children is money/property.
      - HelloMcFly 4y ago
        This is the situation for a huge - possibly majority - of parents.
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      an unjust world where some nosy stranger decides "intergenerational wealth is bad" and "everyone is fed, housed and educated" takes precedence over you working towards your children or your children's children's future because they feel justified in using political oppression to take what you've earned for your family. Not sure what kind of dystopia you're setting up where politicians will always use the greater good of everyone else to justify any actions against individuals.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        You can't just pass a law against inter-generational wealth. It's too easy to work around, too many ways of passing money without directly inheriting it. The only way it could possibly work is if had cultural buy in. If everybody thought it was a good idea and believed in it, at that point the laws just codify and re-enforce the existing beliefs. So I'm not setting up a dystopia where politicians swoop in and rob the elderly. I'm suggesting what if we radically restructured our society so we ACTUALLY gave everyone an equal opportunity, instead of allowing inequality to accumulate generationaly in the ways it does.
        LegitShady 4y ago
        >The only way it could possibly work is if had cultural buy in. disagree. there are lots of unpopular laws that get passed as part of other bills, under the urging of activists or lobbyists against popular opinion, etc. >I'm suggesting what if we radically restructured our society so we ACTUALLY gave everyone an equal opportunity, instead of allowing inequality to accumulate generationaly in the ways it does. The details matter. Big sweeping statements like the above don't mean anything until you get to details - they sound like moral soundbites but they ignore the details of the actions required to get to that point. That way you never have to deal with negatives arising from your ideas, because you never discuss the details enough to get to the negatives, just the platitudes.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        > disagree. there are lots of unpopular laws that get passed as part of other bills, under the urging of activists or lobbyists against popular opinion, etc. Not saying it couldn't be made a law without cultural buy-in, I'm saying the law wouldn't be effective. There are too many workaround. You can give your child your stuff while you're still alive. You can put it all into a trust. You can create a scholarship where the criteria is being this one person. You can put it all in gold bars and bury it in the backyard. Etc. etc. etc. but if there is a cultural consensus that doing that is WRONG, people will by-and-large not do it. > The details matter. Indeed they do. But if we can't agree that the goal would be a good one, there's no point in getting into the details. It seems that there are a lot of people on here who don't think we should be seeking to create a society that actually provides equal opportunities - in that context, debating how to achieve that goal is pretty useless. If we all agree that it would be good, then we can discuss specific plans and proposals to get closer to that goal.
  - danuker 4y ago
    > set inheritance tax and gift tax to 100% Would anyone leave inheritances or give gifts after that? People would just spend everything they have, targeting a $0 or negative net worth at death.
    - otterley 4y ago
      That’s kind of the point.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        The point is that people spend what they have? What would that do?
        kennywinker 4y ago
        Well, it'd be great for the economy.
Kbelicius 4y ago
In this context there really isn't any difference between the two. Different opportunities lead to different outcomes and vice versa. So if you want same opportunities for everyone you'd have to accept, that to achieve that, same outcomes are also needed.
- Jtype 4y ago
  You need to do a lot more reading if you think equality of opportunity and equality of output are the same. Saying that everyone should have equal rights and treatment under the law is a far cry from saying that everyone deserves the same outcomes in life. I assume that you're conflating equal opportunity( via rights and treatment under the law) with equal starting points, but they are far from the same things. Equal starting points are going to be impossible, literally a pipe dream without creating some form of dystopian nightmare that prevents people from having children, and instead farms genetically equal embryos who are then raised by the state. Which will also necessitate monoculture and risk humanity due to the lack in individual variation.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Public schooling, a non-rights based government program that provides everyone with education regardless of the economic circumstances they were born into, does not create equal starting points - but it is an improvement in the equality of everyone's starting point. Hardly a dystopian nightmare. Seems to me that there is a lot more we could do while still avoiding your dystopian nightmare scenario
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      No, you're mixing up concepts. Public schooling is to do with equality of opportunity.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        What set of rules did you use to draw the line between an opportunity and an outcome there? Why does it stop at highschool, and not continue on to university, jobs, or board seats? Because you might just as well frame public school as the government stepping in to mandate that there are seats in elementary and high school for everyone.

