
People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality - minapurna
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-dont-actually-want-equality/411784/?single_page=true
======
mmanfrin
I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are
talking about equality of _access_ , not equality of 'things'. The Great
American Dream is about someone seizing an opportunity; equality means we all
have an opportunity to seize an opportunity. Economic Inequality means there
is a disproportionate number of opportunities at the top, and very few at the
bottom.

Not everyone takes those chances, but we want to make sure those who do have
the shots to gamble the take, so that there is a churn that allows the cream
to rise to the top.

That, to me, is the meaning of the message of equality, and I suspect it's
what people like Sanders are talking about.

~~~
some-guy
When I think of inequality and opportunity in the US, I think about the
education system. Sadly, the quality of K-12 education in the United States is
too strongly tied to economic output / wealth / income of a region, which
seems regressive to me.

~~~
secstate
Having worked as an education beat reporter in a number of really small,
really wealth-divided communities for many years, I can tell you that state
education is unlikely to ever be the solution to the wealth gap.

Honestly, from my time in the trenches of listening to trite, small, yet
passionate people discussing some of the harder parts of educating children
(i.e. hard to educate when they're coming to school having eaten 3000+
calories from horribly un-nutritious sources), I've learned that there's no
easy solution.

You can't bus those kids out of the low-tax neighborhoods into good schools if
they're still going home to a shit environment. The best you can do is stand
up and try to mentor one or two kids in your neighborhood in small ways, and
encourage others to do the same. Distributed cultural-standard building.
That's the best I've got.

~~~
mc32
But that has a strong cultural component. So we're implicitly talking about
changing 'poor people in the us culture'. I say "in the US" because I have
been to other countries where even poor people put all their extra (over
sustenance) resources into educating their children. Yes, it happens a tiny
bit in the US, but not as much as in other places.

------
rayiner
> A world in which everyone suffered from horrible poverty would be a
> perfectly equal one, he says, but few would prefer that to the world in
> which we now live. Therefore, “equality” can’t be what we really value.

Frighteningly fallacious logic. I want a house with a pool. But I don't want
one a 2-hour commute from work even if it has a pool. Does that mean I don't
value the pool?

Stuck through it for shits and giggles, but the article doesn't really get
better from there.

~~~
bweitzman
It does mean that the pool isn't the thing you value most though, since you
value your commute more than the pool.

~~~
rayiner
It depends on the shape of your preference curves. If you're a 1.5 hour
commute from work, your highest value change might be a shorter commute. But
if you're a 20 minute commute from work, your highest value change might be a
pool.

Similarly, if you live in a rich society, you might prefer a more equal
society to one that's somewhat more wealthy on average. But if you live in a
poor society, you might prefer one that's wealthier even if it has more
inequality. For example, the U.S. has 25-35% higher PPP GDP per capita than
Germany and France. However, the ratio between the income of the top 10% and
the bottom 10% is twice as wide in the U.S. as in those countries. I imagine a
lot of Germans and French are okay with that state of affairs.

~~~
bweitzman
Yeah I agree, I think the issue is that "really value" is ambiguous and
implies that there's only one thing which we can optimize for at a time. I
don't think that's true, but I don't think it's a logical fallacy either, just
a bad assumption.

------
Randgalt
The article never defines what fairness is. Another word for fairness is
"justice". The article betrays its bias when it analyzes how income is
"distributed". Of course, income isn't distributed - it's earned. If person A
earns 100x person B then of course it's just. However, if income were indeed
distributed, all things being equal, unequal distribution would not be just.
So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard work and diligence or that it is
distributed by some kind of greater power?

~~~
rayiner
"Distribution" is a neutral term that refers to how quantities are spread out
in a population. E.g. you can talk about age, weight, or height distribution
in a population.

~~~
Randgalt
Age, height, even weight (for the most part) are qualities of humans that
cannot be controlled. Wealth is qualitatively different than these attributes.

