“Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not.”
Only we don't have "equality of opportunity" in America, we have a class system and a faux-meritocracy that only affords opportunity to people who come from wealthy enough parents to buy their kid's way through the gatekeepers of the faux-meritocracy (university admissions offices and the private prep schools before them).
It's like making a statement that isn't real in fact and yet 2/3rds or more of respondents still treat it as such. Might as well say that "equality under the rule of law is a fundamental principle." Yes, it sounds nice and all in principle, but in practice it never holds up. As usual, this country (and Wisconsinites among them) ignores the problems it is pretending don't exist, when in fact, they do. No wonder these problems never get fixed when we like to pretend they don't exist.
It is the narrative, Travis. The anodyne statements that they are looking at here fit neatly into the American Mythological narrative.
Polls are of limited utility in a lot of this stuff. They are good for indicating general preferences, themes.. things like that. This is a phenomenon we see when people are asked about general policy preferences.
Where you run into trouble is when you start putting in concrete details and costs. As soon as you say that we need to increase equality of opportunity and in order to do that it is going to cost $500 billion and, BTW, your kid's legacy spot at Harvard (or whatever) is going away--then people all of a sudden are against it for some reason.
It's easy top be for general stuff that isn't costing you. You measure ACTUAL belief (and dedication to that belief) by what people are willing to pay or sacrifice for... so I would argue that belief/dedication is actually NOT that high. TALK is cheap.
Now, what that MEANS is that you can campaign on that stuff, but trying to actually implement it is going to bite you in the ass. This is one of the reasons why campaign promises generally don't get followed through on or get watered down into effective unrecognizability... or why a politician that was popular in the last election cycle gets voted out when they try and do what they said they were going to do.
Always remember is that there is the NARRATIVE world that people live in, in their heads, and then there is the real world with costs and sacrifices and those irritating other people who don't deserve stuff.
People, for the most part, do not live in objective reality unless they are forced to or it slaps them in the face.
Sorry, I don't see that as the true test of belief, particularly in that case.
Put another way: "Matters of the Government executing people should be up to those who are overcome with emotion." No thanks.
Even beyond that, the questions pre-supposes 100% certainty about guilt. "Would I be for capital punishment if someone butchered my wife and children and I was only 70% certain of who it was?"
"Would I still be for it taking 12 jurors agreeing to convict if someone butchered my wife and children?"
You're misinterpreting what I said, or I wasn't as clear as I hoped to be. Either way, I'll take another crack at this:
A true test of belief: if you were convinced beyond ANY doubt that the convict did indeed butcher your family (you witnessed it yourself; backed up by video, DNA, and fingerprint evidence), would you violate your belief that capital punishment is always wrong by urging the state to execute him?
The key is 100 percent surety in your mind, based on unimpeachable evidence, that you have the real mass murderer in front of you. It's your choice to execute or commute to life. You are a die-hard, staunch opponent of the death penalty, because you believe it is never appropriate due to immorality and the state's getting it wrong for a variety of reasons.
Beliefs aren't for sure until they're tested under the worst possible conditions. So, what do you do in this case? Fry or commute?
Me, I want to abolish capital punishment. It's the only punishment that cannot be reversed or mitigated if the state gets it wrong . . . and states across the nation have provably gotten it wrong enough that the system cannot be made foolproof. I don't know that my logic would hold up to such an emotional assault on my belief if it were my family moldering in their graves, I'd like to think so, but there's no way to know.
We use death as a political tool, and shouldn't. We used to kill people for stealing horses and sheep. We used to hang black kids for admiring white women a moment too long. We used to whip to death runaway slaves. All perfectly legal according to the state. And horribly unjust and immoral according to me.
For my part, like most, I don't know. I have no moral problem with the death penalty for cases of 100% certainty. I do have a problem with it for the inherent uncertainty that does exist as well as the documented cases of where we've gotten it wrong.
I'd like to hope that I could understand and live with no death penalty if the case was personal and I was 100% certain, but who knows for sure. What I do know is that if the law was written the way I'd write it in the sober reasoning of both the anecdotal, statistical, and theoretical examples we have; my opinion in the heat of the moment and the rage of personal experience wouldn't matter.
My moral problem with it is exactly what you suggest: humans are not infallible and even those with the very best intentions will much things up occasionally. Since we cannot guarantee that those convicted of a capital crime actually committed that crime, I'd end capital punishment in favor of life in prison until age 75, then parole so we don't have to provide nursing care in prisons. I believe we should protect ourselves from predators by separating them from polite society, not exterminate them if the chance of killing an innocent is only 1 in a million. Not worth the risk when there's an alternative.
