I can’t believe they are using arrogant issues such as preference of food to address justice,equality, and equity. Not everyone gets everything they want in life but when it affects your life, freedom, and quality of life then justice becomes an issue of importance. So use examples that effect someone’s health, life, safety, freedom, and quality of life. If you don’t get to choose your favorite or preferred dish, portion size, isn’t going to land you in jail, cause your death, injury your body or mind, or keep you stuck in a oppressive systemic cycle. You paid your dues and therefore you deserve what you perceive to be stereotypical rewards (money). Some people are content with peace and peace doesn’t come from money or financial wealth and material things but instead freedoms from oppression and policies or laws that provide equal justice and opportunities to preserve dignity, freedoms, life, and health. This lady being interviewed is so full of herself and consumed by her own subjective needs that she is projecting to be everyone’s needs. Not everyone needs excess wealth, a lot of coats and shoes but everyone needs freedom from encroachments upon their life, liberty, and freedom.
Something like food choice is a useful way to illustrate and test the concept of equity. And, by the way, food availability and food choice *is* a quality of life issue, and it can be a major issue when it comes to health and safety.
No, this is wrong. Trying to plan for equal outcome will eventually destroy individual freedom. No matter how hard you work you will receive the exact same income as the worst worker. Individual freedom suffers at the hsnds of equity.
Concepts like this seem very reasonable until you start getting into the details. Let's consider the analogous example of the lunch room that doesn't have vegetarian entrees. Is this fair? Well, on the one hand, no, it's not fair. The choice to eat meat or not eat meat is largely just a subjective choice, an expression of preference. There is not necessarily a "correct" or better choice. Hence, not offering vegetarian food is a rather arrogant choice that unconsciously presumes that being a carnivore is inherently more worthy of being catered to than being a vegetarian. On the other hand, a lunch room has a responsibility to provide food in a somewhat efficient manner. Every choice that's added to the menu requires more preparation time, more potential waste, more potential cost, etc. It makes sense to focus on the preference of the majority because that's the most cost-effective way to deliver the "greatest good" for a fixed price. That doesn't mean that more choices cant be offered, but it means that each choice needs to be weighed in terms of its additional cost and benefit, and the "correct" conclusion is going to vary depending on who's looking at it. In other words, a 10% increase in the cost of lunch, in order to accommodate vegetarians might be a very reasonable tradeoff to vegetarians, who would otherwise not have any options at all, but it might be less reasonable to the meat eater who has a limited budget, because they're paying more and getting nothing that's of value to them. Maybe there are enough people who would prefer a vegetarian meal that it makes sense to absorb the extra cost of providing that option. But what about Vegans? What about people with certain allergies? What about people who only want to eat organic foods? What about people who only want to eat culturally authentic foods? There are a seemingly infinite number of ways to slice the preferences and needs of the human population. This is the value of a free market: that it can sort these segments, assign a meaningful cost to each choice, and then test whether people are really willing or able to pay the cost of their stated preference. Without that, with instead the ability to shift the cost of your preference to someone else, there is no limiting principle. You wind up with a cafeteria that provides every option that everyone could possibly want, at a price that virtually no one can reasonably afford. Even if that cost is shifted, it still has to be paid, and those resources spent on providing "lunch equity" might not be available to provide enough parking, or bathrooms, or whatever. It's unfortunate, when you are part of a minority, of any kind, because the choices and policies that are best for you, in spite of not being objectively worse than the choices and preferences that are best for the majority, will tend to cost more or be in shorter supply. But that is the nature of a finite world, and it is the purpose of economics: to balance the virtually infinite wants of people with the very finite resources available to satisfy those wants. The 7 foot tall man has to pay a lot more for his clothes than the 6 foot tall man. It's not fair, but it's also not necessarily fair that EVERY ONE has to pay more for their clothes just because some men are 7 feet tall. This principle becomes WAY more important when we move out of the realm of lunch entrees, and we start to look at something like educational opportunity, or housing opportunity, etc. Because those things can either get very labor intensive, in the case of education, or they're dependent on finite spaces and very strong preferences, in the case of real estate. Look at the massive inflation in the cost of higher education (universities), and you can see exactly what it looks like when even the most bare efforts are made at "equity." The real cost of education quadrupled in the space of a few decades without any measurable increase in the quality of education. Why? Because universities have made it their mission to address an ever widening array of circumstances and preferences, to ensure that no one is disadvantaged or has to stretch further or work harder than some one else in order to get the same results. As a result, college has gone from an investment and a choice that used to be good for most people (if they could get in) to a choice that's actually bad and counter productive for most. Not because the experience has gotten quantitatively worse, or even, necessarily, qualitatively worse, but because the cost of catering to every group and every preference has made the cost burdensome in the extreme. People graduate from college and they're already financially ruined, because even with a decent job (and there's no guarantee of a decent job, even for college grads) they can't afford to pay for their education AND all of the other things they need to live a healthy, productive, and happy life. You can find a similar thing with health care, a similar thing with housing. Provide equity: Watch costs explode to the point that there's actually LESS equity because the cost of the thing passes out of the realm where an ordinary person can pay for it. The bottom line is: concepts like total equity are a massive luxury. They can only exist when there's a lot of excess wealth floating around, like on college campuses (which are massively subsidized by the general public) or in very wealthy sectors like Silicon Valley. And even then, there is a point of collapse, eventually.