Edit: no one would ever talk about the distribution of "ability at basketball"
for example.

~~~
HelloMcFly
I think your point is more pedantry than substance. Yes, wealth is
qualitatively different, but referring to it as distributed across a
population is still intuitively clear and does not read as an abnormal use of
the word.

> So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard work and diligence or that it is
> distributed by some kind of greater power?

I don't believe either thing absolutely. I believe wealth can be earned by
hard work and diligence, but that those things are neither necessary nor
sufficient. I believe wealth is often distributed by a greater power in effect
if not in literal practice through things like regressive taxation and
_systematic_ difference in access quality education that have a disparate (and
in my opinion, inequitable) impact on those of lesser means.

------
saulrh
Even "Fairness" isn't quite as useful a metric - where do you draw the line
between things that should be eliminated as being unfair and things that are
valuable culture and individuality? Parental intelligence is strongly causally
coupled with their children's future intelligence simply through their working
vocabulary and talkativeness, which is clearly unfair from the perspective of
the newborn child; how do you fix this unfairness without invasive changes to
home life starting from the minute the family goes home from the hospital?

And, of course, this entire thing is a symptom of fixed-pie mentality. When
inequality exists - when some people have bigger slices of pie than others -
people seem to be reliably made happier by throwing chunks of the pie on the
floor _as long as they 're someone else's chunks of pie_. They're happier
about throwing away chunks of pie than they are about getting an entire new
pie to split up. It really bugs me when I see "fairness" valued over actual
goodness.

~~~
vox_mollis
_Parental intelligence is strongly causally coupled with their children 's
future intelligence simply through their working vocabulary and talkativeness_

Your statement is correct, but your assumed cause is not. It's 60-80% genes:
[https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/iq-
heritability-...](https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/iq-heritability-
age.png)

~~~
saulrh
I guess I should have worded it to better indicate that what I gave is a
simple, obvious, and uncontroversial example of things that go into causal
coupling between parental and child intelligence, but not the only or even
remotely the strongest element. There are _many_ reasons why being born to
unintelligent or poor parents is incredibly unfair.

It is present, but relatively weakly compared to genetics:
[http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-
gap](http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap)

------
mc32
This makes sense. It's not that we should all be uniform but rather we all
have access to being uniform if we so choose.

Even if we attempted equality, time would introduce inequality due to the
risks people take. One invests wisely, the other gambles away. Do we
compensate the gambler to reestablish equilibrium?

Should a soon to be retiree have the same wealth or earning power as a new
graduate of X degree, or even a dropout?

Maybe we should compensate workers based on responsibilities (ie dependents,
that, in some ways would be fairer, the woman with three dependent children
gets paid more than the man with one, but the man with two where one requires
extra care gets paid more than either, to compensate for added medical
expenses)

~~~
ionforce
There's no guarantee that the parents would be spending their added income on
these dependents.

~~~
mc32
We don't typically distrust people to not spend on their dependents to
appropriately provide for them. But, let's say we don't we could compensate
with vouchers.

------
Mikeb85
This is very true, and why conservative economics just won't die.

People would rather see those less fortunate have to beg and suffer than to
give up what they 'worked' for.

Never mind the fact that we all derive benefit from systems that we inherited,
and did not work for...

~~~
thatswrong0
Can we drop the "conservatives are evil" mantra at some point? It really adds
nothing to the discourse.

Having a family full of conservatives (mind you I can't speak for all), I can
tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and what
benefits should be provided by the government or not. The difference in where
the line is drawn and why it's drawn is the difference between conservatives
and democrats.

They think that outcomes would be better with a smaller federal government,
that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of everybody,
and that everyone would be better off for it. They think that the federal
government should deal with defense, foreign diplomatic policy, and inter-
state issues, not insert itself into every aspect of policy making nationwide.
They think that governments closer to the people can respond better to the
needs of the people.

So yes, that does mean that it shouldn't redistribute wealth, at least on the
federal level. But it's not that they want to see people suffer, it's that
they think it's not the responsibility of the federal government to ameliorate
it. That's not the same thing.