Thank you for putting into words what I was trying to say. It's super easy to say you believe in equality of opportunity, but if all your candidates campaign on the opposite, and the legislation they write supports the opposite, how can I believe you? Principles are nice in, uh, principle. But in reality, the question is, what are you willing to pay for? What are you willing to give up to get it? In principle, we are all strongly opposed to childhood hunger, but we still have childhood hunger.
This. This right here. It’s what I keep repeating over and over again. This is also why the democrats are disadvantaged when running for congress/senate. They want to do things, republicans do not. So even if people agree with the democrats in principle once pen gets put to paper there is a lot to disagree with.
People tend to be risk adverse unless they are young and don't understand or believe that the risk exists (it can't happen to me I am too pretty, cool, skilled).
The older the society, in general, the more risk adverse. The richer the society, the more risk adverse.
Better the bird in the hand, than the two in the bush that you MIGHT catch. Better the evils you know (especially if it is other people suffering the evils) than the potential evil if we do make changes).
Given that it is generally older richer people in charge, policy tends to be conservative (even liberal/progressive policy as legislated is shaped conservatively).
As you point out, the costs of the status quo are invisible to the majority of people, especially people with voices and power.
I did not really grasp the concept of opportunity until I was well into middle age. I learned it from my students, the majority of them immigrants from other countries.
ON IMMIGRATION: “America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
You may only see the immigrants whom you believe fail here. From where I sit, in San Francisco, I see a tremendous amount of success from those who did not have wealthy parents, did not buy their way into a university, but instead, put in the hard work to study, select useful occupations, and cooperate with their families to build mutual wealth. What they also adopt is this:
ON PATRIOTISM: “America is not perfect, but it is good to be patriotic and proud of the country.”
What even is “equality of outcome”? No, seriously, what is it? I don’t believe in it, nor does anyone I know. Is that a purposeful misunderstanding of equality of opportunity, which most people support. To me, equality of opportunity means that you all start at the same starting line as close as possible. Where you end up? That’s up to you.
As Travis says people don’t all have the same start to life. The child of privilege has before her way more opportunity than the child of want. How is that equality of opportunity? Some true conservative is welcome to explain that to me.
It's the equal opportunity to become anyone in life, to reach a higher "station" than what one was born into.
If you think that ONLY those who were born to rich parents can be Congress-people, president or CEOs, you are seriously mistaken. Do those people have a leg up, sure? But is everyone else excluded because they were not born into a high class - no.
The modern left - and you with the "same starting line" talking point - want to ensure that those who were born into privilege get taken down a few notches - or to preferentially select those classes deemed "behind" or "deserving" to be elevated...to start at the "same starting line"...which is completely anathema to the American ideal.
Maybe this should be relegated to talk about taxes (and taxation without representation) and loopholes. Opportunity obvious for those with money. Ditto outcome. Not for others left holding the bag to feed the pigs at the trough.
It may well need to start with everyone in the upper echelons being unable to hide their wealth or pretend they have no income (Bezos, Musk, etc) because of how they name it or hide it or shelter it. A 90% corporate tax rate means nothing when the richest men in the world show zero income for themselves and none for their corps.
Scott, you’re ignoring that America is now one of the most economically stratified of countries. So no, there is not equal opportunity to reach a higher station. Now that’s maybe because of the thumbs on the scales by the wealthy and well-connected (i.e. tax laws) and systemic racism, etc. There is little changing of stations anymore. The fact that you are able to point to only a few says that loud and clear.
Interesting to me that you see more equal opportunity as “privilege get(ting) taken down a few notches.” I’d say it would be the opposite. I seem to recall that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the tide rises for those who have less, then surely that would raise everyone, not push them down. Your point makes no sense.
Indeed, we’re at a wealth inequality level which is the real anathema to the America ideal.
I'll not even hazard that explanation, since I'm not a true conservative (or scotsman).
I will say that "equality of outcome" is a strawman concept that some people like to knock down whenever anything is being done to improve equality of opportunity. It is all frame of reference. Take college. It can be an outcome or an opportunity, depending on which angle you look at it from. If you are trying to get into college, then someone with lower qualifications getting in smacks of equality of outcome. If you are looking at long term life success, it would be more about equality of opportunity. Where people land on this often has a lot to do with the George Carlin maxim of your shit being stuff and other people's stuff being shit.
That's why I like the estate tax so much. It allows Musk, Bezos, et al, all the money they can rake in to create, invest, and play while they're alive. When they're dead and money no longer matters to them, most of it should be forfeit to the America that gave them that license to print money.
