
People Don’t Actually Want Equality, They Want Fairness - allenleein
http://evonomics.com/people-dont-actually-want-equality-want-fairness/
======
dieterrams
As interesting as Frankfurt can be, this semantic quibbling is unhelpful. When
most of us progressive types speak out against "economic inequality", we are
not saying we want everybody to have equal wealth. The concern is about
_rising_ inequality, of increasing wealth concentrated in an increasingly tiny
percentage of the population, while millions struggle to get by, often one bad
month away from financial ruin.

And yes, of course we care about fairness. There is nothing insightful about
presenting it in contradistinction to concerns about inequality, as though
it's the thing we are "really" concerned about. Fairness alone does not
guarantee a society where the outcome for the unwealthy is tolerable (unless
you're John Rawls). Hence, we care about both.

~~~
neilwilson
The assumption there is because the rich have something the poor must have
less. In a monetary economy where bitcoins are mined by running a computer
that is of course nonsense.

Its perfectly possible to leave the rich with monetary wealth that they can
show off to their friends about while the poor have material sufficiency -
which is what they care about because they are more interested in their
communities than coin collecting.

The problem is the assumption that there is a one to one relationship between
money and stuff. There isn't.

~~~
im3w1l
Wealth will help the rich win zero-sum games against the poor. The most
important zero-sum games being political power and social status and desirable
land.

~~~
charlesdm
I agree with both statements. It's not because a rich person has more, that
poor people have less.

If we were to start from scratch and redivide all the wealth in the western
world between the people, it wouldn't take long for some individuals to rise
to the top again and build up their net worth.

However, with wealth also comes power. There's just so much more you can
achieve with good money in the bank. One simple example: a wealthy person with
the good lawyer will almost always end up receiving a lighter sentence (if
any) in comparison to the poor person with the shitty lawyer (if he even has a
lawyer). That is clearly unfair, yet the way it is.

~~~
humanrebar
> However, with wealth also comes power.

This is certainly true. What's not clear is whether that power can be
redistributed equally or if addressing it just leaves a vacuum of power and
the risks that entails. More concretely, there hasn't been a form of campaign
finance regulations that has actually achieved its goals in the U.S. At least
so far.

If the rich couldn't fund their unfair legal teams, would the justice system
be more fair? Or would it just give more power to prosecutors who wouldn't
have their actions challenged and appealed as often?

------
dahart
I've never thought of "equality" as having identical sized piles of money, and
I don't know anyone else who does, nor have I read anyone proposing such a
thing, after a very modest amount of study in economics and inequality the US.

The main goal in my mind is equal _opportunity_ , not equal wealth. Equal
opportunity may require a minimum amount of wealth, but need not limit the
maximum nor require that people have similar amounts.

~~~
hueving
>The main goal in my mind is equal opportunity, not equal wealth.

There are a significant number of people who want to go beyond equality of
opportunity. Look at the hiring programs of Google, etc. that attempt to hire
larger ratios of minorities than the ratios graduating from CS programs.

~~~
dahart
I would understand this type of affirmative action as an attempt to provide
equal opportunity by correcting for the existing inequality of opportunity.
The ratios graduating are disproportionate to the general population ratio,
and may be a sign of a perceived lack of opportunity. There are advantages to
a diverse workplace too, so opportunity aside there are good reasons to prefer
diversity over the ratios coming out of school.

------
protomyth
It’s a pretty simple concept, people don’t like getting screwed by someone
else, and equality of outcome is impossible. Frankly, most people don’t give a
damn how much some actor / CEO / athlete makes if they can pay all their
monthly bills and have some money to enjoy themselves. Envy really isn’t in
the national character until our lives are sucking.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
> if they can pay all their monthly bills and have some money to enjoy
> themselves. Envy really isn’t in the national character until our lives are
> sucking.

I know a few people that cry poor despite the fact they own a horse, or paid
$2,000+ for a child's cubby house, or own a quad bike, or own a jetski.

