So what’s so great about equity?

His bastard child is leading Canada down that road.

 

Equal opportunity isn't equity. It's equal opportunity.

 

I agree there are some huge downsides to unions. But I also recognize that there are some huge advantages to evening out the bargaining power to inhibit employers from such massively unequal bargaining power.

 

I am curious about that too. I often hear this as a conservative talking point that progressives demand equal outcomes regardless of merit, but I have yet to see progressives actually saying it.

Usually they are pointing at group level disparities and demanding that means unequal opportunity (which is not necessarily true for given individuals). They say they want equal opportunity. They just disagree on what the opportunities are and for whom.

 

I think the argument goes that equity is a way to get equal opportunity. It's all pretty amorphous.

 

It does seem a bit amorphous. I find that true of a lot of lefty aphorisms; very vague on the meaning of the goal and the policies to achieve it.

But this is what I've been told is what they mean.



How to do that on a particular issue? No answers.

 

What I find most telling about that cartoon is that they are all dark skinned and watching illegally. I think it is being racist.

 

Cool graphic. Equity might allso comprise waiting a few year till the youngsters grow up to where they can see over the fence like the guy o n the left.

 

"Equity" like many other terms the progressives are trying to make into social values, is greatly distorted and misused.
Equity is not remotely related to the quality of life but to the availability of opportunity, particularly basic things such as education.
In America, anyone can start a business. Everyone gets 12 years of education, for free. And opportunity- is everywhere, for those who will actually look and take advantage of it.
What opportunity is varies with the person, because we all have different talents and characteristics- but it is certain that everyone DOES have something valuable that they can capitalize on. It is however something they must find within themselves, and they must find the motivation to act on. That is every individual's prime responsibility in life; nobody can do that for you.

Progressive equity is putting idiots in positions of influence or power because they exist. It's telling people that we are all entitled to a certain standard of living- regardless of being a contributor or a user.
And most of all- it means forcing those who will produce to subsidize those who won't, and that is a formula for the collapse of a free nation.

 

When my son was in grade school (K-5), the school held an annual 'Junior Olympics' fitness competiton. The rules changed in 1995. Instead of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place ribbons awarded to winners, every kid who competed got a 'Participation' ribbon. The change was announced in the PTA meeting a week or so prior to the event. A 'discussion' developed.

Parents in PTA meeting:
How can you deny the winner's achievement? How can you pretend a loser is just as good as a winner? How can you praise a child for merely showing up?

Principal in PTA meeting:
It makes the kids feel good about competing and having fun. They don’t feel left out or "less than" their peers who won. It makes every kid feel special. It raises their self-esteem.

Official announcement:
It builds character. It teaches the importance of having the right values, doing the right thing and being the right kind of person through speading kindness and compassion, decision making, education, self awareness, pursuit of excellence, persistence and adding value to others over self.

Almost all kids thought the new rule was a dumb idea. Some didn't compete in the upcoming event. As it was a public school, parents who could afford it transfered their kids to private schools. Classes had to be rearranged for size because of the transfers (eg: slower 4th graders moved to a 3rd grade class). Kids didn't like the change or the lost friendhips. Parents didn't like their kids in classes with two grade levels being taught as neither grade would be sufficiently covered.

The rules were eventually changed from parental backlash by adding a preliminary qualifying competition, where 1st, 2nd and 3rd place ribbons are awarded. However, the main event competitors were awarded much fancier 'Participation' ribbons.

Not long after Khrushchev's "We will bury you!" at the UN, the Goals of Communism from Cleon Skousen's "The Naked Communist," were read into the Congressional Record. Of the 45 goals, #17 is:

From:
Communist Goals
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/children/ref/gov/gov1.html

Disrupting kids' and parents' lives for the sake of Communist propaganda (Cultural Marxism if you prefer) - called equity - has been going on for decades and has become a not-so-new normal.

As others have posted, equal opportunity is the best way to create an even playing field for everyone. Equity's push for equal outcome for everyone is a bold lie too many choose to ignore, or ignorantly support.