Nobody makes money by themselves--all of us contribute in some fashion. (If nobody bought through Amazon, Bezos would have a day job. If American taxpayers didn't fund roadways, Musk couldn't give away his Teslas.) Fine to have the money when you're alive, but when you're dead, you can keep some millions for your heirs but the rest goes back to investing in the society that helped you excel.
Yep. Aristocracy used to be a dirty concept in this country, but from a de facto standpoint we are working to embrace it. It doesn't come with titles, but what's in a name, when the House of Walton, House of Koch, and soon House of Bezos have more inherited wealth and power to compete with the Medicis and Rothschilds of old.
What great boon to society will justify the enormous power over future Americans that Sam Walton's great-grandchildren will have?
Don't forget House of Musk, whose fearful "leader" is consorting with Putin and doubtless other enemies of the free world which made House of Musk wealthy to begin with. How is an unelected billionaire allowed to make public policy and speak for America to our enemies, interfering against Ukraine for instance??????? It may be pitch fork time!
Well, I'm mainly focused on the inheritance angle. That's why I said, "soon House of Bezos"
Not that that means I fully disagree with you, but I think tackling the problem that a smart guy who makes billions has undue influence is going to be harder problem to crack than that his great grandchildren should have wealth and influence.
Well said, Howard B. It's a poll of what we'd like to see as universal American principles, not a Ph.D examination of the meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not to mention that one of the ways you measure equality of opportunity is to measure outcomes. Because if opportunity is truly equal then the outcomes should reflect that.
Not really. Equal opportunity means anyone can compete for a spot on the NBA, that tryouts are not limited to tall black college athletes. Equal outcome means that I, overweight 66 year old white guy with bad back, must be chosen for power forward. Just because the opportunity to do something is there, not everyone is bright, smart, talented, physically able, or lucky enough to do it successfully.
Which is why I write crime novels instead of hitting three-pointers at the buzzer.
I don't disagree, Liberal Cynic. I only used sports as the example because most people can grasp it instantly. Other comparisons take way more real estate to explain.
Problem with defining "equal opportunity" is there are so many variables. Let's say the majority of surgeons in America are male. Why is that? Are women barred from the profession? No. Are women not as smart as men? No. Are women lazier than men? Hell no. Do med schools discriminate against women? No; more than 50 percent of today's med students are female. Does the surgical speciality discourage women from applying? Maybe. But is that discouragement imposed on women by the surgical profession, or self-imposed by women who have competing interests in life such as having and raising children?
Et cetera.
In this example, opportunity is equal in my first four steps: intelligence, ability, willingness to do the work and put in the hours, attending med school. After med school graduation, surgery becomes far more male than female.
I don't think that is what he means. You look at the different outcomes and then work backwards to figure out why that happened. Oftentimes the answer is that they weren't give the same tools (opportunities).
Sports are not really a useful comparison because the outcomes are so measurable and clear.
This is why, as someone mentions below, epidemiology is so useful. We can look at instances where there appears to be a skewed outcome relative to a general population and then ask the question why that is the case.
Is it because of some sort of innate trait or is it because of some sort of addressable advantage, like wealth.
Completely agree with you, Charles. I only used sports as the example because most people grasp the concept instantly.
Let's take my own field, crime fiction. When the population of the nation is 50 percent female, and when the majority of crime novels are purchased by females (they buy for the whole family, not just themselves), why is the bestseller list so male-centric? Why do publishers buy fewer crime manuscripts from women even when some of our best and most successful crime writers are women?
Is it sexism, or men like to hire men, or a belief among publishers that females won't be taken seriously by the audience as crime writers? Why are readers more likely to flock to crime writers with initials as names--R.J. Smith--but wouldn't if they knew R.J. was Roberta? Because they can assume R.J. is a man?
Or would female writers capture the bestseller lists if only publishers would invest the same resources in them as they do male writers?
This is an actual long-term question in my field, and nobody can provide a satisfactory answer. Epidemiology would be useful to find out.
Impossible to know unfortunately. The industry can only count those who get published, not those who write but can't sell the manuscript. My first two manuscripts went unsold, but the next four were published by large publishers and did well. (Then my wife died of cancer and that threw me off my feed. Getting back to it soon, I hope.)
The rough rule of thumb, according to my agent, is that 1 percent of all manuscripts submitted to agents are accepted, and 1 percent of those result in publishing deals.
So, everyone does have equal opportunity in that they can write manuscripts and submit them to agents, publishers, or both. The outcomes are brutal for everybody. But more men than women wind up on the crime bestseller lists, and I'm not sure why that is.
I don't read crime novels, but I do watch crime shows like 'First 48'. I always envision the great crime writers are grizzled homicide investigators who've seen hundreds of homicide investigations from the inside, and are able to riff off of what they've seen, plus weave in realistic procedures, etc.
