Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Goatman saint]

Prepare for a wall of text from me at some point.
While the federal government can do many things as bank regulation, adequate funding and accountability across education. And banking, ultimately that job of equity has to be done at each individual level.
There are many people who want to do better but systems are not set up that way. From schools, guidance and mentoring, walking through financial aid and all the pitfalls that first generation students face, outreach and support, on and on. Also, something has to be done about health care and such as how many youngsters have to put lives on hold to care for family members.
Let me think here

 

[coldseat]

Prepare for a wall of text from me at some point.
While the federal government can do many things as bank regulation, adequate funding and accountability across education. And banking, ultimately that job of equity has to be done at each individual level.
There are many people who want to do better but systems are not set up that way. From schools, guidance and mentoring, walking through financial aid and all the pitfalls that first generation students face, outreach and support, on and on. Also, something has to be done about health care and such as how many youngsters have to put lives on hold to care for family members.
Let me think here

I'm curious to hear more when you have time. I'm not sure that I agree that equity is only built on the individual level. I think that equity is built both on the individual and community level. That's why home ownership and the communities we live in are such strong predictors of the amount of equity we have. That's why the inequity between black and white families continue to rise.

I'd also like to hear more about how race neutral government policy can address inequity caused by centuries of race based inequality. It hasn't really worked to date.

 

[Paul]

I'm curious to hear more when you have time. I'm not sure that I agree that equity is only built on the individual level. I think that equity is built both on the individual and community level. That's why home ownership and the communities we live in are such strong predictors of the amount of equity we have. That's why the inequity between black and white families continue to rise.

I'd also like to hear more about how race neutral government policy can address inequity caused by centuries of race based inequality. It hasn't really worked to date.

This is all you need to know about equity.

 

[coldseat]

This is all you need to know about equity.

This discussion isn't about a socilist dream or reality.

 

[Paul]

This discussion isn't about a socilist dream or reality.

George Will says (paraphrasing) it destroys the fighting spirit of those receiving something for nothing. Is that the theme you want to discuss?

 

[Dragon]

George Will says (paraphrasing) it destroys the fighting spirit of those receiving something for nothing. Is that the theme you want to discuss?

Fighting spirit ?

When people can't even get a decent meal 3 times a day and don't know if they have a roof over their head the next day and you talk "fighting spirit"

Someone who works two jobs and still can't make ends meet, due to a minimum wage which is far below a "survival paycheck" don't have the time or energy to talk about "fighting spirit"

The more correct question should be why should anyone be forced to accept a job which offers a wage that will not be enough to cover the costs of a very modest living?

I know the usual reply is that businesses can't pay more. That is rubbish...

We have McDs here and other fast food chains and they DO pay minimum wage and they DO offer 5 weeks paid vacation because it is the LAW.

 

[Paul]

Fighting spirit ?

When people can't even get a decent meal 3 times a day and don't know if they have a roof over their head the next day and you talk "fighting spirit"

Someone who works two jobs and still can't make ends meet, due to a minimum wage which is far below a "survival paycheck" don't have the time or energy to talk about "fighting spirit"

The more correct question should be why should anyone be forced to accept a job which offers a wage that will not be enough to cover the costs of a very modest living?

I know the usual reply is that businesses can't pay more. That is rubbish...

We have McDs here and other fast food chains and they DO pay minimum wage and they DO offer 5 weeks paid vacation because it is the LAW.

Equity is beneficial to those at the bottom, no question about it.
How about the rest?

Humans exist in a hierarchy of talent. If you run a 100 meter race some finish at the top, quite a few finish last and the rest are spread in the middle. This is how it works with respect to other human traits such as artistry, intelligence, creativity, conscientiousness, looks, height, personality, etc. In a 100 meter race you cannot make all runners fast. You could provide extra training to the slow runners, but as a general rule the improvement is marginal. To have true equity the fast runners need to slow down. It is much easier to slow down a fast runner than to speed up a slow runner.

 

[Goatman saint]

This is all you need to know about equity.

Your post and signature together make absolutely no sense, nor am I quite sure you even know the particulars behind either. Your signature states each person should have freedom, and that there should essentially be no obstacles to them being deprived of or having barriers in that pursuit. Test your stupid meme is in direct contrast to that. So which side are you on? Creating barriers, or removing them so everyone has an even playing field?

what that graphic, and most leave off is the final panel which is actually more the end desire of the equity movement. That’s Justice. Where the fence (obstacles) are removed and everyone has an equal playing field in life.

But, you gave the perfect response as to why this will never work. Your attitude, and others like you jump to ideas like that, instead of actually stepping back and looking at what people are saying. George Will did the exact same. He got caught up in the basically giving people things and stopped there. While yes, some do to rectify the errors of the past, the long term goals are to make systems and laws just for all. That way no matter if you are an immigrant, middle class, inner city, you have the same chances in life to succeed, when anyone who is involved in this knows that your zip code is an almost perfect indicator of your success in life.

oh and just so you know (god I love being an arse- John Stuart Mill- the hero of your quote, wanted to break apart the south and give the former slaves land to have a chance at oooooo shall I say it…. Equity and justice. Ya know handouts. God this is fun

 

[Dragon]

Equity is beneficial to those at the bottom, no question about it.
How about the rest?

Humans exist in a hierarchy of talent. If you run a 100 meter race some finish at the top, quite a few finish last and the rest are spread in the middle. This is how it works with respect to other human traits such as artistry, intelligence, creativity, conscientiousness, looks, height, personality, etc. In a 100 meter race you cannot make all runners fast. You could provide extra training to the slow runners, but as a general rule the improvement is marginal. To have true equity the fast runners need to slow down. It is much easier to slow down a fast runner than to speed up a slow runner.

