Or perhaps each kid built their own box in Wood Shop during the week. In this case, the shorter student could in fact work harder by building himself a second box. Thus solving his own problem by working hard to get what he needs, and not what someone else gives him (by taking it away from someone else) Would the equity thing be reversed in a house with really short doorways or a Limbo contest, I wonder? Either way, I feel bad for the guy in the middle, who seems to get nothing. Hmmmm?
The problem with the analogy of the baseball game viewers is that it assumes a) a focus only on benefits received, rather than value produced, and b) that the outcomes are purely driven by naturally determined characteristics (height in this case). This is rare in reality. Wealth, social status, education, employment all depend at least partly on diligence, so you shouldn’t compensate lazy people by bringing them up to the level of hardworking ones. This is even more relevant in the corporate world, where equity is now being promoted: why would a for-profit company want to ensure that its least skilled, least productive, laziest staff get “equity” with the most valuable, skilled, hardworking staff? That’s a great recipe for destroying morale and losing those most valuable employees!
Should I work extremely hard just to know that by the end of the month, my paycheck will be given to the needed ones? Well, equity is great, as long as you are the taker. Once you become the giver, not so good.
Hard work should get rewarded, I think everyome should agree on that. But you have to make sure everyone starts from the same level, otherwise other people will have a disadventage.
@@atefrod680 but since life is never fair, literally never. If i work hard, it means that i want my kids to have an advantage to other kids. If you mean any kid should start at the same line, again i don'lt think i have enough motivations to work anymore
@@williamnguyen3052 Yeah but thats unfair since your kids wouldnt deserve that advantage over other kids. A kid who was unlucky to be born in a poor household should have the exact same advantages as any other rich kid when it come to education and healthcare simply because no one has control over this. Now if both kids got older and had the exact same oppurtunities but one ended up with a better degree than the other, its definitely okay for that kid to earn more money but he has to pay his fair share in taxes to so that every kid has the same oppurtunities. Your hard work doesnt go in vein though, you can still give your kid better clothes or treat him on nicer gifts but when it comes to oppurtunities everyone should at least have the same startinglevel.
@@atefrod680 key word: fair share, which is not ripped of my hard earned money. Ok, i agree on healthcare part, but not education. If I have money, and that money is going to the school district where my kids are going to, not to other kids' school district. How is it unfair when my kids inherit things from his dad? It's his dad's hard earned money, he is not stealing from anyone!! And to those unlucky kids, this is a lesson from my mom, who was born into a ghetto but still managed to move up onto the higher level social ladder, deal with what you have, put in more effort for 300x more, don't wait for help!!!
"Under a system of equity, every employee gets the benefits they need to succeed at work." Then equity is a fantasy. It's impossible to define what people need to be successful, let alone provide it.
Wouldn't that be a marvelous workplace conversation to engage in? Imagine every employee setting goals and being supported by management. What could possibly be wrong with such an approach?
The human that makes the judgment is never impartial and that's why we, the government, should only treat everyone equally. ua-cam.com/video/jnOUFS3lUpE/v-deo.html
@Math no its a baragaining chip tonuse becaue if you didnt have them it would be the owner class setting all the rules which is not something youd want. And just because you dont have more seniority than someone else doesnt mean you cant be in a lead position and many unions have different pay grades so its not a simple as you describe it. Unions on average, for the same job vs non Unions, get paid more. Nobody is gonna take less lay to try to prove a point. Unions have always been more good than bad or else there would not be corporations spedning so much money on lobbying to bust them up. It's not about unfair its about making aure that the workers get their equity seeing is how the last 45 years wages paid are lower than the produtivity output
@Math that's not true and that's not only for unions that happens at every job. What do you think happens when you dont pay employees well enough? They'll be complacent and mediocre at best. I've been on both sides of the fence including temp to hire. You wanna talk about people who don't give a crap.. And ive also seen union members put out beautiful work. Having a not so good employee hapoens wether its union or not. I've actually seen the worst employees work non union.
So if my kid spends 30 minutes studying for an exam while the other studied for days, my kid should get the same grade as the other students? What you will get is NOT my kid studying more but those that studied for days will study less. I don’t want that system.
No that is not what this means. It means giving everyone the same opportunity to study for the same time. Whether your child chooses to study for 30 minutes or the fully allocated time is a matter for them. To put it in more concrete terms - it means allowing each child to have a private place to study for the allotted time. If your child has their own room - they do not need public access to a private pod in a public library. However in my country we know many kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds often live in more overcrowded homes. They do not have a private space in their home for study. In my country many of these kids come from Indigenous backgrounds or have parents who have recently migrated to my country and may not have well paying jobs. Ensuring means ensuring kids that do not have their own rooms at home can access a private spot in say a public library for study. It means having these private pods accessible after hours. It is not a big ask.
Literally the dumbest thing ever. Equality of outcome (equity) is absolutely ridiculous. How do we determine equity? Based on height? Race? Sex? Good looking? Ugly? Sexual preference? Fat? Skinny? Age? It’s endless. This is absolutely a joke. Equal opportunity. Not outcome.
Under minimal examination why "equity" of outcome it falls apart so quickly. Why are you striving for anything then? Because the reason anyone strives or better ones skills or to move forward with life at all, is to produce inequality. You are trying to rise above the mediocre masses anytime you make an effort at anything. You work real hard to get an unequal outcome. Take that incentive away through equity and watch hard work go away with it. It's so thoughtless.
Rubbish. You achieve more productivity through cooperation and cooperative work than pitting people against one another. Giving people the opportunity to reach their best is better for everyone.
*This photo analogy is very misleading because it is comparing biological height advantages to economic wealth advantages which are very different when it comes to what you can do about your circumstances. With biological height there is nothing you to help yourself because your height is determined by your genes. You can’t change your genes. Wealth is different. Your wealth is determined by many different variables. almost like an algebraic equation. In the end you have your income, but unlike biological height. You can actually change your outcome by being responsible, graduating college, and getting a job.* Biologically short people can *not* become tall. Economically poor people can become rich. This is exactly why this photo is misleading.
Just consider height to be a dynamic element like his wealth. So for a poor guy to buy an item which is price tagged 100$ consider we give him 90$ and in the terms of equality it means even the richer guy gets the same 90$ which sucks. So inequality is the way to equality.
Just came across this blog which partially agrees with Jeremy. Thoughts? medium.com/@eec/this-equity-picture-is-actually-white-supremacy-at-work-59f4ea700509
I agree with you Jeremy. Using analogies in reasoning is dangerous, and most of the time susceptible to logical fallacy. In this case, the problem in the comparison is that in the picture scenario, once all three of them can see the game, receiving more "boxes" makes no differences. Yet in real life situation, there's seldom a point which, when reached by people, renders more "boxes" for some individuals meaningless. That's the problem. This analogy is not effective.
@rabblerouser One example could be to make sure everyone can afford necessary healthcare so they can keep working well and lead happy, fulfilling lives and contribute to their families, friends, society, country, and the planet.
The issue I have repeatedly witnessed first hand (in using the example of three people along the fence), is this: 'What happens the following week when they all go to see a game and There Is No Fence?' Nobody needs an extra box, right?? Wrong. Here is what happens: The person who received the extra help to see the first game over the fence is going to expect the same thing Every Time whether they need it or not. In many ways, it teaches people to become more dependent on someone or something else, rather than seeking a solution that serves their own individual needs. It does not empower people. Instead, it destroys their self-confidence. Equity is already being displayed in our society. In terms of medicine, we do not give insulin to everybody. We only give it to those with diabetes. Some members of my family receive government assistance for meals. However, I don't get assistance because I don't need it. We cannot expect the blanket use of equity alone to solve our problems. It will further divide us and weaken our communities.