Homicide departments are (still) mostly men, though it's getting better. It's not a stretch to make this comparison.
NOTE: I'm not saying this is right or good or whatever. I'm offering this theory of why this might be.
"I always envision the great crime writers are grizzled homicide investigators . . ."
Surprisingly, no. While some great crime writers do have a police background, most of them are writers from the start, not veterans of the Murder Police. The best writers know their limitations and seek story advice from the grizzled vets, as well as reading thousands of pages of crime scene information. They never arrested a soul, but they can write up a storm.
In contrast, few of those who go into police work are terrific writers. Creative writing is not a skill set in law enforcement; the "just the facts, ma'am" approach needed to write reports makes it difficult for retired cops to write for a commercial audience. Different skill sets.
Your observation is correct: homicide units are, particularly in big cities, still mostly men. Smaller cities tend to be more of a male-female mix because they can't be that specialized. But I'd love to see far more women in the Murder Police. Women have an eye for detail that many men don't have, listen more patiently, and aren't as threatening to suspects, which makes suspects let down their guard while talking to the "police gal" and they hang themselves.
Bingo. This is a recurring issue in the epidemiology of racial disparities. Any conclusions are only as good as you data, and outcomes data is just more obtainable and reliable. Even if you want to look at "opportunity" the best approach is to start with outcomes and them work backwards from disparate outcomes and see what opportunity disparities occurred. It's not a perfect way to study things, but its the most efficient in terms of finances and resources.
Culture is too wide a bucket in which one could fit just about anything. You could say billionaires have a culture of not spending their own money, for example. Or that poor people have a culture of not buying hardcover books. Are my examples economics or culture, or both? What about education? Do poor areas have a culture of downplaying the importance of education, or do they have crappy schools because of a crappy tax base? I can't imagine how you'd begin to assign some factors as culture and others as non-culture.
Seems more likely it would be starting resources. Having wealthy parents is a pretty damn good indicator that you're going to get all the opportunity you need to succeed.
You can think equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle while still acknowledging there are disparities in opportunity. The equality of outcome principle, however, plays into perceptions of fairness, and, god forbid, socialism (I'm kinda pro-socialism, myself, seeing it as probably the only path to any actual approximation of equalization of opportunity), which politicians on the right will capitalize on.
And the GOP skillfully takes white working class anger about the lack of equality of opportunity in America and turns it towards "the other", rather than the real roots of the problem -- wealth concentration, corporate consolidation, and automation, chiefly among them. I forget who the guest on Charlie's show was recently, but she very correctly pointed out that the US makes as much steel as it did 30 years ago, but with a much smaller workforce.
But it's easier to scapegoat poor non-white, non English speaking people than it is to blame automation, which is immune to any border policy or wall.
Yes, we do, in their many and broad iterations: chem, mech, pharm, elect, struct, civil, comp, auto, and in many industries thus employing: manufacture, farms, finance, "tech" and so on. The problem with MAGA was retrograde thinking and nativism -- truly realizing opportunity will be done using our wits to find technologies we can live with, and accepting all the bright, energetic and ambitious people of the world who can help us find them.
Another problem with a lot of MAGA might be that they know they aren't cut out to be those engineers. They aren't, and when they look deep inside and see the funding for their rural school's science department vs. football team, a little bit of truth filters through for how well their kids are going to compete for those engineering jobs.
It is: Make America Great, AGAIN, not Make America Better Than Ever.
(Harder to say, "MABTE, and much harder to put in the work to make it a reality).
College has been a way to weed out people. They used to have more stringent high school as in Europe. European school has better trade schools that gave excellent reputations as opposed the rip off diploma churning private trade schools here.
“Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not.”
Only we don't have "equality of opportunity" in America, we have a class system and a faux-meritocracy that only affords opportunity to people who come from wealthy enough parents to buy their kid's way through the gatekeepers of the faux-meritocracy (university admissions offices and the private prep schools before them).
It's like making a statement that isn't real in fact and yet 2/3rds or more of respondents still treat it as such. Might as well say that "equality under the rule of law is a fundamental principle." Yes, it sounds nice and all in principle, but in practice it never holds up. As usual, this country (and Wisconsinites among them) ignores the problems it is pretending don't exist, when in fact, they do. No wonder these problems never get fixed when we like to pretend they don't exist.
So true.
Oh, please...
It is the narrative, Travis. The anodyne statements that they are looking at here fit neatly into the American Mythological narrative.
Polls are of limited utility in a lot of this stuff. They are good for indicating general preferences, themes.. things like that. This is a phenomenon we see when people are asked about general policy preferences.