It's a deceptive lie because its goal is to cripple and defeat normal human behavior; the normal human behavior everyone has within them to want to accomplish and achieve something good for themself and those they love.

Why condemn kids to the 'equity' of mindless mediocrity if not to prevent the society they will populate from accomplishment and achievement?

 

Raising kids is like building a home- you are constructing a person, who will be exposed to all the pressures and demands of life and society. If you want what you build to be durable, to thrive, and be successful, you have to make it strong and solid. That's character, genuine self-confidence, and independent strength that is acquired by experience and effort- it can't be gifted or delivered with lies.

The kid who's given an award for nothing- knows he has accomplished nothing.... and is being taught that accomplishing nothing, being nothing, is OK, and all he should expect in life.
He will not be happy in that condition- he will be miserable and never able to prove himself to himself.
That is betrayal of the obligation that every parent owes to every child they bring into the world.

What kind of people would do that to their own children, and worse- promote it for the children of others? Fools. That is the word.

 

Not really though. Really far left socialists may feel this way, but "democrats" in general just want equality of opportunity. True, their idea of it may be different from republicans.

 

I haven't seen progressives, in general, lobby for everyone ending up in the same place.

Of course, I don't speak for progressives in general. Personally, I believe that outsized income and wealth inequality is detrimental to economic growth. If you have too many living at or below the poverty line, they won't be buying any products other than bare necessities. That's not going to help the CEO class either. Remember, the economy is based on the circular flow model. Supply and aggregate demand must match for optimal rate of the circular flow. That means that money must actually get into the hands of consumers to spend, and not just sit in the bank accounts of the ultra rich.

For those who think everything is peachy, and increasing inequality doesn't matter, I'd like them to think back to the times of Victorian England. There was the nobility, who controlled pretty much all wealth and assets. If you weren't born into nobility, your place in life was predetermined as a servant, with little upward mobility. What a waste of resources, to throw away the talents of the vast majority of the population, by keeping them as underclass serfs, with no education and no opportunity, other than a lifetime of hard, manual labor. Is that what the pure free marketers want? because that's what they'll get, because wealth has the tendency to concentrate, especially if there are no inheritance taxes etc.

 

It entirely depends upon how one chooses to define and characterize income inequality. Do you mean a thriving middle class?....absolutely that matters a great deal. Do you mean CEOs making 20 million dollars off of Wall Street in comparison to what a line worker makes? This doesnt make one lick of difference in the big picture. That CEO collecting money from Stock Options with a rising stock that is paid via Wall Street has no bearing whatsoever on what the line worker makes that comes from the company's operating budget. Whatever the CEO makes has no bearing whatsoever on what a line worker makes. They are not tied together in any way. The CEO pay is the concern of the stockholders, NOT the employees, and their big compensation comes from Wall Street not the operating budget of the company.

Wealth is not finite, and just because one person makes a lot of money does not mean that another person goes without. Whatever Bill Gates makes is wholly irrelevant to the plight of a poor or middle-class person. It is not a zero-sum game where his money makes someone else poor. The left has a tendency to make a comparison between the very wealthy and everyone else, and this is not relevant to whether or not we have a thriving middle class which is the wealth inequality that DOES make a difference. The wealth inequality discussion that compares CEO's to line workers is little more than unabashed class warfare and has little to no actual probative value.

 

You're probably right- but that difference can matter a lot. I find there is opportunity everywhere. Most of it is not suited to my skills or desires, but there is plenty left that is, that I can choose from.
But you cannot bring nothing to the table and find "opportunity". It's not like picking up money off the sidewalk, real opportunity always involves some vision, and investing yourself, your time and efforts.

There's an old saying:

"There are three kinds of people.

Those who make things happen...
Those to whom things happen...
And those who don't know things are happening."

The first one- is where opportunity and the power to control your own destiny lies. And, which kind of person you will be- is a choice.

 

That's great, if wealth is infinite, it doesn't matter how many immigrants come to the US, since there is still infinity left over for everyone else.