The only way this analogy works is if the person obtained the box by personally building it: The tall person wouldn't build one to begin with, the middle person would build one the height they needed, and the short person would build one taller than the middle: hence: EQUAL pay for equal WORK. This analogy gives off the assumption that each person was given a box the same size completely free from work, pay, or efforts...this is not how economics works. Ask the question: Where did the box come from and how was it obtained? "Equity" is simply a more socially acceptable term for socialism...let's not fall for the trick folks.
Brett (by the way, thanks for taking ownership of your comments and using your real name online), the root of the word "socialism" is "society." The core concept there is interdependence, not independence. This distinguishes us from living everyone-for-himself in a pre-civilization world of only-the-strongest-survive. Baseball is obviously just a metaphor. The access we're talking about represents education, healthcare, opportunities to contribute. Surely, there's room for compassion there. It's not a "trick" to give the short kid access to the game. He has other talents which he can contribute to this world; height is just not one of them.
You understand though that every single socialist economy has either failed or is failing. How is that a good thing to promote? It's a great idea, but in practice has failed time and again. Let's give it up, and live equally. Socialism is not fair; either in ideology nor practice. We must be fair, and have people be accountable for their contributions, and more importantly reward greater contributions fairly.
My biggest problem with the equity vs equality question is that everyone only seems to ask the question, "is it beneficial for those less able to receive more" or "should I give up my box so the short guy can see". But these questions I don't feel are relevant in the slightest as most anyone would agree, YES, of course you should let the short guy use your box, you don't need it. But that isn't the real question here. what we should be asking is, "do I have the right to forcibly take the tall guys box under threat of violence because he is more privileged than me". To this question, I believe the answer is always no. Would I give up my box if I didn't need it? YES. But as soon as you try to force the box away from me because you believe I'm too privileged to deserve it, is when I have the right to respond with deadly force.
Kasey, I'm not sure where you came up with your notions of violence and deadly force. Did you catch the examples of insulin and uniforms and wheelchairs? With such examples, no one is being deprived of anything. We're just looking for everyone to get a chance to participate on a level playing field.
Under equality, everyone can get insulin if they need it, under the other model, someone decides for them what they need, and tells them that unless they meet regulations they can't have it. So say you feel you need something, you can only have it if someone with power authorises what you need.
In the equality system, everyone gets access to the same amount of resources. However, since not everyone needs the same amount (or any amount) of some resource, this would mean, that they are free to choose to keep that resource, or give it back into the system. Now you have an equity system at hand. Because, if you are someone who needs a lot of a certain resource, the government has more of that thing in its pool. Which in turn means, everyone who needs more, has a much easier access to that thing, because it is present in abundance. So there's actually no need for any authority to give strict regulations on who gets what, because the system would distribute the resources as-need-be by itself. Who needs to give out stuff, following strict prerequisites, if you have so much of that stuff, that you can hand it out like candy? At least, that's my understanding of this system, assuming an ideal scenario, which - obviously - is very hard to achieve in reality. But so is the equality system, since it puts an immense strain onto the economy and the likes, without adequate profit or sense behind it.
@@Wolfirhart Everyone equally gets what they need. So if one person needs more food to eat they get what they need to eat. Saying what people need would obviously be determined by that person, within reason of course. People quite often confuse equality for exactly the same amount, but really it just means fair treatment, in which everyone is equally treat fairly.
@@TheaDragonSpirit They don't confuse it with that definition, it is literally part of the definition. And equity is according to natural law or right. Aside from that, what's "within reason"? Who says what's reasonable and what isn't?
Theres a thin line between the two. Thats where you need to be... It all depends on each circumstance. If you were in a hospital with a broken arm would you mind if a pregnant lady going into labor went ahead of you? No coz she or her baby might die or something. On the other hand.. if that pregnant lady was given free healthcare coz she is poor.. most people would want that too.. Plus theres poor and theres really poor like trying to get clean water to drink poor. So yeah it all depends..
I like that you emphasize access, but I don't think it's used correctly. Access should mean that people have the chance (access) to build the boxes and people who need it can make it and use it! The tall dude that doesn't need one won't spend the time to build it, or maybe he will choose to help the short dude build one, instead of his box being taken away. Obviously don't take this literally, they probably shouldn't be making boxes at a baseball game lol. I hope you get my point.
Ha! For a change one video talking about the 3 boxes of “equity” allows for comments. All other ones don’t. Maybe they don’t want to be challenged on this “concept” which is rubbish. Not because providing tools to facilitate a better “view” to those at the bottom is bad, it is in fact a good, compassionate thing. The problem is when a little group of people decide unilaterally to cut growth to those at the top. What gives them the right to decide and as third Partiers onlookers to limit other people’s individual endless hopes and dreams? If this equity wokestupidity has been the mindset 40 years ago, we wouldn’t have had a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs with their visions for the future which is now our present.
Really don’t get it do you? It doesn’t mean holding those at the top back. It means giving more people the opportunity to be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Bill Gates gets it - that is one of the reasons for the Gates Foundation.
@@brontewcat No. why do you think universities went as far as eliminating the admissions tests? Or discriminating against Asians A+ students? Only to reinstate it recently and lose a case in court against Asians ? It was because they wanted to stop success at the top, and since the ones in the bottom couldn’t match them then they used dictatorial methods to control success at the top so it would all look more “equitable”. Again, I have no problem with providing opportunities to those in the bottom (for whatever reason they are) but not by sacrificing and controlling success of the top ones. The former situation is noble and altruistic ( I.e. The Gates Foundation) . The latter is dictatorial and infringement of individual liberties.
@@brontewcat ok so that’s settles it. If you aren’t an American in America today, you can’t understand what I am talking about. Apologies, I thought you knew and were involved with the Equality vs Equity subject which is being discussed and talked about in this country. Before it, the term “equity” was viewed only in financial terms, as in “the equity generated by investing in purchasing a property”…etc.
0:46 Ah yes, the famous standing on boxes to look over the fence cartoon. There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. First, it just assumes that these boxes fell out of the sky and no one's responsible for building boxes, but let's not go down that rabbit hole. I'll say this, if I drag my ass out of bed at the buttcrack of dawn and show up to the game 5 hours early to ensure that I get one of the limited number of boxes available, there's no way in hell I'm sharing my box with a man who's three feet tall but still only pulled up to the fence five minutes before the game started. You know your three feet tall. You know you need a box. If anyone should be motivated to get down to the field early enough to claim a box it should be you so get off your lazy azz and do what you have to in order to be sure you get to the field before I and others and claim your box. Otherwise, you get no box and that's your problem. I don't know where you people got the idea that the world owes you a damn box. Let me help you out with this one, Jr. It doesn't.
From my standpoint, equitable basic access must necessarily be minimalist in nature when applied on a large-scale in ways that impose costs on non-volunteers, since it quickly works its way towards being perceived as a form of special privileges. It should be really basic, so to speak, like wheelchair ramps. I actually think universal basic income (equality) is superior to negative income tax (equity), for example, even though the former requires more tax revenue and actually has largely the same overall effect. It still produces a superior psychological effect of mitigating the perception of special privileges among those who are paying for it. It's like if we have two children and one is a son and another a daughter of the same age, ideally we feed them different amounts (less to the daughter) since males and females differ in terms of their caloric requirements. Yet the negative psychological perception of doing that for the daughter might outweigh the benefits. We have to factor that psychological effect into account to achieve a balance between equitable treatment and equal treatment.
I have read through some of these comments and there seems to be arguments against equity based on people who work harder should get more. I don't disagree with this in principle, but how are we qualifying "hard work"? There are already mechanisms in place to address this (hourly workers paid more based upon the number of hours, or salaried employees paid on bonuses). Access to the tools for everyone to do a job still doesn't mean that everyone WILL...so there is still room for "high achievers" to do so. What am I missing here?
The box example is flawed in that it assumes all three people wanted to stand and watch the game. Ever consider that the short kid didn't want the 2nd box??? Perhaps the tall guys legs get sore so he was hoping to sit on his box. And perhaps the short kid cut a hole in the fence and watched through that. Each of the three had EQUALITY of freedom and self-determination, regardless of any certainty to see the game..........Ahhhhh the American Dream!
