Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Equity
Suddenly, the concept of “Equity” is ubiquitous. Where did this idea come from and why has it emerged now as a central metric of the Progressives? It emerges concurrently with Big Tech stepping into the forefront as arbiters of what ideas are allowed to be expressed in the public square and their apparent bias toward Progressive ideology. I submit that the two things are related.
The nexus, I believe, could be Google’s Chief Economist, Dr. Hal R Varian. While Varian’s research focuses on the economics of information technology and the unique aspects of ‘computer mediated transactions’, Equity, Fairness, and Distributive Justice are topics that Varian returns to again and again. Dr. Varian is also an emeritus professor in the School of Information, the Haas School of Business, and the Department of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley. His work in information technology deserves a separate post.
There is a 1973 paper by Dr. Varian titled “Equity, Envy and Effeciency” available from MIT where Varian defines Equity. It makes interesting reading…
I wish to examine the problem of ‘fair’ division: given a fixed number of agents and a fixed amount of certain goods, what is a fair way to divide the goods among the agents?
I think that nearly everyone’s impulse here is to say “evenly.” Given the description of the above problem, that is perhaps the best we can do. However, if we allow ourselves further information about the tastes of the agents in question, we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. Thus if we bring preferencesinto consideration, we can see that even division is no longer satisfactory as an equity concept. For in general, if agents have different tastes an even distribution will not be pareto efficient and thus there will be incentive to trade. Now it is true that “every- one gains from trade”, but some people may gain more than others.
Since as far as we know the original situation in the division problem is symmetric — there are only the n agents and the bundle of k goods to be divided — we would want to require that the final allocation be symmetric, that is, symmetric in preferences . What does this mean? Well, I would submit that an allocation would be symmetric in preferences if no agent preferred what any other agent had to what he had; that is, if there were no agents that envied other agents. Since the natural assumption in the fair division problem is that all agents have an equal prior claim to the original bundle, we would want the final allocation to reflect this initial symmetry, and any perceived asymmetry on the part of the agents can not be tolerated.
We are thus led to make the following formal definitions
An allocation is equitable if and only if no agent prefers any other agent’s bundle to his own. An allocation is fair if and only if it is both equitable and Pareto efficient.
Thus a fair allocation is doubly stable: There is no way to make any one agent better off without making some other agent worse off, and there is no agent who would rather have what some other agent has as opposed to what he has.
Envy?! Seriously? The root of the concept of Equity is ENVY. This definition of Equity enshrines Envy as the central metric of fairness. As long as anyone is envious of what someone else has, Equity has not been achieved.
It’s incredible that an intelligent person like him can write this.
He can cure envy with government policies, like we cured Polio with vaccines? How many times has this been tried in the past? How did those efforts work out?
A stoned college sophomore in a dorm room bull session would struggle to take this guy seriously.
And he’s Google’s chief economist. Wow.
When modern leftism is based on such absurdities, it’s easy to see why they put so much effort into censorship of any opposing views.
This is simply ridiculous. Extremely dangerous, but ridiculous.
This “equity” movement is not new. I recall it back in the mid-1980s, although my own recollection is that the terminology was different. My recollection is that “equality” was used for “equality of outcome,” while “equity” was used for the result of a fair system, even if the results were unequal.
I do agree that this theory is based on envy. This appears to be pretty obvious. Judge Bork wrote about it in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, in the mid-1990s. I think that it was obvious long before that — going back to the Communist Manifesto, at least, and that was in 1848.
I’m sorry if this comes across as dismissive. I have been seeing many posts and articles, over the last few years, which seem to be surprised at the author’s discovery of the reprehensible basis or roots of Wokeist ideology. People seem to think that this is a new thing. My own impression is that I recall this bizarre ideology being quite widespread, back as far as I can remember the public debate, which is the mid-1980s. (I do remember things from the 1970s, but I was a kid, and wasn’t really aware of political or philosophical debates.)
So my reaction tends to be something like — how did you not notice this before? Which may come across as insulting, and I don’t mean it that way. My purpose is to counter a narrative that would suggest that the current ideological struggle has suddenly emerged out of nowhere. I think that the truth is that many people haven’t been paying attention to such matters.
It is annoying to have to pay attention to such matters. It would be nice if our academics and other public intellectuals would drive a stake through the heart of such pernicious ideas (metaphorically speaking, of course). But they do not. To the contrary, the radicals have been largely in charge since the 1960s, at least.
Sounds like a rephrased version of “From each according to his abilities…”
Equity is just equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. Marxists have been trying to redistribute for generations. They’ve dressed it up in the word “equity” because it is similar to “equality “ so your mind thinks they mean the same thing. Equality means we are all treated equally by the law. Equity means we all end up at the same place.
Equity- like communism- ignores fundamental human realities like the fact humans respond to incentives. Equity regards group outcomes more important than the individual.
Proponents of equity use the Obama-era intersectionality race and gender alliance as the vehicle to push forced outcomes. If you aren’t on board with racialized transfers of wealth and forced equality of outcome then you are castigated as a bigot or racist. In reality equity based on race is itself racist, but the left has changed the meaning of racism to be not simply disliking or acting opposed to another race, but now it requires a “power imbalance”. In their world view since white people are the majority in America, they have the power by default, so it’s not racist for there to be racist programs against them. In their view it’s correcting the perceived unfair start that white people have. This of course ignores the individual in favor of the group and let’s the proponents of equity create bigoted wealth transfers. I’m white, and I guarantee my start was less than Obama’s kids, but that won’t matter because of my “inherent racism” and “implicit bias”.
