There was a rather heated discussion at work today about what equality means with respect to citizens of a nation. To me, the meaning was evident, but one other person’s view really threw me for a loop. I understood what he was saying, and while there was logic, it just seemed to me that he defined the word wrong.
Before I share my view and that of the other guy, I’d like to see what others say. If a government’s motto, seal, anthem, or mission statement includes “equality” what does that mean to you?
Approximately equal access to legal remedy, equal ability to exercise recognized rights. Obviously, real life interferes with perfect execution of this, but it should be the intention. That doesn’t mean everybody is always the same, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that equality obviates personal ability or effort.
That. And also, to the maximum extent reasonably practicable, it means equality of opportunity: that ideally, everybody should enter adult life with more or less the same chance to make something of themselves and live a productive life.
Realistically, there are some pretty steep barriers to that sort of equality, which is why the ‘maximum extent reasonably practicable’ language. But we have public schools, and we used to have much more heavily subsidized public colleges and universities, because we at least give lip service, as a society, to believing in that sort of equality.
Equality, first and foremost, is the universal right to enjoy at least an acceptable standard of life without regards to one’s socio-economic background. No one may be permitted to go without the education, food, housing, and medical care that they need and deserve based solely on the fact that they were not born into a prosperous lineage. Entrenched class systems are inherently unequal.
This. Anything else is a chimerical absurdity.
We can guarantee (or at least, attempt to guarantee) equality of opportunity. Attempting to guarantee equality of outcome is, however, jabberwockian. People are not equal. Never were, never will be.
My thoughts were that equality meant equal rights, equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, equal treatment under the law - pretty much that we will not be denied the ability to pursue the life that we want, *not *that we’re guaranteed an equal outcome.
My coworker interpreted the word to mean everyone is entitled to what everyone else is entitled to. So if I earn $100 per hour, you should earn $100 per hour, too. If I am accepted into XYZ University, equality demands that you be accepted, too, and so on. As a result, he maintained that liberty and equality cannot coexist because if the government says that we are all equal, we must sacrifice our liberties to ensure that everyone is identically equal. Therefore, he was against equality.
I had never heard anyone define equality that way, which is why I asked the question. I was wondering if this is a widely accepted definition that I’d never heard of or if he’s some kind of whack-job. Apparently he views equality as a mindset of “Everyone is special so everyone gets a ribbon/trophy/prize.” Does this reflect a particular philosophy that I’ve not encountered?
Equal rights and equal treatment under the law are the same things to me, but if you want to make the distinction then I agree…both are what equality means and should entail. The trouble with ‘equal opportunities’ is that it’s unrealistic. Bill Gates kids are going to have opportunities that my kids will never enjoy, just as my kids have opportunities that many of my cousins still living back in the old neighborhood will never have. That’s just the nature of reality IMHO and there isn’t much you can do about it. As long as some people are more prosperous than others you are going to have some people and their kids having more opportunities than others pretty much by definition. As for ‘equal pay for equal work’, that’s fine in theory, but realistically everyone negotiates their own compensation for their labor…so you have to decide, individually, what your labor is worth. If you make more than I do but we do the same job, then it’s up to me to decide if my labor is worth more and I should take it somewhere else. It’s not up to the government or a company to make sure I bargain the same as you do for our labor. I’m always free to take my labor elsewhere if I feel I’m not being compensated enough or I’m being discriminated against.
It could be taken as lack of favor, in practice it would translate to lack of compassion and lack of humanity. For equality you would seem to have rules that are ‘one size fits all’ without regard to personal hardship or circumstances.
So you don’t see a problem with a boss saying “File clerks will be paid $8 per hour, unless they’re left-handed, then they just get $7.50” or maybe “Engineers start at $55K, but women engineers start at $50K” - that’s what I mean by equal pay for equal work. Once on the job, your pay should reflect your value to the company based upon your performance and your productivity. Two applicants or employees with comparable education, experience, ability, and output doing the same job should be paid the same.
No, I don’t see a real problem with that. Basically, if I thought it was silly or ridiculous I’d take my labor to a saner company. If a company acts unfairly then by all means, get the word out. You have more ability to do that than ever before in history, after all. And take your labor to some place where you can get what you feel is a fair and just compensation for it.
This isn’t just for the rich or the elite. My cousin works as a check out clerk at a local store. He used to work for a different store and was always complaining that his hours sucked. I told him ‘Why work for that store if they give you shitty hours? Why not apply to a different store?’. His answer was ‘well, they are all the same’. He told me this for years. Finally, I got sick of it, so I made him put together a resume and put in applications at a bunch of other stores. Lo…NOT all stores are the same. They don’t all have the same benefits, they don’t all have the same pay and curiously enough, they don’t all have the same weird hours. Now he’s working at a different store (and complaining about different things) for more money and with less weird hours.
Personally, I think he’d be better off taking his labor and joining the Navy (or one of the other services), but he isn’t motivated to do more than work as a check out clerk (and, admittedly, he’s actually a pretty good check out clerk…well liked by his co-workers and hard working, shows up on time etc etc).
I believe that labor is a resource like anything else, and people should take greater care in selling their labor for the best possible price…not be handed what is supposedly the best possible price in a one size fits all fashion. That goes for the local 7-11 stock boy and for a corporate CEO…and everything in between. It’s YOUR responsibility, IMHO, to ensure you are getting the best price for your labor that you can. If companies are deliberately short changing you based on the color of your skin or your sex then shun them…and make sure everyone knows what they are doing. And take your labor somewhere that doesn’t do dippy shit like that.
This was actually my first thought when he explained his position. He’s pretty right-wing, so I don’t think so. I do have to wonder if he thinks he’s lost a position or promotion due to affirmative action. I don’t know him that well to say for sure, but it did seem that he thinks equality=EEO laws.
I disagree. Each applicant should negotiate for the best price for their labor they can get. It’s up to the individual to ensure they get what they feel their labor is worth, not the company to impose some sort of artificial fairness on things. For one thing, it’s hard to judge if in fact two people have exactly the same education, ability (that alone is HIGHLY variable and the application of ability to job imposes even more variables), and output (again, highly variable)…plus there is a whole host of other things that effect perception of doing the job right and well. In the end, if you think it’s unfair, or you think that someone is making as much or more than you but doing the same job, you are always free to take your labor somewhere else, or try and renegotiate with your company for more compensation.
It is very definitely not true that you’re always free to take your labor elsewhere. Even a moment’s reflection shows that that can’t be true. That’s how discrimination works. That’s what it is. I imagine that in order to believe the above is really true, you’d have to think that we live in some kind of post-bigotry world.
It ignores a pretty dramatic list of historical lessons to believe that someone who is being discriminated against (who must almost by definition be a minority) can always trust in the “free market” to right inequalities. If people didn’t want to discriminate, they already wouldn’t be doing it. But they do. Why would they stop just because you demanded it, if they had the popular will on their side (and they usually do)?
We’re not talking about history. Historically the most I could look forward too would be picking lettuce or possibly apples or oranges if I were REALLY ambitious. My options have broadened these days, however. What’s preventing you from taking your labor some place else TODAY?