Talk:Equality of outcome

(Rawlsian perspective)

(extra heading... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Is this true, from a Rawlsian perspective?

For example, it is only justified that a doctor make more money than a grocery clerk insofar as if this were not the case, insufficient numbers of people would train to be doctors, resulting in an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care.

A counterexample to "it is only justified" would be that higher earnings are required to entice sufficiently able people to train as doctors, or else the quality of medical care would degrade unacceptably. I don't believe Rawls assumes all people are equally able. As such, I don't think "it is only justified" is, in fact, justifiable.

(random heading 2)

(extra heading... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

I have made some changes,

firstly a welfare state does not produce equality of outcome it just sets a lower level safety net. secondly progressive taxation doesnt produce more "equality" it just slow down the accumulation of wealth but does not prevent it. flat tax system and progressive taxation system both produce the same outcome but at different speeds.

Deus777

(but what is it?)

(extra heading... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

For me, this article fails to define precisely the answer to the question "what is equality of outcome?" and therefore fails to provide sufficient information to make this informative on that matter. It merely states what the concept hopes to provide without considering what this concept actually is. However it does raise some particularly interesting questions...

As I have little knowledge on this topic I do not feel best able to amend the article; however my preferred definition is that "everyone should end up equal regardless of their particular circumstances", which of course contradicts equality of opportunity. -Dan`C 15:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know what "equal" means in this context. Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be self-stated. The same outcomes for everyone no matter what they do. Example: Bill Gates being smart, innovative and hard-working would get the same money, housing, education, food, entertainment, transportation, etc, as a dumb, lazy 'bum'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The preceding entry (17:33) seems right about how the intelligent layperson understands the term. On the other hand, could it be that the concept is a nonsense? I mean, perhaps it has no possible clear definition, without a state adjusting height, strength, and intelligence along with wealth. Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the definition is fairly clear, and that there is general agreement about what equality of outcome is: basically, having equal incomes, stuff, things we value, houses, etc. Controversies result not so much from the definition but issues surrounding the concept: is equality of outcome good? (and good for whom -- for everybody, for particular people, for society in general?). If equality of outcome is good, then how can it be achieved? And are the methods to achieving equality of outcome "good"? Can it be achieved? If it can, then what might be lost? Thinkers across the political spectrum will have radically different takes on this subject. To add to this article, or even edit it, it is probably a good idea to research the topic, and include the views of excellent sources, particularly political philosophers, economists, sharp media thinkers in top newspapers, academics. Almost invariably in Wikipedia, the way to improve an article is by adding more references, more points of view; it is tempting to put our own views in here but they usually get deleted quickly and won't stick around, and can make this article look like a mediocre first draft of a high school paper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If the article is too boring to read, it should be deleted, in my opinion.I therefore first set myself to, and hope I succeeded in, improving the readability of parts of this article in June. It was only later that I started trying to improve the logic, and correspondence with reality. Given that I thought the article was unfairly defending the goal of equal outcomes, it was rather neutral of me to improve the readability, surely? As for Tomwsulcer suggesting some should do more research, surely no research about apples or maths is needed to say that 5 apples times ten is 50 apples and not 51 apples and to edit accordingly? I agree with Tomwsulcer that "Is equality of outcome good?" is the main thing people are arguing about, but I would suggest that that is because they appear to be thinking carelessly. Most people do not appreciate the importance of clear definitions. Competent philosophers, lawyers, and judges tend to, but by and large, politicians and journalists do not. Can Tomwsulcer please link to or paste or write a clear definition of equal opportunities?Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject, such that any attempt to even define, precisely, what equality of outcome means, can be controversial, which again suggests the importance here of sticking to Wikipedia's excellent guidelines, requiring reliable sources, neutrality, etc etc. My suggestion is that people wishing to contribute to this article do so by identifying good sources and bringing their viewpoints in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed a controversial subject, and I suppose you have a point about that making it likely that there is controversy about the definition of the term, since it is to do with human affairs after all, not hard science. And yes, your suggestion to bring in the views of good sources is valid. At a guess, politicians and others will have used various definitions, and even two or more definitions at the same time, succeeding thereby in hoodwinking people. As I stated earlier I suspect there is perhaps no possible definition that makes sense. People are not going to be equally happy, wise, healthy, and good looking without the state reducing the happiness, wisdom, health and handsomeness of those who are above average in those qualities, so complete equality of outcome is an absurd notion, surely. If we say "financial equality of outcome" we are a little better off, but there are still some big problems: is it not equivalent to abolishing personal wealth altogether, together with work as we know it. I mean, if no matter what you do, you end up with the same wealth, then why bother to work, except at your hobbies? Why bother to get trained a doctor or get the grades required to be accepted by a medical school if you get the same wealth if you do an easier and more enjoyable course at university, acting, say, or writing, or music or dance? So it does seem to be a nonsensical idea, at least to me. Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that as far as nonsenseness, there are at least equally as nonsensical concept at the other side of the spectrum, this doesn't mean they don't warrant an article or the research around it, or that I have to be closed toward them because I might not agree. The problem is that probably on the other side of the spectrum might (i'm using the conditional) be more crude and less ideal, and people are more used to dismiss ideals. With this I'm not saying that I agree with the concept of equality of outcome, especially achieved through a cumbersome intervention of the state, that's not the point an I want to take my personal views off the equation. Discussing biase vs biases is not even fun, imho. Equality of outcome is nevertheless a broad concept, granted that even if the means of achieving it was by taking off happiness, wisdom, health etc off those who have more, would be, although aberrant and irrealistic not completely absurd, I don't think those would be the means at all. Reducing happiness of those who have it, wouldn't be a direct action, at most a result, I think, but a not necessary one of a given person, who discovers he/she can't achieve a higher power through his/her ability or behaviour and that maybe the state doesn't warrant or defend the mechanism through which he/she could keep and hold said higher power.

