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.
The delusion is equal in the huge companies. That they have achieved brilliantly.
For years the left said equality of outcome is a straw man so now they have to use another word
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Equity is equality
The phony narcissistic virtue signaling is nauseating
It sounds like Communism for Dummies…….
I’ll give you three guesses….
It’s interesting how this instructor, now part of Google, sees and teaches a model where equity is the most desired standard. You can see this mindset taking hold everywhere. It’s also interesting how the creation of wealth has become wrong. Creators of wealth create jobs and you can take your earnings and build a mansion or go into the mission field and build housing for the poor. But if everyone is the same, no more or no less, that changes this ability and those things become government run – an allocation system. There is no incentive to succeed or help others – a cog in the wheel.
This is equity.
So there are a finite number of goods. And equity is reached when no agents envy what other agents have.
What are the odds you’ll give me on this happening?
Zero. Envy is insatiable. That’s why the terminology gets changed to “symmetric in preferences.” That is so much more clinical and reasonable than nobody’s envious.
Kommie Harris
Thomas Sowell: The first rule of economics is scarcity. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics.
Let them put their money where their mouth is and start paying all the employees equitably.
Everybody has asked the question. . .”What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!