Note: I don't agree with them on a lot of things. I just don't like seeing
these things misrepresented.

~~~
Mikeb85
> I can tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and
> what benefits should be provided by the government or not.

While that's certainly not a bad thought, we have all benefited from larger
government. History shows out that the more government spending and
distribution of goods and services there is, the better the economic outlook.
Even amongst most developed countries today, the government accounts for
around half of GDP
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP).

'Small government' is nice as a political philosophy, however it hasn't been
shown historically to be a great economic policy.

Not to mention, while right-wing politicians and economists argue for private
enterprise, lower taxes, smaller government, less spending, etc..., they
simultaneously use state institutions to their advantage. In most economies
governments fund research, education, they are responsible for building most
infrastructure, funding transit, etc... These things benefit us as a society,
yet the same people who reap these benefits every single day argue against
paying for them (ie. paying taxes).

The problem with left-wing economics is that they aren't intuitive. Right-wing
economics is - it's simple, and reminds people of budgeting at home. The only
problem is that when you study macroeconomics, you realize that it's more
about behaviour than about finance. Government spending increases GDP, in most
cases by more than the dollar amount spent. Social nets increase
entrepreneurial behaviour, and reducing poverty always yields social benefits.

> So yes, that does mean that it shouldn't redistribute wealth, at least on
> the federal level.

No one would argue that the government should only build roads in rich cities.
Or only build hospitals in rich cities. Yet creating infrastructure is a
redistribution of wealth. When the US government creates a new military base,
they're redistributing wealth. When they give money to schools, they're
distributing wealth.

Yet for some reason we have it in our heads that 'taking' taxes and then
giving 'cash' to others is wrong, but it's OK when the government uses other
means to redistribute wealth.

Anyhow, the point is, we see it as 'fair' that we work hard and get paid. That
we 'deserve' what we make. That we did it 'alone'. The fact is, wealth cannot
be created in a vacuum. Whatever we do, we do because others helped us. We're
more than happy to use the institutions created for us, but don't want to
share the rewards. We see 'fairness' as more important than prosperity.

~~~
thatswrong0
That is all way besides the point, seeing as I was describing my family's
political philosophy as something that is not evil, not offering it up as
something right or wrong. Yeesh.

------
applecore
History rhymes. Read Thomas Piketty's _Capital_ and Will Durant's _Story of
Civilization_ to understand the cause and recurring nature of economic
inequality.

~~~
contingencies
Why not Marx's _Capital_?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital:_Critique_of_Political...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital:_Critique_of_Political_Economy)
\- "Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist
mode of production"

~~~
dnautics
And why not Benjamin Tucker's critique of Marx in "State Socialism and
Anarchism", wherein he correctly predicts from first principles that state
socialism eventually leads to gulags, about 20-30 years before it actually
happened.

[http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm](http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm)

~~~
contingencies
OK I'll bite. That logic is ridiculous. "Because X led to Y for one instance
of Z, X leads to Y (ultimately and permanently) for all Z?" Spot the fallacy.
(And what exactly do you mean by 'first principles' in a field of social
science and political economy?)

Counter-thoughts from reality: China's doing great, and the US has a higher
percentage of its own population incarcerated than any other state in human
history.

~~~
zo1
China appears to have forced labor in their prisons. Is that not what a gulag
was?

[https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/jun/22/inside-
chin...](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/jun/22/inside-chinese-
prison-americans-perspective/)