Jerry, to be sure, the baseball metaphor is not perfect. If you have an alternative way to explain equity, we are all ears and happy to benefit from your creativity. Thanks.
@@Feellikeyoubelong An alternative way to explain equity is that it is part of a false narrative. No two people (not even twins) will have equal opportunities because we are each free to choose which opportunities we take and which we pass by. Besides that, exactly who decides in which way which specific things will be made equitable? Equity is simply wrong because life is simply unfair!
For the box example...Capitalism is when you convince the Tall person to lease his box to the shortest person for a monthly rate of 30% of the shortest persons earned income. Then you take a 10% middle man fee for negotiating and drawing up the contracts for the lease. Profit.
@Tony Stark I am not talking about "equality of outcome at a care centre" I am talking about the people I care for that depending on their wealth they are forced to suffer. If you have money, you can afford the devices to assist you in mobility and so fourth, and those who don't, have to go on a government aid package program and there is 4 tiers to the program and each tier you have to be re-assessed and then AFTER you have been approved, for each tier, you must wait 24 months for the funding to come through. So if you are 92 years old, desperately needing a armchair that can lift you, a at home hospital bed or so fourth, you are going to have to hold out dying for 24 months before the government release funds. Also I don't work in a care centre, I work in community care where I travel to multiple clients each day to assist them with showering , cleaning, meal prep, medication administration. I see it all. Not sure what my explanation will do for you, but I hope that clarifies your curiosity. FYI I am in Australia. Not sure how your system in America works, if they even have one.
Thanks for your video. I wonder what your approach to blanket race/ gender equity would look like? This is a big question of the day. What do you think of Critical Theories? Equity is thrown around a lot with diversity and inclusion. Also should historical disadvantage play into equitable goals for today, or should we base need on an individuals capabilities?
To those who think equity is communism, I am dumbfounded by your ignorance. Communist policies in pervious regimes functioned off the premise of equality. Equity can upend equality, which would have contradicted communist principles. Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain....
Hi, everyone! I wanted to remind all our subscribers and new viewers of our plea for civil conversation: ua-cam.com/video/Lou-K5U-zWw/v-deo.html. Thanks in advance for your thoughtfulness.
Equity is like sending a track team to the Olympics which the faster runners were no more likely to be picked than the slower runners, or African American fighter pilots being restricted from fighting in WW2 in order to give more opportunities to white pilots who weren't as competent in flying planes, or restricting Jewish physicists from working in Germany in order to give non-Jews more university jobs in atomic physics. Being out of touch with reality no matter who you want to help be successful is not good for anybody's outcome because it hurts the whole team from being successful.
James, your analogy doesn't stand up. The Olympics and war are examples where you want winners and losers. In life, we want all members of our society to thrive. If they have equal access to education, safe housing, healthcare, and more, then they can be productive members of our community. Don't you want that?
@@Feellikeyoubelong The logical problem you're not seeing here is that the human technological growth beneficial to all of us requires more investment of resources in smart ideas with big payoffs instead of dumb ideas wasting money. Why do you think Americans and Western Europeans created the most technologically advanced nations in human history? It's because our economic system was set up to reward smart people who invested their resources wisely more than dummies who wasted them on stupid ideas, The average income of African Americans in spite of slavery and racism is let's note massively higher than Ethiopians or Somalis which is why America is where most of the world population wants to live in not Ethiopia or Somalia, Life is unfair to idiots and especially unfair to idiots who live in crap holes like DC run by token negro crackheads like Marion Berry who blow all their tax money on his crack dealers and let their city go bankrupt unable to send out any welfare checks to the idiots who voted for him without all the smart Republican taxpayers he drove out of the city to places like Texas and Florida which have never gone broke. Historically in any system the smart always get richer unless everybody is going broke and the only time the dumb get richer is when the smart are getting even more richer. That's reality. We can't just make the minimum wage a billion dollars an hour and everybody is suddenly living in Beverly Hills with Hollywood movie stars because then it costs everybody a billion dollars every time you want to get somebody to wash your car or buy groceries somebody has to grow and deliver.
Feel Like You Belong We should give equal opportunity to try out not succeed. Like the analogy of the 3 guys trying to see the baseball game, if the little kid cannot see over the box we give him that is equal to the others then at least he tried, it just means he was never meant to see the game not make special treatment for him.
In a compassionate society, we will ALL need help at some time. When a person's unemployed, we give unemployment checks till s/he can get back on his/her feet. We build curb cuts so wheelchair users get across the street; we install ramps so they have access to the second floor. Pregnant women get maternity leave. A stroke victim gets rehabilitation services to come back to functioning and (hopefully) productive re-entry into society. Shut-in seniors get Meals on Wheels. This is not some dog-eat-dog video game. This is a 21st century society where we want all people to succeed. Access to basic services (education, healthcare, safety) so our neighbors can reach that success is not a handout, not a giveaway, but simply access to opportunity. In a compassionate society, we are glad to lend that hand. Your last sentence sounds like you don't want everyone to succeed. What moral code says that some people must fail and be discarded?
Joshua, I'm not sure you really meant to say that people born short "deserve" to get poorer views of the world all their lives. We all have had or (following accidents, illness, or aging) will need "special" treatment. It's what separates community from anarchy.
Feel Like You Belong no what i'm saying is Instead of just giving the shorter person another box. Make him build and then sell that product to fix that problem the person had from the start. Not just give it to them because we feel bad for them. Give them the equality of determination to get that other box through entrepreneurship not a hand out. And if that person is not willing to go that far. They clearly don't want it that much.
rabblerouser equity isn’t about giving everyone equal outcome it’s about leveling the playing field to give people equal opportunity. For example my place of work has a ramp for wheel chairs. That’s equity since it gives handicapped people the help only they need even though there are less of them
@Math no this all about eqaul opportunity not equal outcomes. Give people the same set of shoes to run. Then we can see who's really the fastest strongest best etc It doesnt mean we all get a participation trophy
This is not genuine, how things are distributed makes a big difference. Take for instance insulin : if there is a cost that may limit things , whi gets insilin ? Who decides ? Government is a failure at this , so while capitalism may seem harsh it is by far the most advantageous and effective. Wealthy people would rather choose effective ways of helping others than have money they worked for be spent recklessly by fools who will keep demanding more and more money from them
For now that those kids have those boxes there are 10 others that can’t see. And there are no more boxes. Look at a playground. All of those kids are equal. They want for nothing and all of their needs are met. But they will still exclude others when playing games. There’s one ball and 21 kids they will compete for that one ball and for what game to play. Some kids who don’t want to play that game may be left out. Even if they agree on what game to play they may exclude some based solely on the clothes they are wearing or because they look or smell funny or just aren’t charismatic enough. Some will have and be included and some will not. If these politicians talking about equity really meant it, then they would give up all they have including their power and go live like the poorest among us. If property ownership is racist because some can’t afford to own property and you believe that the. Sell your property and get rid of your belongings and live on just enough to survive. Give it all to the poor and live as they do. You will make them more and you will get less making yourself and then equitable. Even with in racial groups some do better then others. It’s in every racial group and then in society as a whole. Also if we have a. Equitable society how would that work? Some one has to create and enforce the system. Don’t those people have more power and benefits? Isn’t that in and of it’s self inequitable? Isn’t that inequality? So let’s have no system and no rules. Everyone is equal and we have anarchy. Then some will make prey or other and take what they have and we will still have inequality and inequity. This is why equity is a fallacy. And if I take from the rich and give to the poor that is also stealing and immoral because rich and poor are relative. The best thing to do is to make sure that everyone has the same opportunities. The same hoops to jump through. The same number of obstacles I their way. That way we all have the same chance and you get what ever you are capable of getting based off of your own hard work. That is equality. I’m not going to make it harder or easier for anyone to get anything or take anything from anyone to give it to anyone else. I’m just going to make sure that as far as I can they all get the same chance. But even this is impossible. You may want to play in the nba but your 4 foot 5. How can you compete with some one who is 7 foot tall? Or some one who is a natural at the sport? Should you chop off his legs to make yourself equal so that he has the same chance to play in the nba as you do? Look at natural resources. They are not distributed across our planet equally. Some people were born in the desert and some in the rainforest. Some counties are rich in oil and some have none. Should we do away with nature? Take people groups even in America. Before Europeans came here. You had some tribes that thrived and some who suffered and died. The ones who thrived still took slaves and raped and murdered and even cannibalized. Its not race it’s the human heart that is the problem. If one group is thriving it means another can’t. It doesn’t matter what group it is. If we hunt in the same area and I kill a dear that’s one less dear that you can kill and eat for your family, and vise versa. If I kill the dead that’s Injured and limping then you must work harder to kill the one that’s not. It’s survival of the fittest and even animals live in that system. Are animals racist and prejudiced? Take even two prides of lions hunting in the same territory. They are competing. There’s no way to get around it. Or take 20 kids at a ball game and they all want to see over a fence and there are only 5 boxes. You have these three strong kids that will take those boxes and stand on them so that they can see and the other 17 can’t. Even if they could those three are in the way. Is it right for the 17 to gang up on the 3 and beat them and take their boxes so that no one can see? That is equity. That is equality.