Where you run into trouble is when you start putting in concrete details and costs. As soon as you say that we need to increase equality of opportunity and in order to do that it is going to cost $500 billion and, BTW, your kid's legacy spot at Harvard (or whatever) is going away--then people all of a sudden are against it for some reason.
It's easy top be for general stuff that isn't costing you. You measure ACTUAL belief (and dedication to that belief) by what people are willing to pay or sacrifice for... so I would argue that belief/dedication is actually NOT that high. TALK is cheap.
Now, what that MEANS is that you can campaign on that stuff, but trying to actually implement it is going to bite you in the ass. This is one of the reasons why campaign promises generally don't get followed through on or get watered down into effective unrecognizability... or why a politician that was popular in the last election cycle gets voted out when they try and do what they said they were going to do.
Always remember is that there is the NARRATIVE world that people live in, in their heads, and then there is the real world with costs and sacrifices and those irritating other people who don't deserve stuff.
People, for the most part, do not live in objective reality unless they are forced to or it slaps them in the face.
Very well said. The true test of belief is this: Would I still be against capital punishment if someone butchered my wife and children?
Sorry, I don't see that as the true test of belief, particularly in that case.
Put another way: "Matters of the Government executing people should be up to those who are overcome with emotion." No thanks.
Even beyond that, the questions pre-supposes 100% certainty about guilt. "Would I be for capital punishment if someone butchered my wife and children and I was only 70% certain of who it was?"
"Would I still be for it taking 12 jurors agreeing to convict if someone butchered my wife and children?"
You're misinterpreting what I said, or I wasn't as clear as I hoped to be. Either way, I'll take another crack at this:
A true test of belief: if you were convinced beyond ANY doubt that the convict did indeed butcher your family (you witnessed it yourself; backed up by video, DNA, and fingerprint evidence), would you violate your belief that capital punishment is always wrong by urging the state to execute him?
The key is 100 percent surety in your mind, based on unimpeachable evidence, that you have the real mass murderer in front of you. It's your choice to execute or commute to life. You are a die-hard, staunch opponent of the death penalty, because you believe it is never appropriate due to immorality and the state's getting it wrong for a variety of reasons.
Beliefs aren't for sure until they're tested under the worst possible conditions. So, what do you do in this case? Fry or commute?
Me, I want to abolish capital punishment. It's the only punishment that cannot be reversed or mitigated if the state gets it wrong . . . and states across the nation have provably gotten it wrong enough that the system cannot be made foolproof. I don't know that my logic would hold up to such an emotional assault on my belief if it were my family moldering in their graves, I'd like to think so, but there's no way to know.
We use death as a political tool, and shouldn't. We used to kill people for stealing horses and sheep. We used to hang black kids for admiring white women a moment too long. We used to whip to death runaway slaves. All perfectly legal according to the state. And horribly unjust and immoral according to me.
Thanks for the clarification.
For my part, like most, I don't know. I have no moral problem with the death penalty for cases of 100% certainty. I do have a problem with it for the inherent uncertainty that does exist as well as the documented cases of where we've gotten it wrong.
I'd like to hope that I could understand and live with no death penalty if the case was personal and I was 100% certain, but who knows for sure. What I do know is that if the law was written the way I'd write it in the sober reasoning of both the anecdotal, statistical, and theoretical examples we have; my opinion in the heat of the moment and the rage of personal experience wouldn't matter.
My moral problem with it is exactly what you suggest: humans are not infallible and even those with the very best intentions will much things up occasionally. Since we cannot guarantee that those convicted of a capital crime actually committed that crime, I'd end capital punishment in favor of life in prison until age 75, then parole so we don't have to provide nursing care in prisons. I believe we should protect ourselves from predators by separating them from polite society, not exterminate them if the chance of killing an innocent is only 1 in a million. Not worth the risk when there's an alternative.
Thank you for putting into words what I was trying to say. It's super easy to say you believe in equality of opportunity, but if all your candidates campaign on the opposite, and the legislation they write supports the opposite, how can I believe you? Principles are nice in, uh, principle. But in reality, the question is, what are you willing to pay for? What are you willing to give up to get it? In principle, we are all strongly opposed to childhood hunger, but we still have childhood hunger.
This. This right here. It’s what I keep repeating over and over again. This is also why the democrats are disadvantaged when running for congress/senate. They want to do things, republicans do not. So even if people agree with the democrats in principle once pen gets put to paper there is a lot to disagree with.
Yep. Maintaining the status quo doesn't have a clear cost. Those costs are hidden, but they are very real, and very substantial.