The theory of people autonomously preventing a minority of people from achieving a higher financial or social power simply by not aknowledging it and behaving so the his purchasing power is balanced, judging case by case, people by people, is an anarchist one, not sure if the article contemplate this horizontal path of achieving or promoting equality of outcomes or it simply focuses on the top down approach of state policies and laws pushing toward this political achievement or favouring it. It wouldn't necessarily be about direct action or only about progressive taxation, I think, or like levelling all people forcefully, but maybe about deadening the mechanisms which would bring the social inequality resulting from their higher intelligence (or cleverness, not necessarily intelligence as a broad term results in social victories) primarily, the possibility of using it strategically, say playing with the economical shortcomincs, supply and offer etc. to obtain an advantage over other, not saying this is unfair here, or at least not always, just stating what EoO policies might be about. Of course it was absurd if the way of achieving this would be by magically levelling or modifying the reality, as if it was an assignment operation, no, it probably means pushing or making intervention, laws, etc, toward the possible outcome of equality, reducing inequality, especially as social outcome, not necessarily succeeding on it perfectly, that would be out of reality. Now about stating that people (how many) wouldn't work to achieve this or that if not for social outcome, is a respectable view, that, given all the exceptions that detour from said notion, would make it quite debatable, and in any case it would not render the concept and idea that other stimuli that higher social power or higher purchasing power, etc, might be drive people to accomplish higher studies, putting more effort on it, absurd or devoid of sense, but rather equally debatable, as it happens for opposite spectrum proposition that might appear even more absurd (i said might, cause usually crudeness rarely register as absurd or utopic, even among those who might consider it despicable, but this is a personal view). One might argue that in some case studying and such can be an effort toward doing the job one always dreamed of, and not about the money which would come for it, see volunteers and such. It's not always the case, of course, in many case more money is the drive, but this is just to say that we have both cases :). --Antome (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Straw man?

The article in its current form includes the following:

It is important to note that advocates of equality of outcome most often want to eliminate a very specific kind of difference between people, not all differences in general. For example, one may argue perfectly well for equality of outcome in terms of wealth without advocating equal hair length. The argument that supporters of one kind of equality of outcome must also support all other possible types of equality of outcome is a fallacy known as a straw man.

Does anyone except a few cranks actually use the sort of argument countered here? If so, a citation of a source is in order. If not, then not only it is not "important to note," but also, this passage from the article is a meta-straw-man and should be deleted. Thanks. Doctor Whom 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Absent a source in over a month, I'm taking out that language. Doctor Whom 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Example of the kind of straw man argument discussed in that paragraph: Harrison Bergeron. -- Nikodemos 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still not convinced. Even though that story is a work of fiction and may therefore be expected to exaggerate to make a point, not even the Handicapper General went to the lengths described in this article. Therefore, my request for a citation stands. Doctor Whom 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I concede the point. It appears that equality of outcome nearly always refers to equality of wealth, income, or some other money-related outcome. -- Nikodemos 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(not entirely neutral!)

