Equality of Outcome? That is Just Stupid

[Anonymous]

By Thomas Sowell



If there were a contest for the most stupid idea in politics, my choice would be the assumption that people would be evenly or randomly distributed in incomes, institutions, occupations or awards, in the absence of somebody doing somebody wrong.



Political crusades, bureaucratic empires and lucrative personal careers as grievance mongers have been built on the foundation of that assumption, which is almost never tested against any facts.



A recent article in the New York Times saw as a problem the fact females are greatly under-represented among the highest rated chess players.



Innumerable articles, TV stories and political outcries have been based on an "underrepresentation" of women in Silicon Valley, seen as a problem that needs to be solved.



Are there girls out there dying to play chess, who find the doors slammed shut in their faces?



Are there women with Ph.D.s in computer science from M.I.T. and Cal Tech who get turned away when they apply for jobs in Silicon Valley?



If girls had the same interest in chess as boys had, but were banned from chess clubs, that would be something very different from their not choosing to play chess as often as boys do.



As for chess ratings, that is not subjective. It is based on which players, with which ratings, you have won against and lost to.



Applying the same unsubstantiated assumption to differences in "representation" between different racial and ethnic groups likewise produces many loudly expressed grievances and political crusades — all without a speck of evidence beyond numbers that do not match the prevailing assumptions.



People who base their conclusions on hard facts often reach very different conclusions than those who base their conclusions on the preconception that outcomes should be even.



If every 20-year-old Puerto Rican in the U.S. had an income identical with that of every 20-year-old Japanese American — and identical incomes at every other age — Japanese Americans as a group would still have a higher average income than Puerto Ricans in the United States.

That is because the median age of Japanese Americans is more than 20 years older.



People with 20 years more work experience usually make higher incomes.



Age difference is just one of many differences between groups.



You can study innumerable groups in countries around the world today, or over centuries, without finding a single example of the even or random outcomes that are used as a benchmark for determining discrimination.



Nevertheless, courts of law — including the Supreme Court of the United States — use something that has never been found as a norm to which realities are to be compared.



Billions of dollars have changed hands as a result of lawsuits charging discrimination.



Life is unfair. But that is not the same as saying the unfairness occurred wherever the statistics were collected.



The origins of this unfairness often go back to different childhood environments for individuals or different geographic or cultural settings for groups and nations.



These differences, as well as differences between individuals and groups, reflect the fact that the world "has never been a level playing field," as economic historian David S. Landes put it.



Renowned historian Fernand Braudel said, "In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally."



How long will we continue to take something that has never happened as a norm?

[Anonymous]

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream.

[Anonymous]

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream.

Maybe, but reducing poverty and eliminating discrimination is not.

[Anonymous]

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream.

Maybe, but reducing poverty and eliminating discrimination is not.

I have never heard anyone (at least in this country), say that discrimination in housing, employment, lending, the law,  police protection and so one should not be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Equality of opportunity provides in a sense that all start the race of life at the same time. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time. — Mark Cooray

[Anonymous]

By Thomas Sowell



If there were a contest for the most stupid idea in politics, my choice would be the assumption that people would be evenly or randomly distributed in incomes, institutions, occupations or awards, in the absence of somebody doing somebody wrong.



Political crusades, bureaucratic empires and lucrative personal careers as grievance mongers have been built on the foundation of that assumption, which is almost never tested against any facts.



A recent article in the New York Times saw as a problem the fact females are greatly under-represented among the highest rated chess players.



Innumerable articles, TV stories and political outcries have been based on an "underrepresentation" of women in Silicon Valley, seen as a problem that needs to be solved.



Are there girls out there dying to play chess, who find the doors slammed shut in their faces?



Are there women with Ph.D.s in computer science from M.I.T. and Cal Tech who get turned away when they apply for jobs in Silicon Valley?



If girls had the same interest in chess as boys had, but were banned from chess clubs, that would be something very different from their not choosing to play chess as often as boys do.



As for chess ratings, that is not subjective. It is based on which players, with which ratings, you have won against and lost to.



Applying the same unsubstantiated assumption to differences in "representation" between different racial and ethnic groups likewise produces many loudly expressed grievances and political crusades — all without a speck of evidence beyond numbers that do not match the prevailing assumptions.



People who base their conclusions on hard facts often reach very different conclusions than those who base their conclusions on the preconception that outcomes should be even.



If every 20-year-old Puerto Rican in the U.S. had an income identical with that of every 20-year-old Japanese American — and identical incomes at every other age — Japanese Americans as a group would still have a higher average income than Puerto Ricans in the United States.

That is because the median age of Japanese Americans is more than 20 years older.



People with 20 years more work experience usually make higher incomes.



Age difference is just one of many differences between groups.



You can study innumerable groups in countries around the world today, or over centuries, without finding a single example of the even or random outcomes that are used as a benchmark for determining discrimination.



Nevertheless, courts of law — including the Supreme Court of the United States — use something that has never been found as a norm to which realities are to be compared.



Billions of dollars have changed hands as a result of lawsuits charging discrimination.



Life is unfair. But that is not the same as saying the unfairness occurred wherever the statistics were collected.



The origins of this unfairness often go back to different childhood environments for individuals or different geographic or cultural settings for groups and nations.