Low level envy, or "keeping up with the Jones'", is raising the level of what
people feel entitled to as basics for "enjoying themselves".

~~~
protomyth
Those people have some mental problem. Anytime you combine busybodies with
envy you get a bad combination. Not to be confused with people who just suck
at managing their own finances because that is a whole different problem.

------
keithpeter
Interesting article, and Frankfurt's _On Equality_ is on the reading list. I
enjoyed _On Bullshit_ after I got through the first section. Certainly in
'water cooler conversations' the feeling that someone else has got a promotion
or higher salary without (visible) extra work is deeply resented, even though
it has no direct effect on the participants.

What I'm finding in UK at the moment is the lack of a linear response in terms
of quality of life to income level. There is a definite 'knee' or threshold.
Below that income you have problems, above that income things get easier
quickly.

As usual here, my impression is that it comes down to housing costs: we don't
have rented accommodation that is small and cheap any more. You can't find
somewhere 20% or 30% cheaper below a certain rent level. Not sure if that is
the whole story but I think it is a factor.

~~~
gambiting
>>As usual here, my impression is that it comes down to housing costs: we
don't have rented accommodation that is small and cheap any more

You can, it's always a question of how much you want to sacrifice for it. A
friend of mine is renting a room in a 5-bedroom house for 350/month, all bills
and council tax included. I pay about 950/month for a 3-bedroom house with a
double driveway and a garden. To me, the reduction of utility is not worth the
600/month saving, but it's absolutely not a problem to find a house to rent
for 500-600/month, you just have to move further away from the city.

(unless, of course, you are talking about London - then this entire
conversation falls apart)

~~~
maccard
that works for people living on their own, but people with families/children
can't live in a room in a 5 bedroom house for 350/month. You also presumably
can't go any lower than 350/month (which is the 20-30% cutoff the parent
mentioned) - 300 quid a month might be nothing to someone who can afford a
grand a month, but to someone whose income is 6-7 hundred a month, it's a
massive chunk.

There are also costs associated with living outside of a city. If I live 5
miles out of a city, and work in a city, I have to travel there and back every
day. Depending on where you live, this can be very cheap or very expensive.
Public transport as a method of commuting is also not suitable for many people
(in particular the people who would be affected by low wages who work awkward
shifts). The alternative I assume is car ownership, which is definitely not
cheap, and if you are driving into a city is probably going to cost you more
in parking than you'll save in rent.

~~~
chongli
_but people with families /children can't live in a room in a 5 bedroom house
for 350/month_

You can, and people do all the time. People live in slums with 7 kids in a
corrugated sheet metal shack the size of a garden shed with sewage flowing
past their front door.

So then, what is the difference with a country like England? People are _not
allowed_ to live in such conditions. This is not the same thing as _can 't_.
We set minimum standards of living because we don't like the idea of people
living in squalor. We rarely give a thought to the adverse consequences of
such policies. A family that might have been able to afford a tiny apartment
is instead forced into the street to fend for themselves.

~~~
keithpeter
I'm not advocating a return to conditions that I have a dim recollection of (I
am _just_ old enough to remember my parents having an inside toilet fitted and
Jack Frost on the windows looked lovely to the 7 year old me but the 60 year
old me really likes his central heating thankyouverymuch). However, I _think_
there is a case for some _careful relaxation_ on what kind of buildings can be
used for housing. Still regulations, but allowing (say) bedsits for single
people &c

No return to slum landlords, they weren't cheap mind you but often very
expensive.

------
throw2016
Since current systems do not provide anything resembling equality of
opportunity and fairness a lot of the narrative is made up and propaganda. We
must recognize the system for what it is and not what it claims to be.

Children brought up in less privileged environments cannot compete with those
born in privilege. Cherry picking exceptions by those in privilege to make a
point is extraordinarily exploitative and self serving.

Because exceptions usually cannot see any truth beyond their exceptionalism as
a core value their narrative is often self-grandiose and are ripe picking for
entrenched interests to pass off exception as rule.

Just like blacks who did not have rights till 1965 and land and thus no
opportunity to truly build generations of wealth cannot be expected to compete
with their white counterparts who have had generations of wealth creating
background. If you then claim wealth is not important for equal outcomes then
the logical response is let's take it away.

The ones lecturing loudest about equality are those who start a 100m race at
90m. For the privileged the world always seems fair. And others simply do not
recognize all the things that had to come together to get them where they are.

The elephant in the room is inheritance. And I am certain all the loud
uncompromising advocates for the 'best should win' would not mind a systemic
reset for children every generation so the truly best ones can shine
irrespective of background, but of course not. We have never seen any
initiative to make this so. This is the nod nod wink wink part of capitalism.
We all allow and gloss over these cracks in our worldview.

------
pizza
If people respect pay for work, then they despise the opposite, including
wealth earning income for no work. That saidd...

This is consistent with believing owning less wealth is better than owning
more wealth. Then that justifies groups with less wealth as better than groups
with more wealth because they earn less income without work. Which then means
the gender gap, racial gap, poor social immobility, etc are thus _preferable_
because they imply not getting as much undeserved income. Only the belief that
income without work is a priori bad forces this conclusion. The idea
"compensating individuals honestly for their work produces a sufficiently fair
world" isn't consistent with wanting to produce a fairer world. [0]

[0] [http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/22/some-opponents-of-ubi-
nece...](http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/22/some-opponents-of-ubi-necessarily-
believe-the-racial-wealth-gap-is-good/)

