Current Events > What is bad about equality of outcome?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I saw a YouTube video on why it's bad but, it's too long to watch again

---

Oops misread topic disregard post

---

Can only lead to Harrison Bergeron.

---

If you punish success and reward failure, take a guess which one you get more of.

It destroys one's incentive to be productive.

---

It makes effort pointless as there will be no rewards.

---

how does one share limitless chad dick

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

If you punish success and reward failure, take a guess which one you get more of.

---

Squall28 posted...

It destroys one's incentive to be productive.

A bayonet to the spleen quickly becomes the incentive.

Equal outcomes don't mean everyone involved has the same status as a consequence of the outcome. People could still be seen as better, it just wouldn't be tied to everything it usually is.

Idk it clearly seems like a weak principle

---

AssultTank posted...

Do the people you think would be seen as better get any special privileges? Do they get treated better by others?

If yes, then the outcome is different. If no, then they aren't seen as better.

The outcome that comes as a result of an activity doesn't have to extend to everything. You can choose the relevant outcomes that should be controlled, I'm not trying to say everything would have to be equal for everyone.

---

AssultTank posted...

Do the people you think would be seen as better get any special privileges? Do they get treated better by others?

Yeah, this. Equal outcome heavily implies the absence of status.
If all that "status" means is that the guy who plays videogames in mom's basement all day merely gets disdain, why be a doctor?

If there's any tangible benefit of being "better", then outcomes aren't equal.

Questionmarktarius posted...

If all that "status" means is that the guy who plays videogames in mom's basement all day merely gets disdain, why be a doctor?

Do you really want a doctor with this thought process? What are the virtues of a person who thinks this way? There are many reason to want to be a doctor

---

People don't work in rationally optimal ways, and money isn't the only incentive structure that exists. So, not sure why people so strongly abide by "ah, but people min/max of effort/money, so people just will not do anything!"

---

there isn't an actual problem with it, though a lot of people who bring it up seem to think that it's somehow relevant to some leftist economic theory. no idea where they got that idea, but it certainly wasn't from engaging with leftist economic theory

---

AssultTank posted...

But what wouldn't be equal? Access to services? Access to special foods? Access to leisure items?

All those would negate the equality of outcome and give an advantage to the people who have those things.

I guess, I'm not quite sure. I already said it seems like a weak principle.

I guess the kernel of truth I agree with is a person shouldn't have it -worse- off if they are in a bad situation. Maybe not -as good as- someone who has done well for themselves.

---

AssultTank posted...

The point is that if outcome isn't tied to effort, you will have to force people to be doctors at gunpoint or you won't have enough doctors.

Someone could plausibly be a doctor as a hobby, I guess.
Not going to get a lot of quality doctors that way.

AssultTank posted...

The point is that if outcome isn't tied to effort, you will have to force people to be doctors at gunpoint or you won't have enough doctors.

outcome isn't tied to effort now

---

AssultTank posted...

The point is that if outcome isn't tied to effort, you will have to force people to be doctors at gunpoint or you won't have enough doctors.

Sure

---

AssultTank posted...

Another issue with equality of outcome. The government needs to have all the power. The government pretty much has to plan every individual's life and force them to do it. If someone resists, they must be imprisoned or killed. It requires every single individual to agree to someone else planning their life.

The number of leaps required to get to this being a necessary condition is just...ridiculous.

---

Even Karl Marx abandoned "...to each his need". Marx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

AssultTank posted...

So how do you propose to enforce a working society with an equality of outcome?

How do you get people to give the effort needed to produce the goods and services to maintain the society if not doing any work gets you the same outcome as working your ass off?

Fwiw I already said the outcome of an activity is what should be "equal" not everything for everyone. You're still strawmanning that point

But since survival is its own activity, there should be some kind of egalitarian outcome for that of course

---

AssultTank posted...

So how do you propose to enforce a working society with an equality of outcome?

How do you get people to give the effort needed to produce the goods and services to maintain the society if not doing any work gets you the same outcome as working your ass off?

Do you think the number and distribution of jobs currently is what is precisely needed for a "working society"?

Have you ever seen a retiree volunteering their time doing menial jobs? Why do you think they do this?

---

Also way to ignore the fact that most jobs have pay bands, effectively being a kind of this principle in question

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Fwiw I already said the outcome of an activity is what should be "equal" not everything for everyone.

This is already farcical. Spanking it to tentacle porn all day shouldn't pay the same as nuclear engineering.

If the former paid well, I'd never leave the house - or provisioned apartment or whatever. Would houses even exist?

Everyone can't reach the top level, get rid of the top level for equity, now no one operates at the top level.

---

Because you're not only incentivizing failure, you're disincentivizing success. Its counterintuitive to human nature. Sure there are saints among us who will give whatever they do their best effort no matter what regardless of personal gain. But the vast majority won't.

And we're not all equal. It's a farce to pretend that we are.

---

shnangyboos posted...

Everyone can't reach the top level, get rid of the top level for equity, now no one operates at the top level.

this would be a much more effective hypothetical if the people who made the most money in reality were actually the most competent workers

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Because you're not only incentivizing failure, you're disincentivizing success. Its counterintuitive to human nature. Sure there are saints among us who will give whatever they do their best effort no matter what regardless of personal gain. But the vast majority won't.

And we're not all equal. It's a farce to pretend that we are.

It would be pretty uncontroversial to say two people could put the same effort in and get different results. Usually that applies to things that aren't heavily controlled.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

It would be pretty uncontroversial to say two people could put the same effort in and get different results. Usually that applies to things that aren't heavily controlled.

No two people have the exact same circumstances. I could put in the same amount of hours into practicing basketball as Lebron James, and I'd probably be very good, but I'd never be as good as he is.

Is that fair? Not really, but fair has nothing to do with it. Which is why we were all told at a young age that life isn't fair.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

I could put in the same amount of hours into practicing basketball as Lebron James, and I'd probably be very good, but I'd never be as good as he is.

Lebron James could put in the same hours practicing guitar as Jimi Hendrix and never be as good.