(extra heading... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

I don't feel like this article is entirely neutral, in that it 1) doesn't directly define "equality of outcome" (as someone else mentioned) and 2) fails to indicate that the value of equality of outcome, and the means for achieving it, are not wholly agreed upon. What do others think?Aemilia 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)aemilia

"Outcomes can usually be measured with a great degree of precision, opportunities cannot" this is, at least, questionable & should be "outcomes allegedly cannot". In any society involving equality under the law opportunity, insofar as it is determined by parental outcome, is significantly modified in a more egalitarian way by legal equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.8.174 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be a politically biased criticism rather than an encyclopedic description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.153.20 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

this article is pointless. it's devoid of sources, and it's obviously just serving as a soapbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.205.116 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic? Boy is that an understatement. You know, it might be helpful, when supposedly presenting the "conservative" viewpoint, to actually present something from an actual conservative, rather than quoting left-analysts and left-wing newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment noted. Yes this article could still use improvement, but it's better than before.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does seem plainly to unfairly defend the goal of equality of outcome, and is not neutral in its point of view. What to do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Matthew Dalton (talk • contribs) 04:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. There are alternative views put forth. If it appears to your eyes that one view dominates, then add referenced content for opposing sides. Editing it to reflect one's own personal biases can be problematic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia to reflect personal biases is unfortunately rampant. It is one of the main problems that Wikipedia suffers from. It's only human to regard one's own opinions as better than than the opposing ones, and the controversial topics in Wikipedia are often (usually?)incredibly biased towards one perspective or another. I used to say that Wikipedia was the "best source of information on the web". I still say that, but now I add, "except for controversial topics".Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "editing Wikipedia to reflect personal biases is ... rampant" but I removed the word "unfortunately", since I think having differing (often biased) views by contributors is a good thing, overall. What happens in practice, as I see it, is that the differing biases counteract each other, and if the guidelines are followed, and if people are civil towards one another, what emerges from many admittedly biased views is an overall view which does a fairly good job of reflecting reality with all its warts. This is a general formula for how humans expand knowledge. So, let me ask you: what is your view about equality of outcome, and how do you see the article's view -- what is the point of contention? My sense is you see the term equality of outcome as nonsensical -- is this right? If this is the case, or whatever your view is, I suggest finding references to support this underrepresented view, and add them, for greater balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

removed

Removed the section: British prime minister Gordon Brown, a British mainstream liberal, took a balanced position and maintained that too much focus on equal outcomes had the effect of neglecting "the importance of rewarding effort and responsibility", and that the equal outcomes ideal was related to an association with social democracy with attendants elements of "conformity and mediocrity rather than the celebration of creativity, diversity and excellence."[28]

As Gordon Brown was not a liberal at all, and thus this quote makes no sense. I've posted it here in case anyone, for whatever reason, wants to re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.63.213 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I initially reverted your removal as "unexplained removal", then I saw your subsequent note here. I have left the content you removed out of the article, without prejudice for whether it should or should not be in. In the future, please use the edit summary to describe your removal or even just say "See Talk". Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed assertion that socialism and USSR support equality of outcome

I have removed the unsourced and false claim that socialism, communism and the Soviet Union advocated equality of outcome. This is easily demonstrable by citing the popular principle "to each according to his contribution" which is taken to be a defining feature of socialism by Marx and other socialist thinkers. Even the ideal of fully developed communism is not based on equality of outcome, but on free-access to articles of consumption based on one's needs. What Marx did believe is that a change in the mode of production would produce a more equal society in terms of workplace relations and access to goods and services as a byproduct; total equality was not a political ideal to be strived for in and of itself.-Battlecry 09:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree somewhat but counsel caution in making major changes here. Socialism, communism, Soviet Union => these are different concepts which we should be careful about lumping together; further, "equality of outcome" and "total equality of outcome" are different, plus there is much disagreement about what each term means. Socialism has multiple senses and there are continuing debates about what the term means, as I assume we might agree about this. Further, there can be a wide gulf between theory -- what Marx proposed, for example -- and the common understanding today -- how writers and thinkers and people in general see such terms as equality of outcome and socialism. That said, what I imagine we perhaps will agree about is that generally socialists see greater material equality as beneficial; while some may not see total equality of wealth as possible, they advocate that society move in this direction, that is, equality of outcome is a general goal of socialism. Further, I think we can agree that there are strong correlations between socialism and equality of outcome in popular parlance, although there is considerable confusion and conflation of terms, suggested by this source, -- in sum, regardless of how Marxist theory strictly defines socialism, that there is consensus in society today that a goal of socialism is generally greater equality of outcomes, and that socialist based societies such as the Soviet Union did have somewhat greater overall equality of wealth (except for party elites which had considerable power and wealth).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that today many people, especially political commentators, associate socialism with equality of outcome; and it is true that "socialism", "Marxism" and the USSR are to be distinguished and has different takes on the idea of equality. It is true that socialists, including Marx, opposed the inequalities of capitalism. But socialism itself as an economic system does not have many if any normative claims, the idea shared by socialists as diverse as anarchists to Marxists is that socialism is based on a principle of compensation proportional to one's contribution to society. Marx and others hypothesized that this would lead to more equal outcomes than capitalism. Communism in Marx's vision, as I understand it, is still not based on equality of outcome but on equal access to the means of production.

