Equity vs Equality - an infographic

[the_tortoise]

Many people seem to confuse equity and equality...

And many others believe "equality" is the only true fairness in all situations; While to them "equity" means "unfair special treatment advantage for some and not others".

So I thought I would post this infographic showing how in one (of many) situations, equity is actually more fair than equality...It is from this page:

Equity | Voice of Albertans with Disabilities (VAD)

 

[Judge]

True, they are terms easily misunderstood, apart from different circumstances dictating their meaning.

The first thing that comes to mind is economics. Where "equity" is so commonly connected to shareholders' interest in a publicly owned corporation. A scenario where controlling interest of shareholders can dictate outcomes that the majority of shareholders or corporate officers and directors may vehemently object to. Often involving a hostile takeover of sorts.

Nothing "fair" about that particular form of equity. But it (fairness) "looks good on paper" relative to the legal requirements of any corporate charter.

I'm also reminded of American civil procedure in a formal suit brought to a civil court of law. A process that doesn't depend on being just- or fair. Simply on a premise of which attorneys can sway a civil jury with a majority of votes in favor of a plaintiff or defendant. A matter of skill, cunning and persuasion- not fairness.

As well, the concept of "equality" (or egality) is more of a platitude than anything else. A goal for some, a curse to others. But either way a scenario that isn't likely to even exist in a body politic or specific type of economy. Particularly contrasting an ever-present sense of elitism and hierarchies found in virtually all body politics. As well, the potential for any democracy to experience the "tyranny of a political majority".

Take for instance the French Revolution. One with noble intentions, but one that became "a revolution that devoured its own children". From Louis XVI to Robespierre, to Napoleon.

 

[Dagan]

Oh, yeah. I've talked about this with people for a long time. I've never mentioned it on this forum, though, I don't think. Overall, I feel like fighting for equality is a mythical quest that will never be fulfilled. I can explain....

You have to accept the literal and figurative "ladder" to success to best understand when I claim that equality is a farce. Think of your place on said ladder - your rung, if you will. There are rungs above and below you, and there are people on said rungs. Think of each rung basically as a level of whatever class / wealth system - each rung equals a step in status. Okay. Now, just realize that is how everything in this world works, from just how you perceive yourself socially to how you seriously fit on the spectrum of power and wealth. It just absolutely is that way. It's factual, and there's no questioning it. Next is to understand that you almost always want to do better, have more, etc. meaning that you desire to move UP the ladder...moving up another rung or two or all the way to the top, perhaps. You have to then accept that you will be putting more people beneath you. But...even if you are content to whatever rung / place on the ladder you currently are...if you never desire to move up the ladder...it's a 99% chance that you fear moving DOWN. It's the utmost likelihood that you will do whatever it takes to never move down the ladder because you don't want less / lesser status / fewer options or less wealth, etc. You don't want to lose your status.

All of this proves that practically no one (maybe there are some, but there's not many people at all) seeks equality for everyone across the board. If people truly did want equality, then every single day they'd not prove otherwise trying to gain more and/or doing whatever it takes to have less.

Equity is what people truly want and should fight towards.

 

[the_tortoise]

Yes, the conceptual problems here are many and hard to concisely describe, but it strikes me that one of them is:

Both "equity" and "equality" are fundamentally about quantities and fairly or very straightforward math.

It's fundamentally similar to (might be fair to say "is the same as" -- not certain) the problem you run into with the word "normal"...

"Normal" is also about quantities, a math word, taken from statistics and warped into the huge, association-based, light-years-distance-abstracted multi-headed monstrosity of a social category that is used to describe so many symbolic variables, so many dimensions that to think of every possible definition in every possible context probably exceeds the mental capacity of the most genius abstract thinker on earth.

Equality applied to human beings, or the situations and systems we create -- it's hard to pin down...with few exceptions it ends up being arbitrary and is truly impossible/meaningless because it attempts to describe too many things only by way of conflation and over-simplification of nearly infinite variables -- tries to squish them into one single thing that is supposed to translate into universally equal power birth to death (social status and wealth being types of power).