~~~
protomyth
> If people respect pay for work, then they despise the opposite, including
> wealth earning income for no work.

That logic doesn’t follow. Respecting something doesn’t always require
despising it’s opposite. Plenty of hard workers hope for wealth earning with
no work for themselves, check the local lottery.

~~~
pizza
I apologise that despise was a little harsh for what I was hurriedly trying to
say but the very uncompressed idea is that IF the belief "a man's hard work
alone determines my respect of them" is a fairly common justification of
income from work AND income without work exists THEN people earning income
without work goes very much against that belief that only hard work earns
approval. The 'respect' part was intended to mean 'respect exclusively' like
as might be exemplified in the particularly intense conviction some might have
against 'lazy poor people living handouts', as well as the rich living off of
capital gains. This black-and-white perspective belongs a fairly vocal
minority.

Although people who sanctify work do elevate it to a question of toil, why
wouldn't gambling (of any kind) just be a really expensive (albeit fairly
toil-free) side-gig? No matter how different their hopes are from what is
statistically likely, nor compelling the possibility that the lottery ticket
could actually be a kind of masquerading windfall, the thinking isn't "this is
my investment vehicle" but more "if I 'try hard enough' [by buying enough to
win] I will eventually succeed."

------
anotheryou
A contrary Idea:

People need society to be unfair, not to blame thenselves for their lack of
success.

Especially in times of self-exploitation (or optimization) I find it an
interesting perspective.

~~~
archgoon
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought,
'wouldn't it be much worse if life _were_ fair, and all the terrible things
that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great
comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

-Marcus Cole, Babylon 5

~~~
realharo
Well, free will is an illusion and the world is pretty much deterministic on
the large scale, so the concept of "deserving something" would itself not be
fair to begin with.

~~~
anotheryou
But the illusion is trong enough and you could just reframe this problem
avoiding the free-will problematic.

Someone who puts all his energy in to getting somewhere should be able to get
there (within the reasonable). No matter the underlying origin of his motives
or circumstances.

I still see your point though, but I'd say that's a further step: to
acknowledge that nobody should be held responsible for himself. (EU-law is a
bit further here than the US though, no retaliation by law like the death
penalty)

------
mathgeek
Something that came to mind in this article is that when children were
concerned with fair distribution, it was with regard to two other people. When
younger children were shown to be more willing to give themselves more while
others got less, it was with regards to themselves. Makes me wonder how much
self involvement affects these types of attitudes. It wouldn't be surprising,
to me, if people are generally satisfied with inequality when they themselves
are the ones with more.

------
sengork
In Australia this concept is widely recognised as 'fair go'.

------
SZJX
Well, in most cases those two simply cannot be separated though. If you have a
hugely influential elite class they'll naturally skew the fairness of the
society so that they keep their benefits the most.

------
cs702
Please link to original article:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-d...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-
dont-actually-want-equality/411784/)

------
tim333
Monkeys want fairness too - I stuck up an amusing edit of Frans de Waal
demoing that which got 400k views to my surprise
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8)

------
karmakaze
With all the discussion of meritocracy and how it doesn't actually exist, at
most I can believe _some_ people want fairness.

------
kazinator
If you value equality for its own sake, you're likely a computer scientist or
mathematician.

------
0xbear
Fairness is super subjective, so in reality people just want preferential
treatment.

------
pamqzl
They don't want fairness either, they want "fairness".

The difference between fairness and "fairness" is that "fairness" works out a
little better for people like yourself than fairness does.

~~~
jimktrains2
> "fairness" works out a little better for people like yourself than fairness
> does.

Because the CEO of a company fairly worked 100-300 times harder than the
person on the packing line?

~~~
jpttsn
Maybe gp worked really hard on that comment; should you really criticize it?