People tend to be risk adverse unless they are young and don't understand or believe that the risk exists (it can't happen to me I am too pretty, cool, skilled).
The older the society, in general, the more risk adverse. The richer the society, the more risk adverse.
Better the bird in the hand, than the two in the bush that you MIGHT catch. Better the evils you know (especially if it is other people suffering the evils) than the potential evil if we do make changes).
Given that it is generally older richer people in charge, policy tends to be conservative (even liberal/progressive policy as legislated is shaped conservatively).
As you point out, the costs of the status quo are invisible to the majority of people, especially people with voices and power.
I did not really grasp the concept of opportunity until I was well into middle age. I learned it from my students, the majority of them immigrants from other countries.
ON IMMIGRATION: “America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.”
You may only see the immigrants whom you believe fail here. From where I sit, in San Francisco, I see a tremendous amount of success from those who did not have wealthy parents, did not buy their way into a university, but instead, put in the hard work to study, select useful occupations, and cooperate with their families to build mutual wealth. What they also adopt is this:
ON PATRIOTISM: “America is not perfect, but it is good to be patriotic and proud of the country.”
What even is “equality of outcome”? No, seriously, what is it? I don’t believe in it, nor does anyone I know. Is that a purposeful misunderstanding of equality of opportunity, which most people support. To me, equality of opportunity means that you all start at the same starting line as close as possible. Where you end up? That’s up to you.
As Travis says people don’t all have the same start to life. The child of privilege has before her way more opportunity than the child of want. How is that equality of opportunity? Some true conservative is welcome to explain that to me.
It's the equal opportunity to become anyone in life, to reach a higher "station" than what one was born into.
If you think that ONLY those who were born to rich parents can be Congress-people, president or CEOs, you are seriously mistaken. Do those people have a leg up, sure? But is everyone else excluded because they were not born into a high class - no.
Example: Barack Obama. Clarence Thomas. Sonia Sotomayor.
The modern left - and you with the "same starting line" talking point - want to ensure that those who were born into privilege get taken down a few notches - or to preferentially select those classes deemed "behind" or "deserving" to be elevated...to start at the "same starting line"...which is completely anathema to the American ideal.
Maybe this should be relegated to talk about taxes (and taxation without representation) and loopholes. Opportunity obvious for those with money. Ditto outcome. Not for others left holding the bag to feed the pigs at the trough.
It may well need to start with everyone in the upper echelons being unable to hide their wealth or pretend they have no income (Bezos, Musk, etc) because of how they name it or hide it or shelter it. A 90% corporate tax rate means nothing when the richest men in the world show zero income for themselves and none for their corps.
Scott, you’re ignoring that America is now one of the most economically stratified of countries. So no, there is not equal opportunity to reach a higher station. Now that’s maybe because of the thumbs on the scales by the wealthy and well-connected (i.e. tax laws) and systemic racism, etc. There is little changing of stations anymore. The fact that you are able to point to only a few says that loud and clear.
Interesting to me that you see more equal opportunity as “privilege get(ting) taken down a few notches.” I’d say it would be the opposite. I seem to recall that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the tide rises for those who have less, then surely that would raise everyone, not push them down. Your point makes no sense.
Indeed, we’re at a wealth inequality level which is the real anathema to the America ideal.
I'll not even hazard that explanation, since I'm not a true conservative (or scotsman).
I will say that "equality of outcome" is a strawman concept that some people like to knock down whenever anything is being done to improve equality of opportunity. It is all frame of reference. Take college. It can be an outcome or an opportunity, depending on which angle you look at it from. If you are trying to get into college, then someone with lower qualifications getting in smacks of equality of outcome. If you are looking at long term life success, it would be more about equality of opportunity. Where people land on this often has a lot to do with the George Carlin maxim of your shit being stuff and other people's stuff being shit.
That's why I like the estate tax so much. It allows Musk, Bezos, et al, all the money they can rake in to create, invest, and play while they're alive. When they're dead and money no longer matters to them, most of it should be forfeit to the America that gave them that license to print money.
Nobody makes money by themselves--all of us contribute in some fashion. (If nobody bought through Amazon, Bezos would have a day job. If American taxpayers didn't fund roadways, Musk couldn't give away his Teslas.) Fine to have the money when you're alive, but when you're dead, you can keep some millions for your heirs but the rest goes back to investing in the society that helped you excel.
Yep. Aristocracy used to be a dirty concept in this country, but from a de facto standpoint we are working to embrace it. It doesn't come with titles, but what's in a name, when the House of Walton, House of Koch, and soon House of Bezos have more inherited wealth and power to compete with the Medicis and Rothschilds of old.
What great boon to society will justify the enormous power over future Americans that Sam Walton's great-grandchildren will have?