If you look at how tall the thre people are as a metaphor for how much effort they put in an the match as success. The boxes in this instanse is what you are born with+ support from the community. In the first exampel with everyone having one box that means everyone start att the same place but acceve diffrently depending on the work they put in. Using this way of thinking the other image now become very unequal were the person that puts in the most effort and have the most dissadvantages and the least amount of support just makes it to the same level as the short one that put in the leest effort but was born with advanyeges and got the most amount of support. I think those images are realy bad because it does not reflect how society work I would say it is atleast 3 variabels. What you are born with, the support you get( oppertuneties and so on) and what you put in yourself the work you do and effort. How you use what you were born with and use the opporuneties you were given. Make it so the everyone start off att the same place even out what people were born with and give equal opportunty. Do I know how to do it no. But I do know that if we do this it Will not Lead to equal outcome and Therefore equal outcome is not a good way to messure that we have the same starting point. We put in different amount of work
They all want to equally be able to see the game. Equal Opportunity, means everyone gets a shot at having a decent future, and also creates laws to make sure some people in minority groups are hired. It might not be perfect in every situation, but it prevents racism, or sexism, etc.
Thinking like this is extremly dangerous.....however, I would never want you silenced...can you say the same about those who make videos championing equality ( freedom from tyranny) those who agree with you certainly can't. I'm sure this opinion makes me a white supremacist, a male chauvinist, and xenophobic.... Whatev...
As long as we are civil, there is a chance for dialogue. If there is a chance for dialogue, there is a chance of finding common ground. Here's one noble attempt: bringit2thetable.org. There are others willing to bridge the void.
Why not give the 3 tickets for they don't need boxes and can sit down and watch the game like everyone else.. If boxes are the only option, standing on 2 boxes could be dangerous for the short person
I don't understand.. Why would Equality want to give everyone insulin. There is obvious exceptions and I prefer equity but you gave really bad examples
Can you bring data, concepts, or (better yet) lived examples into play? If not, you're only perpetuating thoughtless internet snark rather than promoting thoughtful dialogue, which we are trying to promote.
New rule: if you would like to comment on our channel, please do so under your real identity. While Christy Colman only contributed name-calling ("Marxist") and unsubstantiated hyperbole ("brainwashing at it's [sic] finest"], at least she used her real name and photo. No more hiding and lobbing snark-grenades. Please stand up and take responsibility for the discourse. Otherwise, it's just knee-jerk meanness, which the internet already oozes with. Thanks for your cooperation.
McLovin Mods that's not at all what they're saying. They have simply asked politely that you take responsibility for what you comment - even if your opinion is a negative one. There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion, as long as it is actual discussion and not just unjustified hate for no reason.
It’s not idiotic but is simplistic and I’d say a rather effective indoctrinating tool. It can actually impress people (specially young idealistic people) who do not have a realistic grasp of life. For example, people may see as a good thing to remove blocks from the tallest guys to give to the shorter one. But in real life that means ARBITRARILY removing the achievements and successes of those who obtained it via hard work or whatever to give those who didn’t. That right there is the definition of unfairness. The biggest problem being that that type of decision is made by a third party small group who think is their god given right to intrude in the INDIVIDUAL lives of others to arrange the world to THEIR liking. Give the shortest (aka most disadvantage) person more blocks but don’t stagnate those who went tall in life.
I liked the explanation I've seen elsewhere using the fence scenario. It shows people of equal size standing on a hill that slopes toward one end of the picture (the fence is the same height all the way across). It's not the people who are inherently 'less' than others, it's the opportunities they get that can either heave them up or put them 'in the hole.'
Missed solve important stuff though. It sounds great. So who gets to decide who should be equal? Look at feminism for instance. 4/5 homeless are men. Is there somebody out there in the world of government where it is decided to not give special programs to male homeless people? Yes. Yes, there is. This concept will always be politically sticky because some groups are inherently preferred to others.
The problem with this model (which is very simplistic btw) is not about helping those at he bottom, is about DECIDING on the lives of those at the top. You are welcome to BUILD a new block for the little guy, but you have not rights, NONE WHATSOEVER to remove it from the tallest guy. Just because I’m mediocre doesn’t give me the rights to remove the success from those who achieved it. If this has been our mindset 40 years back, Steve Jobs hasn’t gone beyond being a small business ceo, and we wouldn’t be using this iPhone or iPad or whatever to be discussing this stuff at all.
The conversation here about communism/socialism/marxism is off base. If you've never lived in a social state, let me share. EVERYONE GETS EQUAL treatment. You get x amount of bread to eat whether you're 6'5" and 260lbs or 5'1" and 78lbs. That's EQUALITY, not equity.
I agree. Absolute equality in choices, voice and treatment. Conditional equity in accordance to needs that help people thrive. For example: dyslexic students should not be taught equally to students who aren’t dyslexic, but they do demand the equal level of treatment and respect.
No one making videos like these THINK ABOUT THE WALL WHICH THE 3 FANS ARE TRYING TO LOOK OVER. In my opinion, THE WALL represents THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. *** LOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL!! MAINTAIN THE GOVERNMENT SMALL and more individuals can benefit.
If that kid wants to see he can buy another box
Or perhaps each kid built their own box in Wood Shop during the week. In this case, the shorter student could in fact work harder by building himself a second box. Thus solving his own problem by working hard to get what he needs, and not what someone else gives him (by taking it away from someone else)
Would the equity thing be reversed in a house with really short doorways or a Limbo contest, I wonder?
Either way, I feel bad for the guy in the middle, who seems to get nothing. Hmmmm?
Or a ticket
@@JerryDowst capitalism is a helluva drug, eh?
@@mk1986ish I don't know what you mean
The problem with the analogy of the baseball game viewers is that it assumes a) a focus only on benefits received, rather than value produced, and b) that the outcomes are purely driven by naturally determined characteristics (height in this case). This is rare in reality. Wealth, social status, education, employment all depend at least partly on diligence, so you shouldn’t compensate lazy people by bringing them up to the level of hardworking ones. This is even more relevant in the corporate world, where equity is now being promoted: why would a for-profit company want to ensure that its least skilled, least productive, laziest staff get “equity” with the most valuable, skilled, hardworking staff? That’s a great recipe for destroying morale and losing those most valuable employees!
Make the fence taller så that the freeloders have to pay to see the game. Everyone pay the same amount to see the game
Should I work extremely hard just to know that by the end of the month, my paycheck will be given to the needed ones? Well, equity is great, as long as you are the taker. Once you become the giver, not so good.