Equitable/equity is still a sort of ill-fitting numbers word but it acknowledges uneven pieces (or even pieces, but either even or uneven distribution) of a complex whole and the distribution of those pieces even in its most literal original maths/numbers/economics defintion....this makes at least some room for the reality of all the variables involved in power distribution. It is a more closely fitting metaphor for the process of giving everyone a fair chance at similar competitive advantage, similar experience, similar quality of life -- while still acknowledging the undeniable reality of literal inequality across all the variables of human existence for any given individual in any given circumstance.

 

[JDShredds]

I have a complicated relationship with these words, a sort of duality (not fixed on any single view). First of all, having to differentiate in what context we're applying them. Socioeconomic? Cultural? Literal/practical? For a long time I believed the greatest fairness is a meritocracy, which would be equality. In the most commonly used context, equality of opportunity, rights, treatment, etc. We all play by the same rules, and the outcomes are a result of the input.

This thought process concludes: If someone offers more, is better at something, etc they should be rewarded as such. The assumption here is this includes all demographics being treated equally. But if, socioeconomically speaking for an example, one person works 50/hr a week, is morally sound and is exceptional, and the other person doesn't work, commits crimes, and consumes, do we really think "equity" is the answer here? That is how you absolutely ruin an entire society. What incentive is there for anyone to do any good? The goodness of their heart? History tells us we can't count on that.

However, as time passes and I see how people are not created equal, nor are their opportunities ("equality" in the system does not mean "equality" in their ability), that simply will not lead to a fair balance of outcomes. Two people can have the same "opportunity," but the road that led them to who they are today can lead to drastically different outcomes, even when both put in equal efforts, and even their output for that matter. "Equality" is an illusion, not a reality. But so is "equity." They are both false ideals.

Too much gets funneled to the top and bottom. But the problem we face: this is observed in all of nature. The history of living organisms show this same exact pattern. How do we fix what is the nature of things? I truly don't have an answer. But "equity" is a dangerous ideal. It's too utopian and unrealistic for me. However, "equality" is often a term that is favored by people who have benefited from such a system, and they live under the delusion that it's fair.

I do believe in kindness. If someone needs help, and you're able to help them, you should. I believe in the way Christ taught (do not confuse this with the behavior of many Christians, or even other teachings in the bible, as Christ contradicted a lot of it and was far more sympathetic). You don't need to be a Christian to understand what I mean. Help the needy, offer generosity and kindness, offer fairness. If you have wealth, give it. What good are spoils on you alone? When you die what good is it other than having kept it from others? This leads to socialistic ideas, but nobody wants to accept that, most of all a lot of bible-belt conservatives who "claim" to be Christian.

In all reality, life isn't fair. So I do the best I can to make a positive difference in my tiny, humble way. And if anything will help society, it is that. Much more so than arguing over equality and equity.

 

[Judge]

In all reality, life isn't fair.

Indeed. Which also reflect the differences between social/political or economic platitudes and reality.

Regardless of any ideologies whatsoever. Leading for me to assume anyone who vehemently supports of opposes or polarizes such things is likely being duped by one ideology or another.

A dynamic that continues to keep me from "marrying" much of any idea. Instead willing to take them individually and in part if and when they work, and to eschew or modify them when they fail.

Political/economic ideologies have never yielded consistently objective results as being entirely right or wrong. Yet flawed (and often duped) humans continue to hope for such. Tragic for us all.

 

[Dagan]

To want Equity across the board doesn't mean you will ever be given anything at all besides the same options to work for / earn what you're after. To want Equality across the board would be where everyone achieves being handed out everything like a socialist / leftist / communist leadership would do, but there would still be the contradiction of those few elites giving hand outs to the masses relying on them. Equality then continues being a farce. It may also well be the most effective tool for psyops in our entire history.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Equity... at least the definition of it... sounds quite attractive. However, where it has the potential to be destructive of societies is how it can be applied in real life, such as legislation, governmental, and economic systems. There have been too many horrible mistakes made in our history... mostly the forced application of Marxist ideas, Socialism, and Communism. Historically, humans have not been able to eliminate corruption... the oligarchy walking away with all the money and resources... USSR, China, Venezuela, North Korea...just a few recent examples. Furthermore, if someone has worked, put in their time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears to accumulate wealth and property... and then the government says, "Now, you have to give it away to the less fortunate."... or perhaps, "Now, the State will just take it away and it will become property of the State and private ownership of property will be outlawed." All of the people become "comrades"... same clothes, same living conditions, you live, eat, and breathe whatever the State says you will... you are not given "choice". These are all things that these systems have in common. In every case... so far... any resistance is met with a bullet... mass graves... by the millions. This is "equity" gone wrong. Since... so far... there hasn't been a system of equity that has worked on any large scale... people really get their hackles up. Equity works on a small scale... the children in a family, a small business model, etc... but humans have a tendency to really screw things up when it comes to scaling these ideas.