For that matter, the US has it as well (albeit to a 'cleaner' extent):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States)

~~~
dnautics
I think that Tucker would argue that the US prison state is a result of
socialistic tendencies in this nation. He made statements about 2/3 of the way
down that are reminiscent of counter drug wars arguments (of course that is
not strictly a prediction since counter drugs laws argument have tuckerian
ideas in their DNA.)

------
Shivetya
Well too bad most don't understand what fairness is. Far too many are quick to
discount the work or effort of others because they do not understand the work
they do. Its like, I don't know how to do that but it can't be that hard so
its obvious they have too much. This is especially true when comparing labor
that is more physically involved than that which requires more application of
mental ability.

One thing most miss out on is they want fairness but don't want to give up
their stuff or such because it is so much tied to who has how much stuff,
money, and more. Far too many will state unequivocally that those richer than
them don't pay their "fair" share when those same people contribute a higher
percentage and far more wealth into the system.

This is primarily driven by politicians who profit by dividing people. That is
what most people miss. They hear about all the disagreement in government as
if that is a problem. In the US the government wasn't designed to be fully
cooperative, it was designed to make governing difficult so as the federal
government would not overrun the states. Where events were not to be treated
with such division there are statements to that fact.

Yet politicians spend more time pitting people against each other to preserve
their own status and this is why people don't understand what fairness let
alone equality is.

------
thesteamboat
Meh. Saying people prefer fairness over equality doesn't actually tell us
much, mostly because neither of those two terms have consistent definitions
that allow us to analyze whether a situation is _fair_ or is _equal_.

On the one hand there's the internal division of equality of outcomes vs.
equality of opportunities. (See this [in my opinion somewhat confused] article
by Dylan Matthews[0]). On the other hand "it's not fair" usually seems to mean
"I have been slighted".

As someone who has worked in Game Theory, I've seen a variety of notions of
what constitutes fairness (in the form of social welfare). There isn't one
obvious-even-if-technically-infeasible choice. There's a variety of plausible,
mediocre alternatives.

I think that what this actually demonstrates is that most people have muddled
thinking on most topics.

</curmudgeon>

[0]: [https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-
opportunit...](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity)

------
baconner
Seems to me this hits on a very important point. There's a terrible language
barrier that is damaging our ability to come together on this issue in the US.
Inequality of income growth is a great metric for indicating that there's a
problem, but that language is counterproductive for solving the problems.
There's a gut reaction that since "inequality" is the problem that the goal is
income equality which (I think most agree) it's not. Economic fairness might
be a better way to explain the goal.

~~~
tunafishman
This makes a lot of sense. What do you think of the other term often used to
describe the same idea: "level playing field" ? Sure you can (inevitably so,
maybe) have unequal distributions of wealth but we at least want to rid
'systematic bias' from the list of reasons why.

~~~
baconner
I think that is a lot better because it implies that each player has to work
for it to the best of their abilities, we're just establishing fair rules for
the game.

There's another term I'm seeing misinterpreted earlier in the thread too that
is relevant. We use mathematical distribution of income growth over the
population as the metric and people misinterpret it to mean distribution of
wealth in the Marxist sense. It's just a measurement of who has what, but it
implies a solution (to some) that has a lot of political baggage.

------
nemo44x
Karl Marx saw a couple flaws in Capitalism, similar to what we practice today.
I think he's right about one and wrong about the other. And the part he's
right about is what people find unfair.

He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a
profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather
by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers
people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it.

And it is what is happening more and more. And the eventuality of it is
Capitalism will eat itself as those without will be large enough in numbers
where they assume power. Those which did the exploiting will either have their
heads rolled or at the very least made impotent and marginalized. This is
revolution and leads to Socialism and eventually Communism.

The second part Marx argues is that only the State can sort out the best way
to distribute means and goods - that the free market is too chaotic. This I
disagree with and I think time has shown this to be false. The state will
eventually be corrupt if it isn't already. And whose to say what is best for
one person is also the best for the other?

So, the free market exists where people can pick and choose. They have
freedom. This allows some to have more than others and I think people are in
fact OK with that. In fact I think people want that because we believe in
getting what you're worth. Its just they don't want their own labor to be
discounted to the point of being exploited - which is happening more and more
with through wage suppression via policy or globalism which has displaced a
lot of people very quickly, even if it might eventually benefit everyone as a
whole.

~~~
jessedhillon
> He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate
> a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but
> rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what
> bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it.

Given your other statements, this is not a sensible position. A widget is
priced according to the value it delivers a buyer -- if there are 100 brands
of widgets on the market and they are easy to make, it's priced low; if I am
the only widget maker, the only limit on the price is what I can convince
people to pay.

