How might Equity Moonshot become the antidote for solving our complex web of self-inflicted wicked problems in the 21st century, such as corrupt power, systemic isms and escalating inequities?
In capitalism, money creates opportunity / access to all things. Outcomes are then a result of opportunity / access plus decisions and effort but access is fundamental (foundational) to effort or decisions having any impact at all. These are also different depending on the context. In healthcare, its mostly about money but race matters too. I just read that black women statistically have worse healthcare outcomes in this country no matter their finances or healthcare policy. In housing, equal opportunity / access again comes down to money. We don't have sufficient housing for poor people, period. But they have equal opportunity... they just need a bunch of money. In education, again, opportunity to attend a neighborhood public school or community college is not equal to Harvard. But redlining is a real thing and in some places black people cannot get a loan, no matter their situation. In Finland private schools are illegal to ensure all schools are equally good and that kids of all stripes are socialized together. (The rich are not isolated from everyone else behind gated communities and private schools). Access to bad food is not equal to access to good food. I think the answer is that policy needs to be fine tuned to achieve targeted equity outcomes, while opportunity is the mechanim to.support that. So for example, if a person can't afford a place to live society should ensure that a basic place to live is is provided to them (access). There need to be basic outcomes to live that are guaranteed by society. You are not guaranteed a mansion by the sea (great outcome), you are guaranteed a place to live that provides all the basic requirements to survive (a minimally acceptable outcome). To fail in that concept, in my view, is to fail in equity completely. The challenge is to determine what is a minimally acceptable outcome that society will guarantee. It must be a guarantee, like social security. We are talking about a basic social contract. Today, there is no social contract anymore. It has been ripped up and used for toilet paper by the elites and politicians. Also, geography matters. Locating public or low income housing near power lines, freeways, factories, dumps and chemicals is not equitable even if its completely free.
Many points here. Just to pick up on one point.. Capitalism, neoliberalism and the free-market are not designed to enhance social well-being nor assure health care for all. During the 1960-70s, the United States and Canada conducted a number of short-lived experiments with negative income tax: a precursor to basic income. Basic income became a subject of short-lived national debates in 1970s. Universal basic income (UBI) makes regular payments to all individuals, regardless of their employment status, to assure financial security and address poverty. In 2019, Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate, proposed a form of basic income called the Freedom Diva, which aimed to provide $1,000 per month to every U.S. citizen over the age of 18. In contrast, Finland adopted the Housing First principle to address homelessness, assure affordable housing and to focus on providing permanent housing and necessary support to individuals.
Very good. Just coming back to equity of opportunity vs outcomes. I don't think equity of opportunity alone is enough when it comes to our policy making information base. We have to look at outcomes too to achieve equity. Also, some issues of equity are discernable best at the macro statistical level when looking at outcomes. For example, how many women or minorities are CEO's of fortune 500 companies? How many minorities or women own companies of any size? How does this compare to their relative population size? More women are attending and graduating college than men, yet 58% businesses are still owned by men. Women make up only 10% of CEOs of fortune 500 companies and only achieved that level recently for the first time. Blacks own less 3% of businesses in the US, making 1% of US business revenues while making up more than 12% of the population. Meanwhile, whites own 86% of businesses and take 93% of revenues. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/21/a-look-at-black-owned-businesses-in-the-u-s/
Many good points about inequities about unfair advantages/disadvantages. Equity of opportunity vs outcomes is a false reductionist dichotomy. Both/and is about fair opportunities and fair rewards.
In capitalism, money creates opportunity / access to all things. Outcomes are then a result of opportunity / access plus decisions and effort but access is fundamental (foundational) to effort or decisions having any impact at all. These are also different depending on the context. In healthcare, its mostly about money but race matters too. I just read that black women statistically have worse healthcare outcomes in this country no matter their finances or healthcare policy. In housing, equal opportunity / access again comes down to money. We don't have sufficient housing for poor people, period. But they have equal opportunity... they just need a bunch of money. In education, again, opportunity to attend a neighborhood public school or community college is not equal to Harvard. But redlining is a real thing and in some places black people cannot get a loan, no matter their situation. In Finland private schools are illegal to ensure all schools are equally good and that kids of all stripes are socialized together. (The rich are not isolated from everyone else behind gated communities and private schools). Access to bad food is not equal to access to good food. I think the answer is that policy needs to be fine tuned to achieve targeted equity outcomes, while opportunity is the mechanim to.support that. So for example, if a person can't afford a place to live society should ensure that a basic place to live is is provided to them (access). There need to be basic outcomes to live that are guaranteed by society. You are not guaranteed a mansion by the sea (great outcome), you are guaranteed a place to live that provides all the basic requirements to survive (a minimally acceptable outcome). To fail in that concept, in my view, is to fail in equity completely. The challenge is to determine what is a minimally acceptable outcome that society will guarantee. It must be a guarantee, like social security. We are talking about a basic social contract. Today, there is no social contract anymore. It has been ripped up and used for toilet paper by the elites and politicians. Also, geography matters. Locating public or low income housing near power lines, freeways, factories, dumps and chemicals is not equitable even if its completely free.
Many points here. Just to pick up on one point.. Capitalism, neoliberalism and the free-market are not designed to enhance social well-being nor assure health care for all. During the 1960-70s, the United States and Canada conducted a number of short-lived experiments with negative income tax: a precursor to basic income. Basic income became a subject of short-lived national debates in 1970s. Universal basic income (UBI) makes regular payments to all individuals, regardless of their employment status, to assure financial security and address poverty. In 2019, Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate, proposed a form of basic income called the Freedom Diva, which aimed to provide $1,000 per month to every U.S. citizen over the age of 18. In contrast, Finland adopted the Housing First principle to address homelessness, assure affordable housing and to focus on providing permanent housing and necessary support to individuals.
Very good. Just coming back to equity of opportunity vs outcomes. I don't think equity of opportunity alone is enough when it comes to our policy making information base. We have to look at outcomes too to achieve equity. Also, some issues of equity are discernable best at the macro statistical level when looking at outcomes. For example, how many women or minorities are CEO's of fortune 500 companies? How many minorities or women own companies of any size? How does this compare to their relative population size? More women are attending and graduating college than men, yet 58% businesses are still owned by men. Women make up only 10% of CEOs of fortune 500 companies and only achieved that level recently for the first time. Blacks own less 3% of businesses in the US, making 1% of US business revenues while making up more than 12% of the population. Meanwhile, whites own 86% of businesses and take 93% of revenues. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/21/a-look-at-black-owned-businesses-in-the-u-s/
https://www.shrm.org/executive/resources/pages/women-fortune-500-2023.aspx.
Many good points about inequities about unfair advantages/disadvantages. Equity of opportunity vs outcomes is a false reductionist dichotomy. Both/and is about fair opportunities and fair rewards.