These differences, as well as differences between individuals and groups, reflect the fact that the world "has never been a level playing field," as economic historian David S. Landes put it.



Renowned historian Fernand Braudel said, "In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally."



How long will we continue to take something that has never happened as a norm?

Is this man using these examples to say things cannot get better?



Is he suggesting that almost all complaints of discrimination are in the minds of those who complain?



Is he suggesting anyone who is saying they are victims of injustice are whiners?



Everyone deserves the opportunity to seek justice if they have been denied equal treatment.

[Anonymous]

^Read the fucking article.

[Anonymous]

Is this man using these examples to say things cannot get better?



Is he suggesting that almost all complaints of discrimination are in the minds of those who complain?



Is he suggesting anyone who is saying they are victims of injustice are whiners?



Everyone deserves the opportunity to seek justice if they have been denied equal treatment.

Fash, the writer was not wrong. Some comparisons of institutionalized unfairness are like comparing apples to oranges.

[Angry White Male]

Trying to "force" something like "equality" goes against everything that word stands for.



I have been in this position more times than you think, so I'll let you in on a little secret:



When I choose to hire someone, recommend someone, approve someone for the job, etc...



I don't give a flying FUCK what colour or gender you are.



My only goals are this:  Are you suitable and experienced enough for this work?  Can you do it well?  Can you speak English well enough to communicate effectively?  Will you get along well with the others?  Do you have a good attitude?  Are you capable of learning and improving, should you fall short in any of the above?



So, now I have to pick through hundreds of resumes...  I do so blindly, but a resume tells me a lot before I even will choose...



Without going into details here that would bore you, there is simply a greater chance that I will get a White male that fills my criteria the best.  I'm not saying others aren't good, nor at least capable, but when selecting from a short-list for one or two positions, I pick the best.  Canada is 80% White, so it makes sense that there's more White people applying for any given position in the first place.



At another job I had, I did approve the hire of a female.  She was one of the best I'd ever test driven around downtown Vancouver (B-Train, 18 Speed Road-Ranger...  Newbies need not even apply).  She quit three weeks later to pursue other things.



The fact of the matter is, when a job needs to get done, rarely does an employer care if you're White, Black, Purple, Male, Female, or even a Tranny.  The importance is hiring the best person that you have access to in the short-list pool.

[Anonymous]

Trying to "force" something like "equality" goes against everything that word stands for.



I have been in this position more times than you think, so I'll let you in on a little secret:



When I choose to hire someone, recommend someone, approve someone for the job, etc...



I don't give a flying FUCK what colour or gender you are.



My only goals are this:  Are you suitable and experienced enough for this work?  Can you do it well?  Can you speak English well enough to communicate effectively?  Will you get along well with the others?  Do you have a good attitude?  Are you capable of learning and improving, should you fall short in any of the above?



So, now I have to pick through hundreds of resumes...  I do so blindly, but a resume tells me a lot before I even will choose...



Without going into details here that would bore you, there is simply a greater chance that I will get a White male that fills my criteria the best.  I'm not saying others aren't good, nor at least capable, but when selecting from a short-list for one or two positions, I pick the best.  Canada is 80% White, so it makes sense that there's more White people applying for any given position in the first place.



At another job I had, I did approve the hire of a female.  She was one of the best I'd ever test driven around downtown Vancouver (B-Train, 18 Speed Road-Ranger...  Newbies need not even apply).  She quit three weeks later to pursue other things.



The fact of the matter is, when a job needs to get done, rarely does an employer care if you're White, Black, Purple, Male, Female, or even a Tranny.  The importance is hiring the best person that you have access to in the short-list pool.

My job is to hire service crews for jobs on a lease. I just call the cementer, the wireline outfit, the trucking company, the power tong operator, the crew that spuds the well. How soon can you be here and how much does it cost? If you fuck it up, you will be sued.

[Angry White Male]

It's easier when you're not personally liable for the outcome.



I've been in the position to screen actual candidates for the job...  It is difficult, as my own name rides on the decision that I make/put forth.

[Anonymous]

It's easier when you're not personally liable for the outcome.



I've been in the position to screen actual candidates for the job...  It is difficult, as my own name rides on the decision that I make/put forth.

I did that too when I was a service company field sup.

[Angry White Male]

We've both had to make the calls.



Like I said, I did my my best with what were the most qualified candidates.



If that candidate was a White male, it was a White male.



To tell me that I have to hire someone else, ANYONE else, other than a White male, to prove "equality," would be the worst thing that I could do.



And I wouldn't do it.

[Anonymous]

We've both had to make the calls.



Like I said, I did my my best with what were the most qualified candidates.



If that candidate was a White male, it was a White male.



To tell me that I have to hire someone else, ANYONE else, other than a White male, to prove "equality," would be the worst thing that I could do.



And I wouldn't do it.

That is the government that plays those games.

[Angry White Male]

Exactly.



I do believe that everyone should have a chance at success, regardless of their colour or gender.



However, if I hired the White Male, since he just happened to be the most qualified...  Am I now a racist?



According to some, I am!



The more women and minorities (and the Government) force their 'own' version of "equality" upon others like me, is the more that it will eventually backfire for them all.