And what I pay my factory workers is subject to the same competitive forces --
labor's value is limited by my ability to replace it. _That 's_ your free
market in effect, labor is only extracting value for itself until it exceeds
the cost of the alternative, be that a robot or another worker.

So if you are a believer that free markets deliver the best pairing of choice
and freedom, how do you not look at a person working in a factory, being paid
a low wage, enjoying no participation in profit, and think _if they had more
value to offer, they would negotiate a better deal._

~~~
s73v3r
Your statement only makes sense in a context where both the buyer and seller
have roughly equal power. As it is, that has almost never been true when
talking about labor. An employer who doesn't have enough employees is still
going to be able to compete and make money, just not as much. However, an
employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve.

~~~
zo1
" _However, an employee who doesn 't get enough work is going to be homeless
or starve._"

Don't mean to be sarcastic here, but isn't that the whole point of government
right now? Foodstamps, welfare payments, child-assistance money, social
security, free medical care, etc.

At what point can we stop using this supposed "power-differential" between
employer and employee as some sort of silent force in the labour market?

~~~
s73v3r
Probably when people stop talking about a "supposed" power-differential,
realize it exists, and do something about it.

And while you're not wrong that a lot of that safety net stuff is the point of
government, you'd have a pretty hard time claiming that they were doing it
well, or helping everyone who needed it, especially with a lot of states
slashing aid from their budgets in order to give tax cuts.

------
Alex3917
Most Americans don't even know what the word equality means, and wouldn't be
able to explain how equal differs from equitable.

------
stlHusker
The elephant in the room is how do you measure fairness? We devolve into
measuring the end results in terms of equality which ultimately provide a
negative feedback loop and move the conversation and solutions into trying to
make things equal instead of fair.

Governmental policy devolves into this to the detriment of everyone involved.

Entire political campaigns are centered around not making things "fair" but
"equal". Watch and see who communities vote for and why they vote for them; it
is closely related to the child who prefers to have one and everyone else zero
as opposed to everyone getting two.

------
nicklaf
People indeed want fairness. This is a little bit obvious, though.
Furthermore, to say that people aren't generally "FOR equality" is a straw
man.

It is imperative that those who might claim to be against the idea of
"equality" for some abstract philosophical reason to separately ask themselves
why they can't also be AGAINST egregious and institutionalized inequality.

Being against both universal equality and egregious inequality is an entirely
consistent position. Setting up the utopia of universal equality as a straw
man in order to avoid addressing the latter question is dishonest and immoral.

------
chad_walters
This article is terrible -- it sets up a false dichotomy. The article actually
refutes it's own conclusion in the paragraphs about what people view as the
ideal income distribution. We don't want total equality but we do want less
inequality than is actually present today in every 1st world country. So we
should care about the current (and growing!) levels of inequality -- even if
we don't want a perfectly equal distribution, we want one that is more equal.

------
dnautics
I think the reason why people don't want equality is because it's _arbitrary_.
To take a simple case, let's say there are five people and five apples. An
"equal" distribution might distribute five apples to each person, but let's
say one of them is allergic to apples. Then suddenly the "equal" distribution
doesn't satisfy equally.

So how does one formulate an equal distribution, and who gets to choose those
rules?

------
justifier
fairness is a horrendous choice of words, but the one this article chose to
use

there are many unfair side effects of current economics

look at taxes..

recently i read a major corporate entity paid 4k pounds in taxes in 2014(o).
The top comment says:

    
    
       TIL our small UK startup pays 10-20x more corp tax 
       .. Doing things honestly and by the book
       is expensive in both money terms and time terms
       (paying accountants)
       Big corps .. make me feel like a fool.
    

though these corps are seen as equals in buraecratic lines, the expectations
and avenues of utilising those regulations seems unfairly balanced

or look at fines..

if i get a parking ticket(i) for 100$, i may be unable to pay it right away
with my zero savings and my 12k/yr income, someone making 80k+ a year will
just pay the 100$ grievance and be done with it

i will have to start budgeting myself to make enough to pay the 100$ fine, but
it will take time with bimonthly paychecks and in that time i will be punished
with late fees only increasing the financial burden and time needed to accrue
the funds

even if trying to do the right thing people punished further simply for
economic circumstance

so though the two violators are seen as equal, the expectations and avenues of
how to rectify the violations seems unfairly balanced

people making less end up paying more for the same violation due to the
bureaucracy maintaining the violations

or i could use a payday loan(ii), another damning option

these are only two examples of areas where a conversation about fairness stead
equality alters the direction of the conversation

(o)
[https://www.reddit.com/comments/3ofo13/](https://www.reddit.com/comments/3ofo13/)
(i)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto)
(ii)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw)