thevoxdeus very well put. It’s sort of like how people pass around the equity comic about the baseball game while nobody is talking about who actually built the boxes in the first place.
@havaf Quite the contrary, it's unvarnished reality. Good intentions don't solve problems of finite resources. The most efficient allocation is almost never the most equitable, so at some point, the choice for equity becomes also a choice for scarcity. There is no free lunch. There are only tradeoffs, this instead of that. If you don't believe this is true, then it means that someone else is making those choices for you. This is not theoretical. This is directly observable every day in every aspect of life that really matters to people.
@@thevoxdeus If everyone having a more tolerable quality of life would necessarily send us into scarcity, does that not raise a flag to you about this economy and institution? Also, I feel like you gravely underestimate the excess wealth that is concentrated at the top of the most wealthy people.
I can’t believe they are using arrogant issues such as preference of food to address justice,equality, and equity. Not everyone gets everything they want in life but when it affects your life, freedom, and quality of life then justice becomes an issue of importance. So use examples that effect someone’s health, life, safety, freedom, and quality of life. If you don’t get to choose your favorite or preferred dish, portion size, isn’t going to land you in jail, cause your death, injury your body or mind, or keep you stuck in a oppressive systemic cycle. You paid your dues and therefore you deserve what you perceive to be stereotypical rewards (money). Some people are content with peace and peace doesn’t come from money or financial wealth and material things but instead freedoms from oppression and policies or laws that provide equal justice and opportunities to preserve dignity, freedoms, life, and health. This lady being interviewed is so full of herself and consumed by her own subjective needs that she is projecting to be everyone’s needs. Not everyone needs excess wealth, a lot of coats and shoes but everyone needs freedom from encroachments upon their life, liberty, and freedom.
Something like food choice is a useful way to illustrate and test the concept of equity.
And, by the way, food availability and food choice *is* a quality of life issue, and it can be a major issue when it comes to health and safety.
Equity helps you reach another persons potential, not your own.
Equity and equality are both important in their way and their situations
No, this is wrong. Trying to plan for equal outcome will eventually destroy individual freedom. No matter how hard you work you will receive the exact same income as the worst worker. Individual freedom suffers at the hsnds of equity.
I hope you have since rethought your position
Gifts? Like superior intelligence?
Social Justice is Left Speak for REPARATIONS.
very smart
Concepts like this seem very reasonable until you start getting into the details.
Let's consider the analogous example of the lunch room that doesn't have vegetarian entrees. Is this fair? Well, on the one hand, no, it's not fair. The choice to eat meat or not eat meat is largely just a subjective choice, an expression of preference. There is not necessarily a "correct" or better choice. Hence, not offering vegetarian food is a rather arrogant choice that unconsciously presumes that being a carnivore is inherently more worthy of being catered to than being a vegetarian.
On the other hand, a lunch room has a responsibility to provide food in a somewhat efficient manner. Every choice that's added to the menu requires more preparation time, more potential waste, more potential cost, etc.
It makes sense to focus on the preference of the majority because that's the most cost-effective way to deliver the "greatest good" for a fixed price. That doesn't mean that more choices cant be offered, but it means that each choice needs to be weighed in terms of its additional cost and benefit, and the "correct" conclusion is going to vary depending on who's looking at it.