Everybody want to be a socialist, but when that paycheck comes, we're all capitalists...LMAO
Hard work should get rewarded, I think everyome should agree on that. But you have to make sure everyone starts from the same level, otherwise other people will have a disadventage.
@@atefrod680 but since life is never fair, literally never. If i work hard, it means that i want my kids to have an advantage to other kids. If you mean any kid should start at the same line, again i don'lt think i have enough motivations to work anymore
@@williamnguyen3052 Yeah but thats unfair since your kids wouldnt deserve that advantage over other kids. A kid who was unlucky to be born in a poor household should have the exact same advantages as any other rich kid when it come to education and healthcare simply because no one has control over this. Now if both kids got older and had the exact same oppurtunities but one ended up with a better degree than the other, its definitely okay for that kid to earn more money but he has to pay his fair share in taxes to so that every kid has the same oppurtunities. Your hard work doesnt go in vein though, you can still give your kid better clothes or treat him on nicer gifts but when it comes to oppurtunities everyone should at least have the same startinglevel.
@@atefrod680 key word: fair share, which is not ripped of my hard earned money. Ok, i agree on healthcare part, but not education. If I have money, and that money is going to the school district where my kids are going to, not to other kids' school district. How is it unfair when my kids inherit things from his dad? It's his dad's hard earned money, he is not stealing from anyone!! And to those unlucky kids, this is a lesson from my mom, who was born into a ghetto but still managed to move up onto the higher level social ladder, deal with what you have, put in more effort for 300x more, don't wait for help!!!
"Under a system of equity, every employee gets the benefits they need to succeed at work." Then equity is a fantasy. It's impossible to define what people need to be successful, let alone provide it.
Wouldn't that be a marvelous workplace conversation to engage in? Imagine every employee setting goals and being supported by management. What could possibly be wrong with such an approach?
The human that makes the judgment is never impartial and that's why we, the government, should only treat everyone equally.
ua-cam.com/video/jnOUFS3lUpE/v-deo.html
@Math thats why they imvented unions to which there is negotiations on sweat equity among other things
@Math no its a baragaining chip tonuse becaue if you didnt have them it would be the owner class setting all the rules which is not something youd want.
And just because you dont have more seniority than someone else doesnt mean you cant be in a lead position and many unions have different pay grades so its not a simple as you describe it.
Unions on average, for the same job vs non Unions, get paid more. Nobody is gonna take less lay to try to prove a point.
Unions have always been more good than bad or else there would not be corporations spedning so much money on lobbying to bust them up. It's not about unfair its about making aure that the workers get their equity seeing is how the last 45 years wages paid are lower than the produtivity output
@Math that's not true and that's not only for unions that happens at every job.
What do you think happens when you dont pay employees well enough?
They'll be complacent and mediocre at best. I've been on both sides of the fence including temp to hire. You wanna talk about people who don't give a crap..
And ive also seen union members put out beautiful work. Having a not so good employee hapoens wether its union or not. I've actually seen the worst employees work non union.
So if my kid spends 30 minutes studying for an exam while the other studied for days, my kid should get the same grade as the other students? What you will get is NOT my kid studying more but those that studied for days will study less. I don’t want that system.
No that is not what this means. It means giving everyone the same opportunity to study for the same time. Whether your child chooses to study for 30 minutes or the fully allocated time is a matter for them.
To put it in more concrete terms - it means allowing each child to have a private place to study for the allotted time. If your child has their own room - they do not need public access to a private pod in a public library. However in my country we know many kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds often live in more overcrowded homes. They do not have a private space in their home for study.
In my country many of these kids come from Indigenous backgrounds or have parents who have recently migrated to my country and may not have well paying jobs.
Ensuring means ensuring kids that do not have their own rooms at home can access a private spot in say a public library for study. It means having these private pods accessible after hours.
It is not a big ask.
Literally the dumbest thing ever. Equality of outcome (equity) is absolutely ridiculous. How do we determine equity? Based on height? Race? Sex? Good looking? Ugly? Sexual preference? Fat? Skinny? Age? It’s endless. This is absolutely a joke. Equal opportunity. Not outcome.
Under minimal examination why "equity" of outcome it falls apart so quickly. Why are you striving for anything then? Because the reason anyone strives or better ones skills or to move forward with life at all, is to produce inequality. You are trying to rise above the mediocre masses anytime you make an effort at anything.
You work real hard to get an unequal outcome. Take that incentive away through equity and watch hard work go away with it. It's so thoughtless.
You nailed it.
Rubbish. You achieve more productivity through cooperation and cooperative work than pitting people against one another. Giving people the opportunity to reach their best is better for everyone.
*This photo analogy is very misleading because it is comparing biological height advantages to economic wealth advantages which are very different when it comes to what you can do about your circumstances. With biological height there is nothing you to help yourself because your height is determined by your genes. You can’t change your genes. Wealth is different. Your wealth is determined by many different variables. almost like an algebraic equation. In the end you have your income, but unlike biological height. You can actually change your outcome by being responsible, graduating college, and getting a job.*
Biologically short people can *not* become tall.
Economically poor people can become rich.
This is exactly why this photo is misleading.
Just consider height to be a dynamic element like his wealth. So for a poor guy to buy an item which is price tagged 100$ consider we give him 90$ and in the terms of equality it means even the richer guy gets the same 90$ which sucks. So inequality is the way to equality.
Just came across this blog which partially agrees with Jeremy. Thoughts? medium.com/@eec/this-equity-picture-is-actually-white-supremacy-at-work-59f4ea700509
I agree with you Jeremy. Using analogies in reasoning is dangerous, and most of the time susceptible to logical fallacy. In this case, the problem in the comparison is that in the picture scenario, once all three of them can see the game, receiving more "boxes" makes no differences. Yet in real life situation, there's seldom a point which, when reached by people, renders more "boxes" for some individuals meaningless. That's the problem. This analogy is not effective.
Jeremy Brown
Well said!
@rabblerouser One example could be to make sure everyone can afford necessary healthcare so they can keep working well and lead happy, fulfilling lives and contribute to their families, friends, society, country, and the planet.
The issue I have repeatedly witnessed first hand (in using the example of three people along the fence), is this: 'What happens the following week when they all go to see a game and There Is No Fence?' Nobody needs an extra box, right??
Wrong.
Here is what happens: The person who received the extra help to see the first game over the fence is going to expect the same thing Every Time whether they need it or not. In many ways, it teaches people to become more dependent on someone or something else, rather than seeking a solution that serves their own individual needs. It does not empower people. Instead, it destroys their self-confidence. Equity is already being displayed in our society. In terms of medicine, we do not give insulin to everybody. We only give it to those with diabetes. Some members of my family receive government assistance for meals. However, I don't get assistance because I don't need it.
We cannot expect the blanket use of equity alone to solve our problems. It will further divide us and weaken our communities.
Pay me in equity, pay me in equity, watch me reverse out of debt.
The only way this analogy works is if the person obtained the box by personally building it: The tall person wouldn't build one to begin with, the middle person would build one the height they needed, and the short person would build one taller than the middle: hence: EQUAL pay for equal WORK. This analogy gives off the assumption that each person was given a box the same size completely free from work, pay, or efforts...this is not how economics works. Ask the question: Where did the box come from and how was it obtained?
"Equity" is simply a more socially acceptable term for socialism...let's not fall for the trick folks.
Brett (by the way, thanks for taking ownership of your comments and using your real name online), the root of the word "socialism" is "society." The core concept there is interdependence, not independence. This distinguishes us from living everyone-for-himself in a pre-civilization world of only-the-strongest-survive. Baseball is obviously just a metaphor. The access we're talking about represents education, healthcare, opportunities to contribute. Surely, there's room for compassion there. It's not a "trick" to give the short kid access to the game. He has other talents which he can contribute to this world; height is just not one of them.
