On the Hanson/Henson thread Bronywn made the following comment

"I actually believe that a fair and decent society should strive to create equal outcomes for its citizens. That actually involves treating them differently, not equally. People who are disadvantaged need assistance that others born into better circumstances do not. When you treat all people equally you actually end up with an unjust society." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1896#38554

There was some further discussion on that thread about outcome vs opportunity with PaulL and I both commenting.

Bronywn added some additional comment at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1896#38642 (and around it).

I suspect that there is an elemnt of semantics in this, the things Bronywn describes seem to me like things we'd do to create equality of opportunity.

But then how do we measure either, at an individual level neither make sense but possibly across large groups measures can be made with some meaning. If we measure outcomes can we account for the differences which drive people to make different choices and do we measure broadly enough to get a real sense of outcomes.

Is this just semantics? Is it valid to measure fairness and equality by outcomes and if so what outcomes do we need to measure to get a valid sense of how we are travelling?

R0bert

Robert,

>>”? Is it valid to measure fairness and equality by outcomes and if so what outcomes do we need to measure to get a valid sense of how we are travelling?

No. In answer to your question it is not valid to measure fairness and equality by measuring and then manipulating outcomes.

The Soviets and numerous other communists tried to create a society where (most) people had equal outcomes, (we’ll ignore the party hierarchy at the moment).These societies showed that without incentive people refused to work with any real commitment. This led (amongst other factors)to the eventual bankruptcy of these countries. They just couldn’t produce the amounts of food and other materials they needed because there was no incentive to work hard.

It is neither fair nor desirable to ensure that people have the same outcomes. It is a de-motivational policy that helps no one except the lazy and the stupid.

In my opinion we need to ensure that we all get equal opportunities in education, health and welfare to allow us to take advantage, if we wish, of the possibilities. This is not to say that some groups won’t need more funding or resources to ensure they get an equal opportunity, they will. And that is not a problem.

The problems come when we attempt to dictate equal outcomes for people. This is mostly motivated by the politics of envy.

Innovation has more often been bred of a desire to do something faster, better, longer, usually with a profit of some sort in mind. Take away this profit motive and we see our baser instincts of laziness and ignorance begin to reappear.

Hi Robert, interesting issues you raise.

The long and the short of the debate is

People are different, diversity is great.

We are not all the same.

Some excel at sports
Some excel at music

We applaud those who excel so.

Other folk do not excel.

Based on my own school and college days,

Should we deny the elite sports person right to the oval because he can out perform someone like me?

Should we deny those gifted people right to musical scholarships because they can play better than folk like me who are tone deaf?

I would hope neither. I enjoy and applaud the gifted, with a sense of “if only I could” but without envy or angst.

Now we come to the financially and materially astute.

Some folk know what is a good investment, what is a good commercial opportunity, which suburbs are about to increase in value, where they can gain the best return on their resources and efforts.

Should their ability to stand out in their field of excellence and acceptance of the kudos and reward be denied them?

I would suggest. not if you are prepared to recognise and applaud the elite sports person or musician.

“Is it valid to measure fairness and equality by outcomes and if so what outcomes do we need to measure to get a valid sense of how we are travelling?”

No point in measuring ‘fairness’.

There are too many uncontrollable input variables, ranging from genetic inheritance to material circumstances of parents to social customs and practices or some obsessive desire to protect children from the shortcomings of their own parents, to ever achieve “fairness”.

“Equality of outcomes” can only be considered when the quality of effort, commitment, research and focus are also assessed.

A lot of whiners (fractelle springs to mind) go on about the supposed success of others without knowing the degree of effort which those others put into achieving their successes.

So “Equality of outcome”.

Not so long as we are free choose to commit unequal amounts of personal effort and take personal risks.

I think I agree with you Col Rouge.

One of the fallacies of modern politics is that "we are all born equal"
We are not born equal at all. If we reduce it all to the ability of make money, I would consider "being the right person at the right time" as being more appropriate. I really don't think we need, or can expect total equality

Of course everyone would agree that an equal opportunity for everyone would be the goal to aspire to, but even this is reaching for the impossible, because in a free society money will buy more opportunity for some. Generally speaking, ability in any chosen pursuit, will rise to the top, but there is often a notion of luck that comes with it. There are so many examples of well known people, who have benefited from some kind of serendipity while others arguably more talented have not succeeded.

Unfortunately we live in a society of envy and an attitude often prevails that suggests that people who are successful should be reduced to a common denominator, hence the "tall poppy syndrome" that we have to put up with in this country.

The slogan 'equal outcomes' sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? I am keen to read practical examples of what it means in real life so that I can make sense of it.

I suspect, however, 'equal outcomes' is in fact part of the 'we are all victims' campaign. This requires no effort on our part because every problem we face is somebody else's fault and all problems will be fixed by the nanny state.

So what does 'equal outcomes' mean?

Does it mean we all come first in the 100m dash in Year 1?

Does it mean we all receive the same marks at school regardless of aptitude or effort?

Do we all get paid the same regardless of whether we are good at the job or even turn up every day?

I'm personally in the working towards equality of opportunity camp. The points Bronywn raised in the other thread did look to me as if thats what she suggesting as well (is it mostly semantics).

Thinking about the issue I have wondered if outcomes are a useful measure of success when used across large groups. If so we'd also have to have a range of measures as individual ones can be easily impacted by group characteristics. As others have already pointed out differing individuals will have differing abilities, interests and motivations. Two people raised in almost identical situations and given the same opportunities may still make significantly different life decisions.

When we look across groups we'd expect that those differences to average out across a range of measures.

The difficulty comes in valuing different measures against each other. As an example of what I mean women on average earn less than men but live longer than men. Who has the better outcome? Ignoring other factors (choice, spending power, sense of control etc) to simplify the point the answer probably depends on what you value.

On the other hand from what I've seen as a group indiginous people tend to fair worse on most measures than the average for our society. That suggests that for a variety of reasons they are not getting equality of opportunity.

R0bert