In other words, a 10% increase in the cost of lunch, in order to accommodate vegetarians might be a very reasonable tradeoff to vegetarians, who would otherwise not have any options at all, but it might be less reasonable to the meat eater who has a limited budget, because they're paying more and getting nothing that's of value to them.
Maybe there are enough people who would prefer a vegetarian meal that it makes sense to absorb the extra cost of providing that option. But what about Vegans? What about people with certain allergies? What about people who only want to eat organic foods? What about people who only want to eat culturally authentic foods? There are a seemingly infinite number of ways to slice the preferences and needs of the human population.
This is the value of a free market: that it can sort these segments, assign a meaningful cost to each choice, and then test whether people are really willing or able to pay the cost of their stated preference.
Without that, with instead the ability to shift the cost of your preference to someone else, there is no limiting principle. You wind up with a cafeteria that provides every option that everyone could possibly want, at a price that virtually no one can reasonably afford. Even if that cost is shifted, it still has to be paid, and those resources spent on providing "lunch equity" might not be available to provide enough parking, or bathrooms, or whatever.
It's unfortunate, when you are part of a minority, of any kind, because the choices and policies that are best for you, in spite of not being objectively worse than the choices and preferences that are best for the majority, will tend to cost more or be in shorter supply. But that is the nature of a finite world, and it is the purpose of economics: to balance the virtually infinite wants of people with the very finite resources available to satisfy those wants. The 7 foot tall man has to pay a lot more for his clothes than the 6 foot tall man. It's not fair, but it's also not necessarily fair that EVERY ONE has to pay more for their clothes just because some men are 7 feet tall.
This principle becomes WAY more important when we move out of the realm of lunch entrees, and we start to look at something like educational opportunity, or housing opportunity, etc. Because those things can either get very labor intensive, in the case of education, or they're dependent on finite spaces and very strong preferences, in the case of real estate.
Look at the massive inflation in the cost of higher education (universities), and you can see exactly what it looks like when even the most bare efforts are made at "equity." The real cost of education quadrupled in the space of a few decades without any measurable increase in the quality of education. Why? Because universities have made it their mission to address an ever widening array of circumstances and preferences, to ensure that no one is disadvantaged or has to stretch further or work harder than some one else in order to get the same results.
As a result, college has gone from an investment and a choice that used to be good for most people (if they could get in) to a choice that's actually bad and counter productive for most. Not because the experience has gotten quantitatively worse, or even, necessarily, qualitatively worse, but because the cost of catering to every group and every preference has made the cost burdensome in the extreme.
People graduate from college and they're already financially ruined, because even with a decent job (and there's no guarantee of a decent job, even for college grads) they can't afford to pay for their education AND all of the other things they need to live a healthy, productive, and happy life.
You can find a similar thing with health care, a similar thing with housing. Provide equity: Watch costs explode to the point that there's actually LESS equity because the cost of the thing passes out of the realm where an ordinary person can pay for it.
The bottom line is: concepts like total equity are a massive luxury. They can only exist when there's a lot of excess wealth floating around, like on college campuses (which are massively subsidized by the general public) or in very wealthy sectors like Silicon Valley. And even then, there is a point of collapse, eventually.
thevoxdeus very well put. It’s sort of like how people pass around the equity comic about the baseball game while nobody is talking about who actually built the boxes in the first place.
that is an incredibly sheltered perspective to have
@havaf Quite the contrary, it's unvarnished reality. Good intentions don't solve problems of finite resources. The most efficient allocation is almost never the most equitable, so at some point, the choice for equity becomes also a choice for scarcity.
There is no free lunch. There are only tradeoffs, this instead of that. If you don't believe this is true, then it means that someone else is making those choices for you.
This is not theoretical. This is directly observable every day in every aspect of life that really matters to people.
@@thevoxdeus If everyone having a more tolerable quality of life would necessarily send us into scarcity, does that not raise a flag to you about this economy and institution?
Also, I feel like you gravely underestimate the excess wealth that is concentrated at the top of the most wealthy people.
@@thevoxdeus Also, we have enough resources to provide for 10 million people, you are just propagating eco-fascist myths.