You actually have a really good point, and I sort of wish I had seen this before I wrote my speech on equality vs. equity
You understand though that every single socialist economy has either failed or is failing. How is that a good thing to promote? It's a great idea, but in practice has failed time and again. Let's give it up, and live equally. Socialism is not fair; either in ideology nor practice. We must be fair, and have people be accountable for their contributions, and more importantly reward greater contributions fairly.
My biggest problem with the equity vs equality question is that everyone only seems to ask the question, "is it beneficial for those less able to receive more" or "should I give up my box so the short guy can see". But these questions I don't feel are relevant in the slightest as most anyone would agree, YES, of course you should let the short guy use your box, you don't need it. But that isn't the real question here. what we should be asking is, "do I have the right to forcibly take the tall guys box under threat of violence because he is more privileged than me".
To this question, I believe the answer is always no.
Would I give up my box if I didn't need it? YES. But as soon as you try to force the box away from me because you believe I'm too privileged to deserve it, is when I have the right to respond with deadly force.
Kasey, I'm not sure where you came up with your notions of violence and deadly force. Did you catch the examples of insulin and uniforms and wheelchairs? With such examples, no one is being deprived of anything. We're just looking for everyone to get a chance to participate on a level playing field.
Under equality, everyone can get insulin if they need it, under the other model, someone decides for them what they need, and tells them that unless they meet regulations they can't have it. So say you feel you need something, you can only have it if someone with power authorises what you need.
In the equality system, everyone gets access to the same amount of resources. However, since not everyone needs the same amount (or any amount) of some resource, this would mean, that they are free to choose to keep that resource, or give it back into the system. Now you have an equity system at hand. Because, if you are someone who needs a lot of a certain resource, the government has more of that thing in its pool. Which in turn means, everyone who needs more, has a much easier access to that thing, because it is present in abundance. So there's actually no need for any authority to give strict regulations on who gets what, because the system would distribute the resources as-need-be by itself. Who needs to give out stuff, following strict prerequisites, if you have so much of that stuff, that you can hand it out like candy?
At least, that's my understanding of this system, assuming an ideal scenario, which - obviously - is very hard to achieve in reality. But so is the equality system, since it puts an immense strain onto the economy and the likes, without adequate profit or sense behind it.
@@Wolfirhart Everyone equally gets what they need. So if one person needs more food to eat they get what they need to eat. Saying what people need would obviously be determined by that person, within reason of course. People quite often confuse equality for exactly the same amount, but really it just means fair treatment, in which everyone is equally treat fairly.
@@TheaDragonSpirit They don't confuse it with that definition, it is literally part of the definition. And equity is according to natural law or right.
Aside from that, what's "within reason"? Who says what's reasonable and what isn't?
If everyone had a predetermined outcome regardless FOR LIFE who would ever work hard
Theres a thin line between the two. Thats where you need to be... It all depends on each circumstance.
If you were in a hospital with a broken arm would you mind if a pregnant lady going into labor went ahead of you? No coz she or her baby might die or something.
On the other hand.. if that pregnant lady was given free healthcare coz she is poor.. most people would want that too..
Plus theres poor and theres really poor like trying to get clean water to drink poor.
So yeah it all depends..
I like that you emphasize access, but I don't think it's used correctly. Access should mean that people have the chance (access) to build the boxes and people who need it can make it and use it! The tall dude that doesn't need one won't spend the time to build it, or maybe he will choose to help the short dude build one, instead of his box being taken away. Obviously don't take this literally, they probably shouldn't be making boxes at a baseball game lol. I hope you get my point.
Ha! For a change one video talking about the 3 boxes of “equity” allows for comments. All other ones don’t. Maybe they don’t want to be challenged on this “concept” which is rubbish. Not because providing tools to facilitate a better “view” to those at the bottom is bad, it is in fact a good, compassionate thing. The problem is when a little group of people decide unilaterally to cut growth to those at the top. What gives them the right to decide and as third Partiers onlookers to limit other people’s individual endless hopes and dreams? If this equity wokestupidity has been the mindset 40 years ago, we wouldn’t have had a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs with their visions for the future which is now our present.
Yeah, very bold of this channel.
Really don’t get it do you? It doesn’t mean holding those at the top back. It means giving more people the opportunity to be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Bill Gates gets it - that is one of the reasons for the Gates Foundation.
@@brontewcat No. why do you think universities went as far as eliminating the admissions tests? Or discriminating against Asians A+ students? Only to reinstate it recently and lose a case in court against Asians ? It was because they wanted to stop success at the top, and since the ones in the bottom couldn’t match them then they used dictatorial methods to control success at the top so it would all look more “equitable”.
Again, I have no problem with providing opportunities to those in the bottom (for whatever reason they are) but not by sacrificing and controlling success of the top ones.
The former situation is noble and altruistic ( I.e. The Gates Foundation) . The latter is dictatorial and infringement of individual liberties.
@@randomami8176 No idea what you are talking about. I am not American and I am talking about what equity means in other countries.
@@brontewcat ok so that’s settles it. If you aren’t an American in America today, you can’t understand what I am talking about. Apologies, I thought you knew and were involved with the Equality vs Equity subject which is being discussed and talked about in this country.
Before it, the term “equity” was viewed only in financial terms, as in “the equity generated by investing in purchasing a property”…etc.
0:46 Ah yes, the famous standing on boxes to look over the fence cartoon. There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. First, it just assumes that these boxes fell out of the sky and no one's responsible for building boxes, but let's not go down that rabbit hole. I'll say this, if I drag my ass out of bed at the buttcrack of dawn and show up to the game 5 hours early to ensure that I get one of the limited number of boxes available, there's no way in hell I'm sharing my box with a man who's three feet tall but still only pulled up to the fence five minutes before the game started. You know your three feet tall. You know you need a box. If anyone should be motivated to get down to the field early enough to claim a box it should be you so get off your lazy azz and do what you have to in order to be sure you get to the field before I and others and claim your box. Otherwise, you get no box and that's your problem. I don't know where you people got the idea that the world owes you a damn box. Let me help you out with this one, Jr. It doesn't.
From my standpoint, equitable basic access must necessarily be minimalist in nature when applied on a large-scale in ways that impose costs on non-volunteers, since it quickly works its way towards being perceived as a form of special privileges. It should be really basic, so to speak, like wheelchair ramps.
I actually think universal basic income (equality) is superior to negative income tax (equity), for example, even though the former requires more tax revenue and actually has largely the same overall effect. It still produces a superior psychological effect of mitigating the perception of special privileges among those who are paying for it.
It's like if we have two children and one is a son and another a daughter of the same age, ideally we feed them different amounts (less to the daughter) since males and females differ in terms of their caloric requirements. Yet the negative psychological perception of doing that for the daughter might outweigh the benefits. We have to factor that psychological effect into account to achieve a balance between equitable treatment and equal treatment.
What about the removing the fence. Sometimes it is better to remove the obstacles first.
They’re illegally watching the game. Remove the fence and nobody buys a ticket. Players don’t get paid, no game exists.
But hey.. socialism!
Very well explained, indeed. Thank you.
I have read through some of these comments and there seems to be arguments against equity based on people who work harder should get more. I don't disagree with this in principle, but how are we qualifying "hard work"? There are already mechanisms in place to address this (hourly workers paid more based upon the number of hours, or salaried employees paid on bonuses). Access to the tools for everyone to do a job still doesn't mean that everyone WILL...so there is still room for "high achievers" to do so. What am I missing here?
The box example is flawed in that it assumes all three people wanted to stand and watch the game. Ever consider that the short kid didn't want the 2nd box??? Perhaps the tall guys legs get sore so he was hoping to sit on his box. And perhaps the short kid cut a hole in the fence and watched through that.
Each of the three had EQUALITY of freedom and self-determination, regardless of any certainty to see the game..........Ahhhhh the American Dream!
Jerry, to be sure, the baseball metaphor is not perfect. If you have an alternative way to explain equity, we are all ears and happy to benefit from your creativity. Thanks.
