Jump to content
  • Welcome to DOSBODS


    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!


Why the aim for Equality of Outcome is a Poison

Recommended Posts

I sketched this in another thread but it's a much wider issue so it's a new topic to discuss.  I am here talking about equality of outcome.  I would go along with reasonable equality of opportunity but that is something different.  I am happy, for extreme example, that there is nothing to stop me or anyone else from being a world class crocheter.   


Firstly equality sounds good.  It's a nice word to use in rhetoric.  Not liking equality would be like kicking a puppy.

Yet replace "equality" with "freedom" and it sounds equally good.

The two are however incompatible.  For multiple reasons (physical, intelligence in its many forms, upbringing, ancestors) there is zero natural equality.  If I stand next to anybody we will be different heights, have different fitness levels, different IQs et cetera.

These natural differences feed through into outcomes some obvious, very tall people playing basketball, and some not so obvious, in the field of academic archaeology for instance certain unusual surnames kept cropping up but with zero current familial connection; there was clearly something in their DNA that inclined them to study ancient things.

If you put any two people together then one of them, and not the same one, will be better suited than the other to a particular task, career, puzzle. 

And this is where equality and freedom come into conflict.

If you allow people freedom, with equality of opportunity, then certain people will be attracted to and do better in fields for which they have an aptitude leading to a preponderence of such people in those fields.

Girls will want to work with children more than boys will; boys will more want to be and do better as soldiers than girls.  The result being that 95% of nursery workers are women and 95% of soldiers are men.

Equality of outcome would demand that 50% of nursery workers are men and 50% of soldiers are women. 

It's an equal outcome; but it's a rubbish outcome in terms of having infants well looked after or winning wars because you are replacing people with an aptitude for a profession with people without that aptitude.


Or you could replace the army in this example with the police force.  This is an equal outcome; but is it really a desirable one?



There is also equality of economic outcome which, along with the physical presence of men / women / races / religion being proportionate, is another bad outcome.

Everybody is paid the same.  How very equal and lovely.

Yet in getting that you have just stifled freedom.  The freedom to work hard and do well as a a consequence.

If you don't have the freedom to do well because of equality of economic outcome then you aren't going to work hard.

Nobody is going to work hard.  And then they will spend half their day queueing for bread rather than working because the baker isn't working hard either.  So everyone does less work.



Equality of outcome is neither nice nor desirable.  It is is toxic.

And measures which attempt to edge the country to this, such as every company publishing their "gender pay gap" is equally toxic because it engenders the idea that equal pay for everybody, a company with zero gender pay gap, is somehow a good thing.  And following the gender pay gap publication requirement you will have race and religion; although that does open up the possibility of snagging a big pay rise by becoming a Buddhist.


Probably already TL; DR but I think I've proven my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we all get paid the same, then their is no point working harder or longer.

Equality of outcome will destroy the incentive to work hard at anything,

We will all be equal - equally poor;  poverty will disappear due to the way it is defined as a % of average earnings.

As the soviet people used to say, they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also 'smart preference'.

I'm pretty sure that girls don't go into science/engineering because they have worked out that it is really rather hard work and isn't paid all that well.  It is the stupid borderline autistic males that go into science/engineering and then put long hours into it because it is 'interesting'.  If that's the case it would be counterproductive to 'encourage' females into that space (and, if they do get pushed into that area, you'd find that they'd migrate to 'easier' roles -- which is what you actually see -- far more female science graduates end up in management roles, as the 'science communicator', etc).  

Similarly, poor males on estates might go into gangland drug jobs because it really is rather good 'pay', with a bit of risk (= excitement when you're 21).  Sure, I might not want them to do it, but it might be a 'sensibly judged decision' on their part.

[It is actually racist and sexist to suggest otherwise (ie, females are too timid to push themselves; BAME are easily suckered into gangs) -- but we're not allowed to have that sort of talk]



Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...