Don't forget House of Musk, whose fearful "leader" is consorting with Putin and doubtless other enemies of the free world which made House of Musk wealthy to begin with. How is an unelected billionaire allowed to make public policy and speak for America to our enemies, interfering against Ukraine for instance??????? It may be pitch fork time!
Well, I'm mainly focused on the inheritance angle. That's why I said, "soon House of Bezos"
Not that that means I fully disagree with you, but I think tackling the problem that a smart guy who makes billions has undue influence is going to be harder problem to crack than that his great grandchildren should have wealth and influence.
It's still a principle, which is where you begin. Not sure how you can really object to that in a poll. It was just a freakin poll.
Well said, Howard B. It's a poll of what we'd like to see as universal American principles, not a Ph.D examination of the meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not to mention that one of the ways you measure equality of opportunity is to measure outcomes. Because if opportunity is truly equal then the outcomes should reflect that.
Uh...No.
Uh...yes.
How else do you propose to measure if we have equality of opportunity or not? Just saying it into existence?
Not really. Equal opportunity means anyone can compete for a spot on the NBA, that tryouts are not limited to tall black college athletes. Equal outcome means that I, overweight 66 year old white guy with bad back, must be chosen for power forward. Just because the opportunity to do something is there, not everyone is bright, smart, talented, physically able, or lucky enough to do it successfully.
Which is why I write crime novels instead of hitting three-pointers at the buzzer.
Edge cases don't nullify the fact that if you want to measure opportunity one of the ways to do that is to look at outcomes.
Don't be ridiculous.
OVER half of college students are female. They have the same "opportunity" to study STEM, yet those are male dominated fields.
But yeah...It's all about "opportunity" and not outcomes to you.
Female representation in STEM fields is trending upwards. That indicates the opportunities for women are getting better.
Braying about STEM still being dominated by males is a distraction. The trend for females entering STEM jobs is going in the right direction.
Last I knew - checks calendar - it’s not 1949. And - checks law books - it’s illegal to discriminate.
So what’s the point again?
I don't disagree, Liberal Cynic. I only used sports as the example because most people can grasp it instantly. Other comparisons take way more real estate to explain.
Problem with defining "equal opportunity" is there are so many variables. Let's say the majority of surgeons in America are male. Why is that? Are women barred from the profession? No. Are women not as smart as men? No. Are women lazier than men? Hell no. Do med schools discriminate against women? No; more than 50 percent of today's med students are female. Does the surgical speciality discourage women from applying? Maybe. But is that discouragement imposed on women by the surgical profession, or self-imposed by women who have competing interests in life such as having and raising children?
Et cetera.
In this example, opportunity is equal in my first four steps: intelligence, ability, willingness to do the work and put in the hours, attending med school. After med school graduation, surgery becomes far more male than female.
So how do you tie outcome to opportunity?
I don't think that is what he means. You look at the different outcomes and then work backwards to figure out why that happened. Oftentimes the answer is that they weren't give the same tools (opportunities).
Sports are not really a useful comparison because the outcomes are so measurable and clear.
This is why, as someone mentions below, epidemiology is so useful. We can look at instances where there appears to be a skewed outcome relative to a general population and then ask the question why that is the case.
Is it because of some sort of innate trait or is it because of some sort of addressable advantage, like wealth.
Completely agree with you, Charles. I only used sports as the example because most people grasp the concept instantly.
Let's take my own field, crime fiction. When the population of the nation is 50 percent female, and when the majority of crime novels are purchased by females (they buy for the whole family, not just themselves), why is the bestseller list so male-centric? Why do publishers buy fewer crime manuscripts from women even when some of our best and most successful crime writers are women?
Is it sexism, or men like to hire men, or a belief among publishers that females won't be taken seriously by the audience as crime writers? Why are readers more likely to flock to crime writers with initials as names--R.J. Smith--but wouldn't if they knew R.J. was Roberta? Because they can assume R.J. is a man?
Or would female writers capture the bestseller lists if only publishers would invest the same resources in them as they do male writers?
This is an actual long-term question in my field, and nobody can provide a satisfactory answer. Epidemiology would be useful to find out.
Are the majority of crime fiction writers men? Or are there just as many women who write crime fiction but are not published?
Impossible to know unfortunately. The industry can only count those who get published, not those who write but can't sell the manuscript. My first two manuscripts went unsold, but the next four were published by large publishers and did well. (Then my wife died of cancer and that threw me off my feed. Getting back to it soon, I hope.)
The rough rule of thumb, according to my agent, is that 1 percent of all manuscripts submitted to agents are accepted, and 1 percent of those result in publishing deals.