@@Feellikeyoubelong An alternative way to explain equity is that it is part of a false narrative. No two people (not even twins) will have equal opportunities because we are each free to choose which opportunities we take and which we pass by. Besides that, exactly who decides in which way which specific things will be made equitable? Equity is simply wrong because life is simply unfair!
For the box example...Capitalism is when you convince the Tall person to lease his box to the shortest person for a monthly rate of 30% of the shortest persons earned income. Then you take a 10% middle man fee for negotiating and drawing up the contracts for the lease. Profit.
And then the short person doesn’t have to pay do extra leg room whilst the tall person does, because they don’t fit in the small seat.
This doesn't make sense for a workable society...
In the industry I work in, this makes a LOT of sense.
@Tony Stark aged care.
@Tony Stark I am not talking about "equality of outcome at a care centre" I am talking about the people I care for that depending on their wealth they are forced to suffer. If you have money, you can afford the devices to assist you in mobility and so fourth, and those who don't, have to go on a government aid package program and there is 4 tiers to the program and each tier you have to be re-assessed and then AFTER you have been approved, for each tier, you must wait 24 months for the funding to come through. So if you are 92 years old, desperately needing a armchair that can lift you, a at home hospital bed or so fourth, you are going to have to hold out dying for 24 months before the government release funds. Also I don't work in a care centre, I work in community care where I travel to multiple clients each day to assist them with showering , cleaning, meal prep, medication administration. I see it all. Not sure what my explanation will do for you, but I hope that clarifies your curiosity. FYI I am in Australia. Not sure how your system in America works, if they even have one.
Great
Thanks for your video. I wonder what your approach to blanket race/ gender equity would look like? This is a big question of the day. What do you think of Critical Theories? Equity is thrown around a lot with diversity and inclusion. Also should historical disadvantage play into equitable goals for today, or should we base need on an individuals capabilities?
To those who think equity is communism, I am dumbfounded by your ignorance. Communist policies in pervious regimes functioned off the premise of equality. Equity can upend equality, which would have contradicted communist principles. Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain....
Read "The Giver" by Lois Lowry. That is an equitable society and a communist society.
I mostly appreciate ur video
Hi, everyone! I wanted to remind all our subscribers and new viewers of our plea for civil conversation: ua-cam.com/video/Lou-K5U-zWw/v-deo.html. Thanks in advance for your thoughtfulness.
Preacher/Educator Michelle Loyd-Paige has this marvelous take on equity vs. equality. ua-cam.com/video/swMTgK6eiCE/v-deo.html
@@McLovinMods 1. Name-calling does not a "Marxist" make. 2. Your "descent" comment needs elaboration if you seek to be understood.
Equity is like sending a track team to the Olympics which the faster runners were no more likely to be picked than the slower runners, or African American fighter pilots being restricted from fighting in WW2 in order to give more opportunities to white pilots who weren't as competent in flying planes, or restricting Jewish physicists from working in Germany in order to give non-Jews more university jobs in atomic physics. Being out of touch with reality no matter who you want to help be successful is not good for anybody's outcome because it hurts the whole team from being successful.
James, your analogy doesn't stand up. The Olympics and war are examples where you want winners and losers. In life, we want all members of our society to thrive. If they have equal access to education, safe housing, healthcare, and more, then they can be productive members of our community. Don't you want that?
@@Feellikeyoubelong The logical problem you're not seeing here is that the human technological growth beneficial to all of us requires more investment of resources in smart ideas with big payoffs instead of dumb ideas wasting money. Why do you think Americans and Western Europeans created the most technologically advanced nations in human history? It's because our economic system was set up to reward smart people who invested their resources wisely more than dummies who wasted them on stupid ideas, The average income of African Americans in spite of slavery and racism is let's note massively higher than Ethiopians or Somalis which is why America is where most of the world population wants to live in not Ethiopia or Somalia, Life is unfair to idiots and especially unfair to idiots who live in crap holes like DC run by token negro crackheads like Marion Berry who blow all their tax money on his crack dealers and let their city go bankrupt unable to send out any welfare checks to the idiots who voted for him without all the smart Republican taxpayers he drove out of the city to places like Texas and Florida which have never gone broke. Historically in any system the smart always get richer unless everybody is going broke and the only time the dumb get richer is when the smart are getting even more richer. That's reality. We can't just make the minimum wage a billion dollars an hour and everybody is suddenly living in Beverly Hills with Hollywood movie stars because then it costs everybody a billion dollars every time you want to get somebody to wash your car or buy groceries somebody has to grow and deliver.
Nooo, we want equality.
Can you elaborate?
Feel Like You Belong We should give equal opportunity to try out not succeed. Like the analogy of the 3 guys trying to see the baseball game, if the little kid cannot see over the box we give him that is equal to the others then at least he tried, it just means he was never meant to see the game not make special treatment for him.
In a compassionate society, we will ALL need help at some time. When a person's unemployed, we give unemployment checks till s/he can get back on his/her feet. We build curb cuts so wheelchair users get across the street; we install ramps so they have access to the second floor. Pregnant women get maternity leave. A stroke victim gets rehabilitation services to come back to functioning and (hopefully) productive re-entry into society. Shut-in seniors get Meals on Wheels. This is not some dog-eat-dog video game. This is a 21st century society where we want all people to succeed. Access to basic services (education, healthcare, safety) so our neighbors can reach that success is not a handout, not a giveaway, but simply access to opportunity. In a compassionate society, we are glad to lend that hand. Your last sentence sounds like you don't want everyone to succeed. What moral code says that some people must fail and be discarded?
Joshua, I'm not sure you really meant to say that people born short "deserve" to get poorer views of the world all their lives. We all have had or (following accidents, illness, or aging) will need "special" treatment. It's what separates community from anarchy.
Feel Like You Belong no what i'm saying is Instead of just giving the shorter person another box. Make him build and then sell that product to fix that problem the person had from the start. Not just give it to them because we feel bad for them. Give them the equality of determination to get that other box through entrepreneurship not a hand out. And if that person is not willing to go that far. They clearly don't want it that much.
AND WHEN EVERYONE'S SUPER
NO ONE WILL BE
Hooray!! haha
@rabblerouser i would love to be super, being handicapped sucks
rabblerouser equity isn’t about giving everyone equal outcome it’s about leveling the playing field to give people equal opportunity. For example my place of work has a ramp for wheel chairs. That’s equity since it gives handicapped people the help only they need even though there are less of them
@Math no this all about eqaul opportunity not equal outcomes.
Give people the same set of shoes to run. Then we can see who's really the fastest strongest best etc
It doesnt mean we all get a participation trophy
This is not genuine, how things are distributed makes a big difference. Take for instance insulin : if there is a cost that may limit things , whi gets insilin ? Who decides ? Government is a failure at this , so while capitalism may seem harsh it is by far the most advantageous and effective. Wealthy people would rather choose effective ways of helping others than have money they worked for be spent recklessly by fools who will keep demanding more and more money from them
If the first guy has more money we take it away and give it to those who need it more.... well then i am in need of more money
Exactly, that's why it's so great!
