3 ms·

Normally equity refers to everyone getting their fair share. It's never been synonymous with equality of outcomes. For example, equal opportunity might dictat

Normally equity refers to everyone getting their fair share. It's never been synonymous with equality of outcomes. For example, equal opportunity might dictate that you consider both women and men for a job position, giving women equal opportunity. But equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work Which is equality of outcomes. (What “fair” means is the entire debate. Redefining fair as equitable doesn’t move us forward. Maybe we have this contortion because equality of outcomes became synonymous with communism, so now we get equity and equality with no bearing for those terms’ histories.) This redefinition of “equity” is modern and regional to parts of America. It sounds like it’s based on equity in law [1], but it’s not. That newness and regionality makes it difficult to predict what someone launching it into a new domain, like international relations, means, hence why I asked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)
- didibus 3y ago
  > Which is equality of outcomes It's not though. Equality of outcomes would be something like, we should all make the same salary. But equity says that discrimination or favoritism should have no impact to the salary you make, you should make a salary that's purely dependent on the work you're doing. Or another example. If black people represent 20% of the population, but companies boards are 100% made up of white members. Equality of outcomes would say that you'd need the same amount of white and black board members, 50/50. But equity would say you need 20% of them to be black, thus proportional representation. Equality of outcomes can itself be unfair, like in that example. Equity is about fairness. When has equality of outcomes not been synonymous with communism? I mean, communism has more to it, but equality of outcomes is one of its propositions. Everyone should make the exact same money, no matter what they do. Equity distinguishes itself from that, by focusing on fair outcomes, that remove prejudice and addresses discrimination. So my read of OP about international trade was similar to how I think of equity. They're saying that the trade shouldn't be made by the rich country as a way to take advantage of a poorer country such as paying a lot less than what it would pay for the same if trading with a richer country or sourcing something from within their own country, just because the poor country is more desperate.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> equity demands that they'd be paid the same for the same work Which is equality of outcomes. (What “fair” means is the entire debate. Redefining fair as equitable doesn’t move us forward. Maybe we have this contortion because equality of outcomes became synonymous with communism, so now we get equity and equality with no bearing for those terms’ histories.) This redefinition of “equity” is modern and regional to parts of America. It sounds like it’s based on equity in law [1], but it’s not. That newness and regionality makes it difficult to predict what someone launching it into a new domain, like international relations, means, hence why I asked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)

didibus 3y ago
> Which is equality of outcomes It's not though. Equality of outcomes would be something like, we should all make the same salary. But equity says that discrimination or favoritism should have no impact to the salary you make, you should make a salary that's purely dependent on the work you're doing. Or another example. If black people represent 20% of the population, but companies boards are 100% made up of white members. Equality of outcomes would say that you'd need the same amount of white and black board members, 50/50. But equity would say you need 20% of them to be black, thus proportional representation. Equality of outcomes can itself be unfair, like in that example. Equity is about fairness. When has equality of outcomes not been synonymous with communism? I mean, communism has more to it, but equality of outcomes is one of its propositions. Everyone should make the exact same money, no matter what they do. Equity distinguishes itself from that, by focusing on fair outcomes, that remove prejudice and addresses discrimination. So my read of OP about international trade was similar to how I think of equity. They're saying that the trade shouldn't be made by the rich country as a way to take advantage of a poorer country such as paying a lot less than what it would pay for the same if trading with a richer country or sourcing something from within their own country, just because the poor country is more desperate.