Ekaros 4y ago
Hmm, should we just take everyone's wealth every few years and split it evenly? After all wealth is opportunity. Hmm, or maybe set inheritance tax and gift tax to 100%. After all that is also equal opportunity.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  - xvector 4y ago
    Such a society would not fly. Imagine being a parent and unable to be able to give your kids an advantage. It would devolve into pure chaos.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      You just described the situation of millions of parents in the US today. Why does your kid need a financial advantage? If society provided an equal footing for every child, the advantages you could provide to them would be love, advice inspiration, and bettering society so that there was more for them. You say “that’ll never fly”, but I say if we’re going to imagine a better world why not imagine it radically better not just incrementally better.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        It's not radically better. Giving people who at the age of 50 have enough money to live on no way of passing anything on will disincentivise a giant number of things you take for granted.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        Like what? I'm interested in disincentivizing the accumulation of more wealth than you can spend in a lifetime, and the continued sequestering of that wealth into family lines. We abolished the monarchy for a reason - we don't want to be ruled by people who were born into their position.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        There is a big difference between wealth and monarchy. You aren't ruled by people with money, although one of them might offer you a job.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        They literally shape the world around us. Money = speech, so they speak louder than us. It may not be quite so restrictive as a lord-surf relationship, but “giving you a job” is a power dynamic that edges towards feudal when the choice is homelessness and starvation or work.
    - Kbelicius 4y ago
      It is a sad world in which the only thing one could give his children is money/property.
    - HelloMcFly 4y ago
      This is the situation for a huge - possibly majority - of parents.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    an unjust world where some nosy stranger decides "intergenerational wealth is bad" and "everyone is fed, housed and educated" takes precedence over you working towards your children or your children's children's future because they feel justified in using political oppression to take what you've earned for your family. Not sure what kind of dystopia you're setting up where politicians will always use the greater good of everyone else to justify any actions against individuals.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      You can't just pass a law against inter-generational wealth. It's too easy to work around, too many ways of passing money without directly inheriting it. The only way it could possibly work is if had cultural buy in. If everybody thought it was a good idea and believed in it, at that point the laws just codify and re-enforce the existing beliefs. So I'm not setting up a dystopia where politicians swoop in and rob the elderly. I'm suggesting what if we radically restructured our society so we ACTUALLY gave everyone an equal opportunity, instead of allowing inequality to accumulate generationaly in the ways it does.
      - LegitShady 4y ago
        >The only way it could possibly work is if had cultural buy in. disagree. there are lots of unpopular laws that get passed as part of other bills, under the urging of activists or lobbyists against popular opinion, etc. >I'm suggesting what if we radically restructured our society so we ACTUALLY gave everyone an equal opportunity, instead of allowing inequality to accumulate generationaly in the ways it does. The details matter. Big sweeping statements like the above don't mean anything until you get to details - they sound like moral soundbites but they ignore the details of the actions required to get to that point. That way you never have to deal with negatives arising from your ideas, because you never discuss the details enough to get to the negatives, just the platitudes.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        > disagree. there are lots of unpopular laws that get passed as part of other bills, under the urging of activists or lobbyists against popular opinion, etc. Not saying it couldn't be made a law without cultural buy-in, I'm saying the law wouldn't be effective. There are too many workaround. You can give your child your stuff while you're still alive. You can put it all into a trust. You can create a scholarship where the criteria is being this one person. You can put it all in gold bars and bury it in the backyard. Etc. etc. etc. but if there is a cultural consensus that doing that is WRONG, people will by-and-large not do it. > The details matter. Indeed they do. But if we can't agree that the goal would be a good one, there's no point in getting into the details. It seems that there are a lot of people on here who don't think we should be seeking to create a society that actually provides equal opportunities - in that context, debating how to achieve that goal is pretty useless. If we all agree that it would be good, then we can discuss specific plans and proposals to get closer to that goal.
- danuker 4y ago
  > set inheritance tax and gift tax to 100% Would anyone leave inheritances or give gifts after that? People would just spend everything they have, targeting a $0 or negative net worth at death.
  - otterley 4y ago
    That’s kind of the point.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      The point is that people spend what they have? What would that do?
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        Well, it'd be great for the economy.

In this context there really isn't any difference between the two. Different opportunities lead to different outcomes and vice versa. So if you want same opportunities for everyone you'd have to accept, that to achieve that, same outcomes are also needed.

Jtype 4y ago
You need to do a lot more reading if you think equality of opportunity and equality of output are the same. Saying that everyone should have equal rights and treatment under the law is a far cry from saying that everyone deserves the same outcomes in life. I assume that you're conflating equal opportunity( via rights and treatment under the law) with equal starting points, but they are far from the same things. Equal starting points are going to be impossible, literally a pipe dream without creating some form of dystopian nightmare that prevents people from having children, and instead farms genetically equal embryos who are then raised by the state. Which will also necessitate monoculture and risk humanity due to the lack in individual variation.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Public schooling, a non-rights based government program that provides everyone with education regardless of the economic circumstances they were born into, does not create equal starting points - but it is an improvement in the equality of everyone's starting point. Hardly a dystopian nightmare. Seems to me that there is a lot more we could do while still avoiding your dystopian nightmare scenario
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    No, you're mixing up concepts. Public schooling is to do with equality of opportunity.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      What set of rules did you use to draw the line between an opportunity and an outcome there? Why does it stop at highschool, and not continue on to university, jobs, or board seats? Because you might just as well frame public school as the government stepping in to mandate that there are seats in elementary and high school for everyone.