So now your back at your master class/lower class argument?? Actually Equity is beneficial for society as a whole regardless of what you may think.

Better educated, better fed and more rested workers produce more and with a higher quality. They get less sick and they spend more money and contribute more to the overall economy.

I work in IT and the company I work for send people home when they hit 40 hours any week. Why? because studies have shown that the chance of errors double after those 40 hours and it takes 3 x as long to FIX an error than it does to get it right the first time. My daughter works at a hospital as an audiologist and they have 10 "care days" every year to prevent burn outs. That is on top of the usual 6 weeks paid vacation.

My husband used to work in IT but due to arthritis in his rigth hand and arm he had to quit that. Thanks to a special 1% education tax which every employed taxpayer pays, he was able to go back to school with salary reimbursement for two years and get a teaching degree so he is now able to work full time again instead of being on disability.

So instead of being a burden on society he is now paying good taxes every month.

Fighting spirit is not enough but give people a fair chance and they will succeed

 

[Goatman saint]

Equity is beneficial to those at the bottom, no question about it.
How about the rest?

Humans exist in a hierarchy of talent. If you run a 100 meter race some finish at the top, quite a few finish last and the rest are spread in the middle. This is how it works with respect to other human traits such as artistry, intelligence, creativity, conscientiousness, looks, height, personality, etc. In a 100 meter race you cannot make all runners fast. You could provide extra training to the slow runners, but as a general rule the improvement is marginal. To have true equity the fast runners need to slow down. It is much easier to slow down a fast runner than to speed up a slow runner.

No absolutely not. You don’t even understand. The idea behind equity and justice is to make sure everyone has a chance to race. They have food, drink, clothing, shoes, and a chance to get at the race for the opportunity to compete. It has nothing to do with slowing down anyone to get an equal outcome. It’s simply reworking systems and regulations so that everyone has an equal opportunity in life

 

[Goatman saint]

So now your back at your master class/lower class argument?? Actually Equity is beneficial for society as a whole regardless of what you may think.

Better educated, better fed and more rested workers produce more and with a higher quality. They get less sick and they spend more money and contribute more to the overall economy.

I work in IT and the company I work for send people home when they hit 40 hours any week. Why? because studies have shown that the chance of errors double after those 40 hours and it takes 3 x as long to FIX an error than it does to get it right the first time. My daughter works at a hospital as an audiologist and they have 10 "care days" every year to prevent burn outs. That is on top of the usual 6 weeks paid vacation.

My husband used to work in IT but due to arthritis in his rigth hand and arm he had to quit that. Thanks to a special 1% education tax which every employed taxpayer pays, he was able to go back to school with salary reimbursement for two years and get a teaching degree so he is now able to work full time again instead of being on disability.

So instead of being a burden on society he is now paying good taxes every month.

Fighting spirit is not enough but give people a fair chance and they will succeed

Sorry Dragon, misquoted. I agree fully with you, and love to see those things in place.

And as I see all the time, some of the people in the lowest situations have more fight and drive than those in well off situations. What they lack is an equal opportunity to move forward. They have the fight. They have the desire. But when educational systems fail them, when financial aid is so complicated, when figuring out how to get into colleges and the support
To leave home and stay in college isn’t there, even the scrappiest of people will quit due to all the obstacles.
But, you are correct in a sense. Those who do break out of poverty, and do master education are far more likely to succeed than any other group of people. Here’s a source to support that. It’s long but if you skip to the end it talks of the success of reclassified students. https://edsource.org/wp-content/publications/ELStats0308.pdf

 

[Paul]

So now your back at your master class/lower class argument?? Actually Equity is beneficial for society as a whole regardless of what you may think.

Equity is a great as long as you do not take from those on top to create equity. If you can elevate the bottom that is great. However, bringing the top down to get that equity does not work.

 

[Paul]

They have the fight. They have the desire. But when educational systems fail them, when financial aid is so complicated, when figuring out how to get into colleges and the support
To leave home and stay in college isn’t there, even the scrappiest of people will quit due to all the obstacles.

Those that are true fighters do not expect others to do the work for them. Where others see obstacles they see opportunity.

 

[Goatman saint]

Those that are true fighters do not expect others to do the work for them. Where others see obstacles they see opportunity.

Once again you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about

 

[Paul]

Once again you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about

Please explain how I am wrong. Maybe I will learn something new.

 

[Dragon]

Equity is a great as long as you do not take from those on top to create equity. If you can elevate the bottom that is great. However, bringing the top down to get that equity does not work.

If those at the top earn their fortune by paying those at the bottom starvation salary, yes I do believe that they would have to take less.

BUT and this is where the tricky part is, usually ALL take in more because the overall productivity and quality usually improve so much that the total revenue increases as well.

This is not a top versus bottom issue, but since management controlls the companies, all changes will have to come from there and initially the top will take in less.


Look at it from a production point of view - if you buy the cheapest machines, spend almost no money on maintenance - would you be then surprised it you turned out subquality products with constant delays due to breakdowns?

 

[Paul]

If those at the top earn their fortune by paying those at the bottom starvation salary, yes I do believe that they would have to take less.

BUT and this is where the tricky part is, usually ALL take in more because the overall productivity and quality usually improve so much that the total revenue increases as well.

This is not a top versus bottom issue, but since management controlls the companies, all changes will have to come from there and initially the top will take in less.


Look at it from a production point of view - if you buy the cheapest machines, spend almost no money on maintenance - would you be then surprised it you turned out subquality products with constant delays due to breakdowns?

I cannot disagree with the above; this is not an easy task. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid massive wealth inequities as this generally leads to revolution. I tend to be pro-capitalism since this offers the best opportunity for all. However, capitalism does not change the inequities among the population. It is a very human thing to "keep up with the Jones". We tend to measure poverty in relationship to those on top.