So, everyone does have equal opportunity in that they can write manuscripts and submit them to agents, publishers, or both. The outcomes are brutal for everybody. But more men than women wind up on the crime bestseller lists, and I'm not sure why that is.
I don't read crime novels, but I do watch crime shows like 'First 48'. I always envision the great crime writers are grizzled homicide investigators who've seen hundreds of homicide investigations from the inside, and are able to riff off of what they've seen, plus weave in realistic procedures, etc.
Homicide departments are (still) mostly men, though it's getting better. It's not a stretch to make this comparison.
NOTE: I'm not saying this is right or good or whatever. I'm offering this theory of why this might be.
"I always envision the great crime writers are grizzled homicide investigators . . ."
Surprisingly, no. While some great crime writers do have a police background, most of them are writers from the start, not veterans of the Murder Police. The best writers know their limitations and seek story advice from the grizzled vets, as well as reading thousands of pages of crime scene information. They never arrested a soul, but they can write up a storm.
In contrast, few of those who go into police work are terrific writers. Creative writing is not a skill set in law enforcement; the "just the facts, ma'am" approach needed to write reports makes it difficult for retired cops to write for a commercial audience. Different skill sets.
Your observation is correct: homicide units are, particularly in big cities, still mostly men. Smaller cities tend to be more of a male-female mix because they can't be that specialized. But I'd love to see far more women in the Murder Police. Women have an eye for detail that many men don't have, listen more patiently, and aren't as threatening to suspects, which makes suspects let down their guard while talking to the "police gal" and they hang themselves.
Yes, this is the question. But we should be interrogating the question instead of just saying "well that's just the way it is".
Bingo. This is a recurring issue in the epidemiology of racial disparities. Any conclusions are only as good as you data, and outcomes data is just more obtainable and reliable. Even if you want to look at "opportunity" the best approach is to start with outcomes and them work backwards from disparate outcomes and see what opportunity disparities occurred. It's not a perfect way to study things, but its the most efficient in terms of finances and resources.
Uh, no. Culture is the strongest determination of outcomes, not opportunity.
Culture is too wide a bucket in which one could fit just about anything. You could say billionaires have a culture of not spending their own money, for example. Or that poor people have a culture of not buying hardcover books. Are my examples economics or culture, or both? What about education? Do poor areas have a culture of downplaying the importance of education, or do they have crappy schools because of a crappy tax base? I can't imagine how you'd begin to assign some factors as culture and others as non-culture.
And which culture would that be the leads to, say, lower wealth for black families?
Seems more likely it would be starting resources. Having wealthy parents is a pretty damn good indicator that you're going to get all the opportunity you need to succeed.
You can think equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle while still acknowledging there are disparities in opportunity. The equality of outcome principle, however, plays into perceptions of fairness, and, god forbid, socialism (I'm kinda pro-socialism, myself, seeing it as probably the only path to any actual approximation of equalization of opportunity), which politicians on the right will capitalize on.
"Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos." - Walter Sobchek.
And the GOP skillfully takes white working class anger about the lack of equality of opportunity in America and turns it towards "the other", rather than the real roots of the problem -- wealth concentration, corporate consolidation, and automation, chiefly among them. I forget who the guest on Charlie's show was recently, but she very correctly pointed out that the US makes as much steel as it did 30 years ago, but with a much smaller workforce.
But it's easier to scapegoat poor non-white, non English speaking people than it is to blame automation, which is immune to any border policy or wall.
You seem to overlook all the engineers who make automation possible. See my comment above on students selecting useful careers.
But do we need as many engineers as we did factory workers in a steel plant in say, the 1950s?
Yes, we do, in their many and broad iterations: chem, mech, pharm, elect, struct, civil, comp, auto, and in many industries thus employing: manufacture, farms, finance, "tech" and so on. The problem with MAGA was retrograde thinking and nativism -- truly realizing opportunity will be done using our wits to find technologies we can live with, and accepting all the bright, energetic and ambitious people of the world who can help us find them.
Another problem with a lot of MAGA might be that they know they aren't cut out to be those engineers. They aren't, and when they look deep inside and see the funding for their rural school's science department vs. football team, a little bit of truth filters through for how well their kids are going to compete for those engineering jobs.
It is: Make America Great, AGAIN, not Make America Better Than Ever.
(Harder to say, "MABTE, and much harder to put in the work to make it a reality).
College has been a way to weed out people. They used to have more stringent high school as in Europe. European school has better trade schools that gave excellent reputations as opposed the rip off diploma churning private trade schools here.
Not just automation. There was also a tremendous amount of off-shoring of industrial jobs to China and southeast Asia as well.