 

[the_tortoise]

For a long time I believed the greatest fairness is a meritocracy, which would be equality

It would only be very very limited equality in terms of what outcome deserves reward...while completely ignoring that people do not actually have equal opportunity or abilities...if you take into account all of reality, meritocracy in isolation does not create equality for anyone, it just reinforces inequality by allowing continuation of the status quo in which those who already have socioeconomic, developmental, health, physical, etc advandatges by pure dumb luck easily get ahead or at least stay just as well off, while those who are profoundly disadvantaged by the same
pure dumn luck, and more often than not despite how hard they work (usually much harder than those who face fewer socioeconomic and purely sociological disadvantages and obstacles alone -- nevermind all the differences in human ability and physical health and capacity that are sometimes natural but often imposed by circumstance, take these last "nevermind" variables set to "disadvantage" away for the sake of argument and just seeing my point -- pretend they are actually equal so they are "controlled for") they just stay where they are -- or fall farther behind. Is it "equality" for someone born very poor, without access to adequate nutrition, education, shelter, safety, transportation, freedom from
disriminatory treatment and othering based on gender/sex or race or class etc and who is an Einstein-type genius with an innovate mind and generous spirit, unfailing work ethic etc will likely never get s chance, never have the means, to do anything with his talents and never develop his skills to the point he could if by chance he had been born with different skills color or into a higher socioeconomic class?

True some people are sociopaths...but they are a minority, and many (not all, I'm not a believer in utopia, but I think it's good and necessary to try to get as close as you can and maintain that proximity as best you can -- doing nothing guarantees failure) of them would never become career criminals (poor or wealthy, either way) if they had better opportunities and way less exposure to trauma and corruption in childhood...monsters are not born, they are made. It is not a coincidence that minorities in any society (visible minorities, those with cognitive and developmental disabilities, mental health disabilities, survivors of extreme abuse and violence in combination with marginalization and inescapable oppression) are consistently over-represented in criminal justic systems -- it's not because being any of the things they naturally are predisposes them to criminal behaviour, it's that hurt and desperate people trained to behave badly are more likely to be shaped in a way that amounts to "badly broken" by their circumstances....

Equity is not a pipe dream, and it's a lot easier to achieve than people think. The will just has to be there. There have been very successful social experiments with minimum income programs in Canada and elsewhere, for example; And affirmative action programs, when sustained, can actually produce positive change and create sustained decreases in discrimination and oppression of minority populations....it just takes a depressingly long time. But "takes a long time" is a far cry from "impossible" and the word "false" is nonsensical in context and doesn't apply...examples of equity in action exist all over the world, even if examples of equality don't ...again both these words are rough METAPHORS being applied to very complex sets of things and aspects of human existence ..
My personal opinion: "excruciatingly difficult and not at all guaranteed to ever happen -- let alone be sustained -- anywhere" -- those words absolutely do apply....

But again, if you don't try, if you prematurely close your mind and refuse to think about something just because it's hard, then you guarantee failure -- and refusal to try is not the same thing as "impossible"...and in democratic human societies, every single person is responsible for their own decisions to try or not try. Not saying one person can change everything (that is actually way more nonsensical than saying "equity is false"), but that demoncracies are inherently collectivist, so each person does have influence, however microscopic it may be...

 

[Dagan]

I've always understood Equity to be about ideas, ideals, options, things that can't be ruled out and just not allowing for taking away your power to have / take the same chance anyone else can. Equality is where I've understood all of the materialistic things to come into play mostly or only.

To be clearer: As I understand it.... Equity is where no one can tell you that you can't do the work to achieve what you're after. Equality is where no one can tell you that you aren't just the same as others, and you'll absolutely have the same material possessions.

 

[Hypnalis]

@the_tortoise

That image is about cooperation, not equality/equity: everyone achieved the same result by allocating resources effectively. Cooperation is about achieving a fair result. The equality/equity discussion is not.