For now that those kids have those boxes there are 10 others that can’t see. And there are no more boxes. Look at a playground. All of those kids are equal. They want for nothing and all of their needs are met. But they will still exclude others when playing games. There’s one ball and 21 kids they will compete for that one ball and for what game to play. Some kids who don’t want to play that game may be left out. Even if they agree on what game to play they may exclude some based solely on the clothes they are wearing or because they look or smell funny or just aren’t charismatic enough. Some will have and be included and some will not. If these politicians talking about equity really meant it, then they would give up all they have including their power and go live like the poorest among us. If property ownership is racist because some can’t afford to own property and you believe that the. Sell your property and get rid of your belongings and live on just enough to survive. Give it all to the poor and live as they do. You will make them more and you will get less making yourself and then equitable. Even with in racial groups some do better then others. It’s in every racial group and then in society as a whole. Also if we have a. Equitable society how would that work? Some one has to create and enforce the system. Don’t those people have more power and benefits? Isn’t that in and of it’s self inequitable? Isn’t that inequality? So let’s have no system and no rules. Everyone is equal and we have anarchy. Then some will make prey or other and take what they have and we will still have inequality and inequity. This is why equity is a fallacy. And if I take from the rich and give to the poor that is also stealing and immoral because rich and poor are relative. The best thing to do is to make sure that everyone has the same opportunities. The same hoops to jump through. The same number of obstacles I their way. That way we all have the same chance and you get what ever you are capable of getting based off of your own hard work. That is equality. I’m not going to make it harder or easier for anyone to get anything or take anything from anyone to give it to anyone else. I’m just going to make sure that as far as I can they all get the same chance. But even this is impossible. You may want to play in the nba but your 4 foot 5. How can you compete with some one who is 7 foot tall? Or some one who is a natural at the sport? Should you chop off his legs to make yourself equal so that he has the same chance to play in the nba as you do? Look at natural resources. They are not distributed across our planet equally. Some people were born in the desert and some in the rainforest. Some counties are rich in oil and some have none. Should we do away with nature? Take people groups even in America. Before Europeans came here. You had some tribes that thrived and some who suffered and died. The ones who thrived still took slaves and raped and murdered and even cannibalized. Its not race it’s the human heart that is the problem. If one group is thriving it means another can’t. It doesn’t matter what group it is. If we hunt in the same area and I kill a dear that’s one less dear that you can kill and eat for your family, and vise versa. If I kill the dead that’s Injured and limping then you must work harder to kill the one that’s not. It’s survival of the fittest and even animals live in that system. Are animals racist and prejudiced? Take even two prides of lions hunting in the same territory. They are competing. There’s no way to get around it. Or take 20 kids at a ball game and they all want to see over a fence and there are only 5 boxes. You have these three strong kids that will take those boxes and stand on them so that they can see and the other 17 can’t. Even if they could those three are in the way. Is it right for the 17 to gang up on the 3 and beat them and take their boxes so that no one can see? That is equity. That is equality.
You have cleared my all doubt thanks a lot
If you look at how tall the thre people are as a metaphor for how much effort they put in an the match as success. The boxes in this instanse is what you are born with+ support from the community. In the first exampel with everyone having one box that means everyone start att the same place but acceve diffrently depending on the work they put in. Using this way of thinking the other image now become very unequal were the person that puts in the most effort and have the most dissadvantages and the least amount of support just makes it to the same level as the short one that put in the leest effort but was born with advanyeges and got the most amount of support.
I think those images are realy bad because it does not reflect how society work I would say it is atleast 3 variabels. What you are born with, the support you get( oppertuneties and so on) and what you put in yourself the work you do and effort. How you use what you were born with and use the opporuneties you were given.
Make it so the everyone start off att the same place even out what people were born with and give equal opportunty. Do I know how to do it no. But I do know that if we do this it Will not Lead to equal outcome and Therefore equal outcome is not a good way to messure that we have the same starting point. We put in different amount of work
They all want to equally be able to see the game. Equal Opportunity, means everyone gets a shot at having a decent future, and also creates laws to make sure some people in minority groups are hired. It might not be perfect in every situation, but it prevents racism, or sexism, etc.
This is a guilt trip to give some people more and some people less. Socialism at its finest.
Thinking like this is extremly dangerous.....however, I would never want you silenced...can you say the same about those who make videos championing equality ( freedom from tyranny) those who agree with you certainly can't.
I'm sure this opinion makes me a white supremacist, a male chauvinist, and xenophobic....
Whatev...
As long as we are civil, there is a chance for dialogue. If there is a chance for dialogue, there is a chance of finding common ground. Here's one noble attempt: bringit2thetable.org. There are others willing to bridge the void.
Why not give the 3 tickets for they don't need boxes and can sit down and watch the game like everyone else.. If boxes are the only option, standing on 2 boxes could be dangerous for the short person
I noticed when they talk about Equality or Equity they NEVER include White people !
You took a guy's box. Welcome to socialism.
I don't understand..
Why would Equality want to give everyone insulin. There is obvious exceptions and I prefer equity but you gave really bad examples
The box analogy is absolutely idiotic.
Isaac, what would make you think this?
Can you bring data, concepts, or (better yet) lived examples into play? If not, you're only perpetuating thoughtless internet snark rather than promoting thoughtful dialogue, which we are trying to promote.
New rule: if you would like to comment on our channel, please do so under your real identity. While Christy Colman only contributed name-calling ("Marxist") and unsubstantiated hyperbole ("brainwashing at it's [sic] finest"], at least she used her real name and photo. No more hiding and lobbing snark-grenades. Please stand up and take responsibility for the discourse. Otherwise, it's just knee-jerk meanness, which the internet already oozes with. Thanks for your cooperation.
McLovin Mods that's not at all what they're saying. They have simply asked politely that you take responsibility for what you comment - even if your opinion is a negative one. There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion, as long as it is actual discussion and not just unjustified hate for no reason.
It’s not idiotic but is simplistic and I’d say a rather effective indoctrinating tool. It can actually impress people (specially young idealistic people) who do not have a realistic grasp of life. For example, people may see as a good thing to remove blocks from the tallest guys to give to the shorter one. But in real life that means ARBITRARILY removing the achievements and successes of those who obtained it via hard work or whatever to give those who didn’t. That right there is the definition of unfairness. The biggest problem being that that type of decision is made by a third party small group who think is their god given right to intrude in the INDIVIDUAL lives of others to arrange the world to THEIR liking. Give the shortest (aka most disadvantage) person more blocks but don’t stagnate those who went tall in life.
equity of outcome.... no thanks
I liked the explanation I've seen elsewhere using the fence scenario. It shows people of equal size standing on a hill that slopes toward one end of the picture (the fence is the same height all the way across). It's not the people who are inherently 'less' than others, it's the opportunities they get that can either heave them up or put them 'in the hole.'
Thanks, Lori. Very helpful distinction!
Missed solve important stuff though. It sounds great. So who gets to decide who should be equal?
Look at feminism for instance. 4/5 homeless are men. Is there somebody out there in the world of government where it is decided to not give special programs to male homeless people? Yes. Yes, there is.
This concept will always be politically sticky because some groups are inherently preferred to others.
@Viganch0 exactly! People use these lessons as a way to turn the world into a simple ideologically driven mess.
The problem with this model (which is very simplistic btw) is not about helping those at he bottom, is about DECIDING on the lives of those at the top. You are welcome to BUILD a new block for the little guy, but you have not rights, NONE WHATSOEVER to remove it from the tallest guy. Just because I’m mediocre doesn’t give me the rights to remove the success from those who achieved it. If this has been our mindset 40 years back, Steve Jobs hasn’t gone beyond being a small business ceo, and we wouldn’t be using this iPhone or iPad or whatever to be discussing this stuff at all.
Equal access to education, voting, and access to healthcare. You’re box demonstration could be misleading.
I thought critical race theory was not being used?
Great vid + explanation!
Gifted
The conversation here about communism/socialism/marxism is off base. If you've never lived in a social state, let me share. EVERYONE GETS EQUAL treatment. You get x amount of bread to eat whether you're 6'5" and 260lbs or 5'1" and 78lbs. That's EQUALITY, not equity.
Beautifully explained 👍❤️😊🙏thank you so much
Glad you liked it.
Tx
Poor analogies
I agree. Absolute equality in choices, voice and treatment. Conditional equity in accordance to needs that help people thrive. For example: dyslexic students should not be taught equally to students who aren’t dyslexic, but they do demand the equal level of treatment and respect.
Wonderful
No one making videos like these THINK ABOUT THE WALL WHICH THE 3 FANS ARE TRYING TO LOOK OVER. In my opinion, THE WALL represents THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. *** LOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL!! MAINTAIN THE GOVERNMENT SMALL and more individuals can benefit.
Nice... Well done