~~~
stvswn
You've hit on a really key point. Life is easier when you have more money.

Not trying to be callous, but it's going to come out that way -- maybe the
answer is to try to make some more of it.

Because trying to redesign society to eliminate this basic fact of the world
has so far led to disastrous results. Like, hundreds of millions dead kind of
results. With nothing to show for it, because there were still haves and have
nots.

"But I'm not advocating Stalinism!" you'd say. But remember, Lenin and Trotsky
and Stalin came from good intentions, too. So did Mao and Pol Pot and Ho and
Kim. Everyone wanted to solve the problem you're describing.

~~~
justifier
callous? i'd say you're offering a proven solution

but i'd wonder, how does one 'make some more of it'?

stalinism? you're arguing with someone else

my complaints are against the bureaucracy of the problem

there is more to this conversation than a binary of stalinism and some
undefined other

what do you mean by 'easier'? seems to the suffer the same ills as using vague
language such as 'fair'

and i'd caution against utilising the concept of 'fact' when discussing
subsets

what of a generation born into wealth that fails to make any more if it but
their life remains, or even becomes moreso, by your own definitions, 'easier'?

------
crimsonalucard
Don't we all want to be super rich?

If we aren't rich, fairness is the next best thing.

~~~
AC__
I would probably enjoy wealth, yes. However, what I truly desire most would be
to understand the Universe. Understand reality. What are we? Are we?(see some
of Dr. James Gates work on supersymmetry) So many questions and, it would
seem, way too much geopolitical bullshit on this planet to ever truly get any
answers.

~~~
crimsonalucard
That's what you say. Biologically we aren't designed that way. We're designed
to seek status and achievement as it aids in reproduction. Understanding the
universe doesn't help you achieve this goal in anyway. It probably hinders
you.

Too many people like to think about themselves as robotic savants desiring
only to be logical and more intelligent. This is a fantasy story that is
somewhat true but side steps the issue of what we really want. If you were
truly intelligent you would know that biologically speaking what we want is
sex, money and status.

In front of you have two doors. You go through door A you can have knowledge
of the true nature of the universe and the promise that you have to live like
a hobo for the rest of your life. In the other door (door B) you have billions
of dollars, the adoration of the most beautiful women in the world, the
respect of everyone and the promise that you will die without ever knowing the
true nature of the universe.

Which door do you choose? Let's be real. (Door B)

~~~
AC__
Don't be absurd, in what reality can you actually believe any being
understanding the nature of the Universe could "live like a hobo" whatever the
hell that means. If you were truly intelligent you'd understand money is a man
made construct that you've been socially engineered to want above all else as
a means to control the masses. You honestly just asserted we're hard-wired to
want money, sex, of course, but money, preposterous! I view status much the
same, some of the world's most powerful individuals operate in complete
anonymity, and couldn't care less about the adoration of serfs! While I don't
claim to possess world power, I can assure you I do not seek the adoration of
the mindless masses.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Understanding something doesn't change your nature. I understand eating KFC is
bad for me. This does not suppress the desire.

Money is a social construct that is tied to status. We want money because we
want status.

You claim not to seek power. But if it was in front of you would you take it?
Which door? Be honest.

