the middle one explains that equity unlike equality does not give everyoune the same resources, but distributes resources so every one has the same experience/chance.
I would advise fighting for equity to mean “distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity” rather than “capitalism with a diversity coating”
If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you’re allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you’re trying to describe.
So with all that said, to respond to your question:
Perhaps you’ve seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.
Not if done right, no. Affirmative action is an example of equity - in an equality scenario anyone can go for a job. Great concept in theory but in reality we end up with existing systems bias taking over and corrupting it. So you jam a fork into that bias by saying ‘well dipshit, ya gotta hire x of this and x of that as part of your build’
Lmao yes actually. Never trust a black cop. Diversity hires, if in a powerful position at all, are… Theoretically just minorities who buy into the system, serve shareholders just the same.
Equity on the left is usually about progressivism and social mobility for children and students in public schools. Or that 10% low income houskng in apartment buildings so poor people can live near the well-off. We struggle to control for people’s outcomes. One example of trying to fix outcomes was college admission Affirmative Action. That was, I believe, an imperfect bandaid solution. And it became unpopular enough to be removed. Even unions are open up to failure to create equity. Unions can go wrong and support racial or gendered policies, or tiered employee benefits. So I believe the sentiment you bring up is something to keep in mind always.
It’s the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Even given the same opportunity some have no chance of reaching the desired outcome. So you create a system that provides supports that brings all to the same outcome.
Sounds like a very, very fast way to disincentivize anyone working any harder, smarter, or taking any more risks than anyone else.
I get there are HUGE problems with unregulated capitalism, but what you describe (equalizing everyone’s outcomes) also comes with catastrophic consequences.
There’s just not a good clean answer – it’s a fuckin rats nest and difficult to untangle. But we certainly shouldn’t stop trying. Some things have got to change.
Nah, they described it weirdly if that’s how you took it. Equity is equal oportunity: they can all watch the game. Equality is everyone gets the same reward.
Besides, both concepts can have room for extra reward for extra work in any actual implementation, so bringing it up as an absolute negative is weak logic.
His description of giving everyone the same outcome is wrong, anyway. Equality is giving everyone the same exact assistance; even if that assistance is not adequate enough or not needed by some.
Equity gives everyone the right tools so that everyone has the same starting chance. Those who do not need assistance do not get any. Those who need a little get a little. And those who need a bit more, get a bit more.
Why do I have to “take risks” to “succeed”? I just wanna live a healthy life. My motivations don’t come all that much from power or a paycheck, but rather love from others. Capital doesn’t often create incentives or opportunity. A lot of our greastest innovations were made open-sourced, without copyright. And it’s capitals job to figure out how to monetize the free resources society provides ourselves.
It means that people are given different amounts of resources to receive the same quality of life. Because not everyone’s circumstances are the same, everyone needs different amounts of resources to maintain an equal quality of life.
Naw, I don’t see this as being tanky. The middle one I don’t really get tho.
the middle one explains that equity unlike equality does not give everyoune the same resources, but distributes resources so every one has the same experience/chance.
From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need…
But isn’t equity often used for “we keep the oppressive system but we allow few women and black people on the compressor side”?
I would advise fighting for equity to mean “distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity” rather than “capitalism with a diversity coating”
If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you’re allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you’re trying to describe.
So with all that said, to respond to your question: Perhaps you’ve seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.
Yup. Same thing happened to the word Socialism.
Not if done right, no. Affirmative action is an example of equity - in an equality scenario anyone can go for a job. Great concept in theory but in reality we end up with existing systems bias taking over and corrupting it. So you jam a fork into that bias by saying ‘well dipshit, ya gotta hire x of this and x of that as part of your build’
Lmao yes actually. Never trust a black cop. Diversity hires, if in a powerful position at all, are… Theoretically just minorities who buy into the system, serve shareholders just the same.
Equity on the left is usually about progressivism and social mobility for children and students in public schools. Or that 10% low income houskng in apartment buildings so poor people can live near the well-off. We struggle to control for people’s outcomes. One example of trying to fix outcomes was college admission Affirmative Action. That was, I believe, an imperfect bandaid solution. And it became unpopular enough to be removed. Even unions are open up to failure to create equity. Unions can go wrong and support racial or gendered policies, or tiered employee benefits. So I believe the sentiment you bring up is something to keep in mind always.
It’s the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Even given the same opportunity some have no chance of reaching the desired outcome. So you create a system that provides supports that brings all to the same outcome.
Sounds like a very, very fast way to disincentivize anyone working any harder, smarter, or taking any more risks than anyone else.
I get there are HUGE problems with unregulated capitalism, but what you describe (equalizing everyone’s outcomes) also comes with catastrophic consequences.
There’s just not a good clean answer – it’s a fuckin rats nest and difficult to untangle. But we certainly shouldn’t stop trying. Some things have got to change.
Nah, they described it weirdly if that’s how you took it. Equity is equal oportunity: they can all watch the game. Equality is everyone gets the same reward.
Besides, both concepts can have room for extra reward for extra work in any actual implementation, so bringing it up as an absolute negative is weak logic.
His description of giving everyone the same outcome is wrong, anyway. Equality is giving everyone the same exact assistance; even if that assistance is not adequate enough or not needed by some.
Equity gives everyone the right tools so that everyone has the same starting chance. Those who do not need assistance do not get any. Those who need a little get a little. And those who need a bit more, get a bit more.
Why do I have to “take risks” to “succeed”? I just wanna live a healthy life. My motivations don’t come all that much from power or a paycheck, but rather love from others. Capital doesn’t often create incentives or opportunity. A lot of our greastest innovations were made open-sourced, without copyright. And it’s capitals job to figure out how to monetize the free resources society provides ourselves.
It means that people are given different amounts of resources to receive the same quality of life. Because not everyone’s circumstances are the same, everyone needs different amounts of resources to maintain an equal quality of life.
For example, a person born with certain medical needs will need more at the base level than someone born those needs.
Yep, and a person born with a sense of ineptitude or laziness will need more given to them than someone who has more drive and aptitude.
Laziness is anticapitalistic. There is nothing wrong with not being an overachiever.