The left has been busy making up a lot of phrases and changing the language to fit their arguments haven’t they? It’s Orwellian.
Unfortunately this term equity has bled heavily into corporate America. The liberal company I work for constantly puts out emails in support of BLM and equity. A conservative like myself has to keep their head down. I’ve considered looking for a new company to join.
Someone once said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The pendulum swung hard the other way. Equality is good. Equity is racist. One of the great things Trump did was to oppose implicit bias/systemic racism training in the government. Now it’s back with the Harris administration. You get what you vote for.
The paper referenced is from 1973, so the idea in a formalised basis has been around for a very long time. The thing that’s new in how it’s suddenly moved from the fringe to the centerpiece of US economic and civil rights policy. I think the emergence of big tech as a political force accounts for the new currency given to the idea. And I think it is important to clearly define the terminology that is the flavor of the year.
I agree. The radical fringe left whackos from 10 years ago are now centrists.
Equity is as mythical as it is ubiquitous. The emergence of big tech monopoly influence on information flow is what enables the selling of trash like this. Where equity existed a moment ago it no longer exists a moment from now. But the ability of big tech to nullify the natural equity that resides in ideas by stifling the free flow of information that feeds debate allows a partnership with Leftist government, academia, and public media to begin work on finishing off the Constitutional protections that have served us since the founding. The Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.
Why the passive voice? Folks moved it.
The government should enforce equity of preferences. That would make everything a lot simpler.
I wonder how influential Google is in pushing that particular narrative?
Much of that “paper” reads like the “Sokal Hoax” and its successors:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
Peter Wood writes about equity at the US Spectator.
A “small boom” with the boomers taking the long march into the institutions, finding that conditions weren’t ripe 20 years later, and then, some with money in their hands, working another 20 years. Wood traces its emergence into elite consciousness to the Tides Foundation’s creation of the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity in 2003.
At least they are open about their assumptions. Many are not.
Life is not about allocating fixed assets. It is about making new assets and getting satisfaction from creating and giving.
That’s “civilization”, not “life.” A Progressively structured government produces new assets for a small elite by creating a zero sum or negative sum game for the serfs. Better to err on the side of less innovation when that helps keep the serfs down, and besides, you don’t want them able to ape their betters. The keep those in between in constant fear of falling back to serf status.
Fred Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth’s 1955 SF novel Gladiator at Law more or less described the blueprint.
Disinformation! Call the censors. Come see the disinformation being promulgated ! You should be ashamed of yourself you nasty supply-sider. Get thee behind me. ;)
This is related to what I was expressing in #6. The current discussion of equity says little about striving for excellence and achievement, that part of life that is more important than any accumulation or distribution of assets. It is well known that any creation of a state of asset equity through redistribution is a very temporary state that only last long enough for reversion to a more naturally appropriate distribution to appear. How is equity in talent and ability to be achieved? That doesn’t disappear through asset redistribution. It also doesn’t disappear through pretending it doesn’t exist.
Speaking of stoned, “You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need”
Or, “Thou shalt not covet.”
I know. Maybe one of the reasons they hate Judeo/Christian religion.
I think that it was the centerpiece of policy, almost from the get-go. Shortly after the Civil Rights Act, it was implemented with so-called “affirmative action” and a soft quota system. These tended to be unpopular with the public, but the courts and bureaucrats just kept doing it anyway, hidden in the evidentiary rules used in court cases, obscure federal regulations, many federal contracts, college admission departments, and corporate HR departments.
Equity has long been a fine, honorable Bible word. It’s a shame to see it being misappropriated by the left.
Since this position never obtains, the rest of the thought experiment is moot.
Because it is being mainstreamed now. Not then.
Understand, for the Millenial Soccer Mom – or my cousin the mechanic – this never crossed their path as it was not being discussed in their professional circles. You, on the other hand noticed it because it was being promulgated in your circles.
The problem is that it is very difficult to mainstream opposition to a problem unless it hits close to home, and it doesn’t hit close to home until it becomes mainstream.
I’ll give him this assumption. True – Over time neither is fixed. But at any particular point in time I’m OK considering them as fixed for purposes of the discussion.
This example describing “equity” around a fixed asset and using only “distribution” as a measurement factor is too narrow to develop understanding of the concept.
How would one approach defining “equity” using other measurement factors such “invention”, “production”, “consumption” and/or “destruction”.
I can’t wrap my head around the idea that Google has a “chief economist” to begin with. Economists are academics. They do not belong in the C suite.
The only reason I can think of for Google to have this job title in its upper management team is that it has a serious delusion about its identity and purpose.
Bingo
This country was founded on equality not equity
equality of opportunity not outcome
Equality in the eyes of our Creator
equal protection
equity or equality of outcome will destroy meritocracy
One reason economists make more money than other academics is they have opportunities outside academia. An economist Daniel Hamermesh said this. He taught at University Texas Longhorn
Don’t be evil?
Facebook is more delusional?
Equity, as being presented in this current context, is a “Communist” point-of-view that makes subjects operate in a crawl space instead of standing tall.
That is absolutely true. But it’s similar to English majors–they end up as chief marketing or finance officers, not as chief English officers. Usually once inside a company, the economics guys end up in a more practical functional finance area.
The presence of an academic economist on the board for Google speaks volumes as to who they think are.