"equality of outcomes"

[Ab]

Ripped from Farrar's blog:

Labour has just released the final draft of their policy platform, for adoption by their annual conference.

It is meant to be a high level document that sets out their principles, and the manifesto must be consistent with it. Despite, this they have managed to make it 60 pages long!

There’s a lot in there I can and will comment on, over time. But the part which I think is the most newsworthy is their policy platform on equality which reads:

People need to reflect on just how extreme this is. They are saying that New Zealand must have equality of outcomes.
...

And while this is a draft, this is a draft signed off by Grant Robertson and the Labour Party Policy Council. Under Labour’s rules it will, if adopted, be binding on the Labour Party. Caucus will not be able to come up with policy inconsistent with it. This shows the same sort of thinking as came up with the man ban – a classic example of Labour’s fixation with equality of outcome, over opportunity.

[Lightspeed]

Lolz, Labour. Don't they know giving a fuck is far less popular than not giving a fuck?

[CCS]

^^^ believes in equality of outcomes.

[leadinjector]

....comrades?

[pxpx]

No longer centre-left then it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

^^^ believes in equality of outcomes.

Not really, I mean, it might come down to semantics which really I give no fucks about when it comes to this kind of thing.

I guess I would support equality of outcomes for children aged up to four. I believe all children under this age should be guaranteed a certain standard of living/quality of life and be exempt certain social obligations should that standard not be met.

[Ab]

I guess the Labour party is about to ban sports if it ever becomes government.

[Cyberbob]

"Well this man and this woman applied for the same job, and the woman will probably fit in more with the team, but we've already hired a woman this month, so the man it is!"

[fixed_truth]

I disagree with Farrar's take on this and think he's being disingenuous as usual (shock horror). Imo it's nothing to do with making doctors paid the same as cleaners; rather it's about about addressing the inherent inequality within society which some want to ignore.

Heres a quote from Ryan Sproull.

The fairer a society, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome of a child at the point of their birth.

Biological differences have an effect, yes. A child born without legs is predictably less likely to be a champion kickboxer than a child born with legs. But a child born with brown hair should not be predictably less likely to be a champion kickboxer than a child born with red hair.

I don’t think these thoughts are controversial. So when there is an inequality of outcome – a measurable segment of the population, as defined by these irrelevant things (sex, hair colour, etc.) being predictably less or more likely to enjoy a particular outcome – then questions should be raised about how much equality is involved in “equality of opportunity”.

And whether or not “equality of opportunity” is being used to excuse inequality, rather than promote it.

[Ab]

But that's a statement about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

[fixed_truth]

I read as saying equal opportunity should be measured by outcomes.

[Ab]

But it can't. Equality of opportunity guarantees that there will be unequal outcomes because some people are better at stuff than others.

[Cyberbob]

You know who else had equality of outcomes? USSR.

[DevilWTKC]

...all people should have equal access to social, economic, cultural, political, and legal spheres...

Access all the spheres!

[Lightspeed]

I guess it really depends on the outcomes. And I suspect this shift in language is a response to the common theme of providing "opportunity" and then judging people for not accessing these apparent opportunities, ignoring or minimising any barriers that might exist.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

But it can't. Equality of opportunity guarantees that there will be unequal outcomes because some people are better at stuff than others.

Some people being better at stuff then others isn't an unequal outcome.

An unequal outcome is where there's clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things. If these patterns are there, then you're not doing equality of opportunity right.

edit: coincidentally I just happen to be re-reading Huxley's brave new world atm. it's blows my mind that it was written over 80 years ago.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

An unequal outcome is where there's clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things.

wtf does "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" even mean?

[Cyberbob]

I want to attend a meeting where that's the agenda.

It'll be a bunch of drunk people talking about 'synergy'

[xor]

Originally Posted by Ab

wtf does "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" even mean?

I don't know Murray but I don't like it.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

wtf does "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" even mean?

Like a university degree that has a higher dropout rate from a certain gender or ethnicity, regardless of demonstrated ability.