In any case, I always laugh when having these discussions and, inevitably, the argument comes up that wealth is infinite. Well, how is infinity possible in a finite system (earth)? Answer: It is not. Therefore, until we manage to leave this planet, wealth is very much finite, and it matters a lot whether the billionaire class has 90% or 99% of the whole economic pie.

 

Infinite would be without limits. But the limits are what we create by how well we produce and manage our wealth.. Wealth and money are not like apples on a tree.

Money is made or lost every time it changes hands. I you invest $1M in say inventory for a product, and the sales of that product equal that every week- $52M in money has been spent and received. It's the same money. The goods are sold, the money recieved is used to buy more goods that will be sold.
On the other hand if your system is so restrained that you can only turn that inventory once a year- you have limited it's potential for income by 98%.

A thriving economy turns money faster, wealth, higher wages and incomes. Competition makes it stronger too, and keeps prices down low, so you can afford even more. Earned money produces economic growth- money given away stifles it.

Best way for government to improve our economy is to stop wasting tax dollars, cut back on the burdens of excess regulation- and get the hell out of the way.

 

Its a utopian buzzword that people can rally around so long as they don't talk about what it actually means. There is no way to put everyone at the same starting line or the same finish line. But people that started in behind and people who are stuck there now love any excuse to pretend its because society wronged them and thus its society's obligation to right the wrong. And then, of course, there's the social engineers who know full well 'equity' isn't realistic, but they're happy to pander to whatever and whomever keeps them in the front with the power.

 

When they say wealth is not finite they mean it can continuously be increased for the foreseeable future. We can get more with less as technology improves. It's not zero-sum. They're right, but it doesn't prove trickle down economics or that wealth distribution is fair.

 

Wealth is not finite. In other words, the rich obtaining wealth does not mean there is less of it for you. Im not sure how that is supposed to be tied to immigrants, but for some odd reason, you seem to think this is synonomous.

Are you trying to say that Bill Gates takes food out of your mouth? What is your position on that? His wealth has no bearing on you or anyone else. I sincerely do not understand the left's obsession with other people's wealth.

Yes, when looking in hindsight, it is far better if wealth is distributed more evenly, but that does not change the reality that Bill Gates earning money takes absolutely nothing from you. Would it be better if there was a more even wealth distribution? Sure, but that doesnt alter the reality that a person getting wealthy does not harm anyone else. It would be great if everyone could double their productivity, but not everyone has equal talents and drive. Yes, Bill Gates has a lot of money. No, him having a lot of money does not make other people poor. People lacking talent and or drive in order to increase productivity and derive more wealth are going to have less money. That is simple reality. It would be great if everyone did have talent and drive and could create wealth, but they cannot. We can look back in hindsight and say it would be great if wealth was more evenly dispersed, but that is not a statement that is supposed to drive policy. You cannot make everyone more productive no matter what you do.

You act as if wealth is created by happenstance. Wealth is created by productivity and innovation. Legislation cannot decree these qualities to individuals.

 

Then you guys should have no problem with any wealth distribution.

 

To say that wealth is not finite does not mean that everyone will be wealthy. It means that the rich obtaining wealth does not mean there is less of it for you.

This reality in no way is an endorsement of wealth redistribution. Im not sure exactly how your logic derives that it was (your one-sentence replies never seem to explain much of anything), but it most certainly is not.

 

Yea it pretty much does.

 

Don't have ribbons for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, but just a ribbon for showing up!!! Ask the same grownups who came up with that plan to join a bowling league where once you throw your bowling ball down the alley a curtain drops and you can't see how many pins you've knocked over, thus no scores are kept. I would bet they would not want to bowl in that league.
Pre-teens and teens are a lot tougher than we think. When they are disappointed on one day they are on cloud nine the next day. They naturally put each other down and make fun of each other in the natural growing process of becoming a confident and unspoiled adult.

 

I like bowling, and keeping score with pen and a paper, keeps the mind sharp. The physical competition is alright, too.

Anyway, there is no equality as long as there’s the mindset of BLM, LGBT, etc… of those seeking acknowledgment to the point they have more rights than any others.