What can be said is that modern social democrats and the ideology of "social democracy" is defined as a set of political ideals, of which the desire for greater equality of outcome is central. But this is something very different from the neoclassical economic and Marxian amoral concept of socialism as an economic system. It is true that socialists tend to view greater equality of some kind as beneficial to society, but that view is not the definition of "socialism" the economic system.-Battlecry 01:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would challenge the claim that "equality of outcome" is removed entirely from any kind of socialism. Please see my comments on the subject below (Problems with Marxian references), which draw attention to the variation within socialism, and even within a Marxian framing. - Epl (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

distribution according to one's needs v one's desires

The article currently states, 'In Marxist theory, ... access to goods and services is based on free and open access (often referred to as distribution based on one's needs ... ).' source

One editor explained that distribution based on one's needs really means distribution based on one's desires: 'By "need" Marx referred to subjectively-determined individual preferences ... .' source

One possibility is that such editor is mistaken and that distribution based on one's needs means just that, and not distribution based on one's desires. If so, the article's above quotation (about Marxism being based on one's needs) seems ok.

Another possibility is that such editor might very well be right, that distribution based on one's needs really means distribution based on one's desires. If so, the article's above quotation (about Marxism being based on one's needs) is highly deceptive. If so, is any reader aware of any literature that discloses that basic fact, i.e. that free access means full satisfaction of one's desires, not needs? My web-searches were unable to find any such disclosure. It's hard to believe that all leftist scholars and rightist scholars in history would have been unwilling and unable to serve their self-interest by publishing such disclosure.

Bo99 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems with Marxian references

Currently, we have the following text:

Socialism is based on a principle of distribution whereby individuals receive compensation proportional to the amount of energy and labor they contribute to production ("To each according to his contribution"), which by definition precludes equal outcomes in income distribution.

In fact, socialism generally, and even the formulations given directly by Marx, are varied and nuanced. The following clarification appears in the article covering "to each according to his contribution":

Marx says that this [compensation proportionate to the duration of labor] is rational and necessary, and that once society advances from the early phase of communist society and work becomes life's prime want, distribution will occur differently. During the completed phase of communism, the standard shall be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Thus, equality of outcomes, according to Marx, represents a more evolved stage of socialism, preceded by one in which compensation occurs according to the duration of labor. Even the earlier stage may be considered, according to his view, as more advanced than a capitalist wage system, which allows capital accumulation toward an owning class, and differences in the market valuation of various kinds of labor.

Thus, the current text appears to be problematic on two counts, first, on failing to differentiate the broad historical umbrella of socialism from a strictly Marxian framing, and second, on misrepresenting the Marxian framing as lacking an essential layer of nuance.

Epl (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equality of outcome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307214013/http://www.hullpct.nhs.uk/impact_assessments/ to http://www.hullpct.nhs.uk/impact_assessments/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307214013/http://www.hullpct.nhs.uk/impact_assessments/ to http://www.hullpct.nhs.uk/impact_assessments/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Analyst Glenn Oliver

A couple of links lead to this outside webpage, along with highly disputable quotes such as: 'Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity not outcome' and 'Socialists often believe in both "inequality of opportunity and equality of outcome"'. The page is on the Guardian, but it's not an article, it's a "readers' questions" page. 'Analyst Glenn Oliver' turns out to be the reader who posed the question. It seems reasonable to me to remove these, or at least to request a better citation. If noone objects, I will edit the article to reflect this.Timb1111 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Before removing anything, please find better sources. What I think is important is to try as best we can, to show how different parts of the political spectrum view Equality of outcome. Since there is natural disagreement about this, we should show the disagreements, to give a range of opinions on the subject, rather than simply removing information because it is not perfect. My sense is the Oliver perspective is correct in that it adequately describes prevailing views.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be removed. As it is implying that all conservatives believe this and it's using weasel words with "socialists often belive" which is against wikipedia rules. Xanikk999 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but as a courtesy to readers, please try to find a better source, or clarify as best you can?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Tomsulcer, what do you mean by clarification? Should the text be more in the line of "..there´s a prevailing view among X (links) that socialists often believe in equality of outcome.."?

Yes something along those lines. Basically I think this section as we have it is essentially right in that 'equality of outcome' correlates fairly well with the socialist position, but finding sources who put it in exactly those words can be difficult. I think it would be a disservice to readers to simply eliminate this section based on sources that are not ideal, and if possible try to find better sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is no source other than an a personal opinion on a 'readers question', it would be a disservice to the reader to reflect a political position that isn't held generally by socialists. Pojkrummet (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)