[Cyberbob]

i.e. if there are a disproportionate amount of Samoan females that drop out of uni, it's an unequal outcome, but that only came about because they weren't given an equal opportunity, due to a socioeconomic background that inherently disadvantaged them?

I can see government policy having a hand in fixing equal opportunity - equalize the socioeconomic status across the board.

But equal outcomes? We've given you the equal ground already through equal opportunity. You're on your own now bitch.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

wtf does "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" even mean?

When you categorise people based on common social–political constructs and you find disparity between these groups when comparing how well they're doing in society.

[fidgit]

You know what? Screw it. Clearly, what we've been trying isn't working. The country isn't progressing in any meaningful way.

Why don't we just give up on the 'equal opportunity' 'meritocracy' we're trying to create, and just go full communism (ie: equal outcomes for all). It's got about as much chance of working out in the long run as anything else we seem to think will work (and don't go taking into account historical or global failure or success, because our current politicians don't).

[Golden Teapot]

Things are working for my family. And I observe that things seem to work for those around me. I primarily associate with people who have jobs and this might explain this?

[Cyberbob]

As long as you and the unemployed have equal access to top $800/hour legal representatives, I don't see the problem.

"all people should have equal access to social, economic"

If they think all people should have equal access to economic spheres, they didn't study economics.

[CCS]

Will equal outcomes apply to national elections?

[Lightspeed]

So are people here talking about the highfalutin "my flash school taught classics" kind of concept here as referred to by pxpx, or are we talking more the real-world differences of equal opportunity vs outcomes?

[CCS]

Equal outcomes is not achievable in the ral world anyway, so let's just talk about it philosophically.

[Ab]

I see phrases like "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" and my bullshit detector starts tingling.

Break it down.

What is "inequality" and what sort of inequality is "clear"?

What is a "measurable segment of the population"? Does the word "measurable" serve any purpose in the sentence?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Ab

I see phrases like "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" and my bullshit detector starts tingling.

Break it down.

What is "inequality" and what sort of inequality is "clear"?

What is a "measurable segment of the population"? Does the word "measurable" serve any purpose in the sentence?

Buzzword Bingo!

Throw in a "synergy" and a "collaboration", and he'll be on a roll

[pxpx]

What are relevant things, and what are irrelevant things?

I've never seen so much BS condensed into a single sentence, and I work in middle management!

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by CCS

Equal outcomes is not achievable in the ral world anyway, so let's just talk about it philosophically.

I've got a couple of mates that would disagree.

[CCS]

Worked for them?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

I see phrases like "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" and my bullshit detector starts tingling.

Break it down.

What is "inequality" and what sort of inequality is "clear"?

What is a "measurable segment of the population"? Does the word "measurable" serve any purpose in the sentence?

The phrases you are referring to usually come from long heavy discussion about just what those words mean in the context they are being discussed. Discussion that's not possible here because of the strong drive to believe that those with less are doing okay and any distress they experience is deserved, because an alternate belief is more than most want to bear.

[Lightspeed]

Here's how to think about this, assuming one has the capacity to think.

So, let us say that a certain common job is more likely to be populated by people over a certain height, despite height offering no advantages to the job.

"clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things"

So the inequality is short people not being able to access a certain job, the measurable segment of the population are employees of this particular job, the irrelevance is height has no bearing on the job. Easy stuff.

[xor]

Does this mean that ugly guys get to tap the hot blonde after all?

[Lightspeed]

That would be a defense: "it's too hard to think about real inequality, lets make this about something that no one excepts to be equal."

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Here's how to think about this, assuming one has the capacity to think.

So, let us say that a certain common job is more likely to be populated by people over a certain height, despite height offering no advantages to the job.

"clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things"

So the inequality is short people not being able to access a certain job, the measurable segment of the population are employees of this particular job, the irrelevance is height has no bearing on the job. Easy stuff.

Define "clear" in the context of your example. Define "measurable" in the context of your example.

Your example also seems to fall into a trap common to nearly all discussions of inequality: that a job is more likely to be populated by people over a certain height does not necessarily mean that people below it are being actively prevented from accessing that job.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

assuming one has the capacity to think

Lol, smarmy cock.

[StN]

Wut?