Robert “equality of opportunity camp”

That is an input measure, not output orientated.

And contemporary wisdom suggests the best overall “return” is found by focusing on the best equipped to benefit, not the least likely to succeed (in whatever arena of human endeavour you care to name).

“if outcomes are a useful measure of success”

You need to define “success”

Doubtless the vast majority would measure ‘success’ only the financial / material, as they struggle through the mud and grime at the lowest level of Maslow’s stepped hierarchies.

The more spiritual folk, oblivious to the material world and finding “success” as a warm feeling existing solely between their ears.

Fellas’ like me measure “success” as something associated with a sense of personal autonomy and results which reflect that autonomy, like developing what I think is right and testing it in the market place, the reward being a mix of the material and the more spiritual.

“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?”

That encompasses the issue, do you measure on the quantative or qualitative scale?

Personally, I would select the qualitative over quantative any day but agree with the dilemma you hypothesise.

“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.”

That might be so but it might just be that the equality of opportunity and (possibly) disproportionate support represents a waste of effort in the deployment of limited resources.

The quick-fix: limit the rights of the able until the less able caught up.

But such an arbitrary solution would encourage the mass migration of the able and thus, greater disadvantage for those who were left.

Time for a Margaret quote

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

I'm leaning toward neither, heavily so in some cases.

Dear Robert,

An interesting thread.

As Ian Robertson in his book, 'Sociology,' points out, "Equality of opportunity cannot ensure social and economic equality, because people are differently equipped to take advantage of opportunites. It is like giving everyone an equal chance to run in a footrace, even though some are lame or have never trained for an athletic event. The
'equal' chance merely ensures that those who are already better equipped are able to maintain their advantage... a fairer conception of equality would involve equality of social and economic results, which would require a major redistribution of the nation's wealth. But this is not a conception to which, as a people,...we have much inclination...we prefer to see life as a race won by the 'fittest.' "

I feel that on the whole those statements are pretty accurate. Our society tends to reward those with unique talents and capabilities.
We talk about a 'fair go' for all - forgetting that people grow up to be unequal in skills, talents, determination, perseverance, thrift, and so on. 'One size does not fit all.' And it's these differences
that determine our social position in society, and our access to economic success.

Now this is an interesting thread!

ColRouge made me smile,
<'And contemporary wisdom suggests the best overall “return” is found by focusing on the best equipped to benefit, not the least likely to succeed'> Isn't that what the communists did? Think athletes and olympics for instance. I thought you hated the commies. The rest, the masses were condemned to mediocrity.

Tell us, how do you determine that somebody is least likely to succeed at anything. At which point do you 'pull the plug'? And how do we get our money back when lots of focus has been expended and we don't get a 'return' after all?

Love the Maggie quote. But that does only refer to those who buy their investment houses in the right suburb and make the right business deal right? Not the gifted musician, for instance, who can barely make ends meet, let alone 'plan' for a self funded retirement.

That is the problem. A successful life is correctly seen as one where there is 'personal autonomy' as ColRouge points out. But, increasingly larger amounts of money are required to live an autonomous life. It is all about earning power.

We put a much higher value on some kinds of work, which is right for a variety of reasons, others less so. Some work and effort do not warrant the same income. And there is work, ability and talent that is financially very poorly rewarded, but which is vital for a vibrant, stimulating and interesting society.

When we speak of equality of outcome or opportunity what we are really wondering is whether only some are entitled to being personally autonomous, that is, have the financial wherewithal to live a decent independent life; and are there others who deserve to be poor?

No.

So, it a case of both.

Equality of outcome: each person is valued and is entitled to a decent life with security in housing, health and education. Therefore, not all will be treated equal.

Equality of opportunity: each person is supported to develop to their best ability. Personal talent counts.

Let me surmise what I think.

1. Equality of opportunity is prerequisite to reducing inequality of outcomes.
2. Equality of opportunity does not and cannot necessarily guarantee equality of outcomes.
3. True equality of outcome equates to all competing participants coming equal first.

Predetermined outcomes rob us of incentive to compete. Motivation is necessarily (eventually?) replaced by enforcement (why else would one participate?).

The best we can hope for is to narrow the possible range of outcomes. The more we do so however, the less efficient we can be as whole (I agree with Col). The costs can easily outweigh the benefits.

Interesting thread. Quite probably the most important single issue that faces mankind, I think. All others flow from this very debate in one way or another.

I'd put it to you that Col and yvonne are both right, but I'd qualify certain things.

Fundamentally, I agree with Col. I think that unfortunately, without a personal reward to the individual for their efforts, society cannot function. Altruism and collectivist attitudes are laudable and can be harnessed for great things, but never relied upon as the entire basis for a society. Nor can something so vast as a society be micromanaged, as those doing the managing will never do so in a manner that is suitable for all, or even I suspect, most.

That being said, I think most of yvonne's points were accurate, though perhaps these stem from the lack of opportunity, and in many cases they are aberrations which have been allowed to occur due to influence wielded through things such as cartels or monopolies, or simply entrenched professions. Take lawyers for instance - I tend to think an entrenched profession extorts more than market value for their services under the guise that it's required for complexity instead of manufactured profession-based jargon, but that's one example. My point is, it's a flaw in the reward based system of professions.
Though correcting these flaws is tough as it's the aforementioned micro-management. Quite the quandary.

I'd add an additional third qualifier - a basic, fundamental, liveable support net, which applies for even those who are simply too lazy to work. It's regrettable, but I don't think we'll ever be able to create an efficient assessment system for welfare, but I'd never condone a society where we let people die or suffer to a significant degree.

That being said, if they're too lazy for work, they need an incentive, so I'm suggesting the chronically unemployable have enough to live sufficiently but not comfortably. (Those genuinely unable to work for reasons such as disability are a different issue. As I said, welfare is difficult to assess, though I guess we need to make attempts).