The words under the image tell a different story. They're trying to reverse the usual meanings.

BTW I've seen that image before, though the first time it was 100% about cooperation (which is common on a smaller scale that permits interpersonal negotiation, but doesn't work at scale.

The neutral framing, which is now being attacked, is:
"Equality" means "equal opportunities"
"Equity" means "equal outcomes"

That discussion has run into trouble of late thanks to the WNBA strike and the XX complaints about the Football (Soccer) World Cup. One side of the discussion is trying hard to reframe it, but they won't get far with anyone who believes in merit-based compensation.

Think about it in terms of salaries (which is how the sports discussions always start):
Equity doesn't mean "equal pay for equal work" (an old, completely valid slogan that's been a legal requirement in most Western countries for the last 50 years or so). Equity means equal pay for everyone.

So a teenager flipping burgers at a fast-food chain should be paid as well as the best player in the NBA.
Or maybe not? Economics says not

There's an obvious special case that you mentioned (or maybe it was in the link?) - people who can never contribute sufficiently to work even a minimum-wage job.

There's a discussion to be had about those cases, typically leading to the community as a whole subsidizing their lives. Most people agree with this up to a point.
This isn't exactly neo-Marxist Equity, but they are somewhat adjacent.

There's always a grey area though - no community has infinite resources, so the amount and allocation/distribution of resources has to be managed. This is a never-ending discussion (resources are finite, demand is not), but there are many examples (e.g. almost the entire EU) of a reasonable balance being found.

In case you're wondering, I remember when the slogan "equal pay for equal work" was new, and was worth fighting for. But the the need to fight was over by the 1980s - it had been made a legal obligation in most of the West by then.

And since it tends to come up whenever a topic like this is discussed:
The "Gender Pay Gap" is "Big Lie" (see Wikipedia). A deliberate misuse of statistics to send a false message.
It was certainly a Big Lie by 2000. IMO the turning point was around 1985 (with variation by country of course - earlier in some Western countries, later in others).

 

[JDShredds]

One of the biggest reasons why I think the "equality" (meritocracy) crowd pats themselves on the back (I earned it! I'm self made! pick yourselves up by your bootstraps! yadda yadda) and ignores just how much of it was handed to them.

By the dumb luck of from who and where they were born, their innate strengths and weaknesses, their genetics and health, mental health, cognitive and physical abilities, childhood experiences (supported and built up, or abused and traumatized?), poor/middle class/wealthy, access to education or training, the people they meet, favoritism either for or against them, and the simple luck of the dice with what their efforts reward in their life... even when their output is as good as, if not greater than people who get flooded with the rewards.

The list goes on and on. A meritocracy, and thus "equality," is an illusion made to pander to those who have benefited from it, and it ignores those who simply got the short straw.

With that said, equity has it's dangers too. I don't think the utopian idea of complete equality of outcome (equity) is what we need. This punishes people who are exceptional and completely kills any incentive for advancement, and actually kills the possibilities when the power of exceptional people is equated to non-exceptional people. This would stunt technology, medicine, innovation, science, etc.

However, I DO think there should be checks and balances. A re-routing system to at least enable people to have what they need, and to support them enough to boost them up. "That's socialism!" is an over-simplification. As an American myself, it baffles me how off-their-rocker many Americans have gotten (on both extremes). I don't want to get specifically into politics, because frankly, thats always been toxic and corrupt and it always will be in this country.

There have been experiments (one I'm aware of was in Stockton, California several years ago) where one group of poor people were given monthly funds (similar to "basic income"), and a control group who did not receive the funds. It turns out the funded group didn't "waste the money" or "leech on the system," rather it was the complete opposite: they developed their skills, furthered their education, and/or got better employment. Their quality of life improved, and so did they. Their stress was reduced, they had what they needed, and they weren't on the brink of survival mode every minute of the day.

I don't even want to make it into politics like a lot of people will. I'm simply about what works best for the people. I care about functioning systems, and I care about both the individual who has it really rough as well as the personal who may happen to be exceptional. I think both should be supported. Help boost those struggling, while still allowing advancement from those doing "big things" in the world.

But corruption and abusive power exists, always has, and won't go away. And that is the sad world we live within.