Fair is an interesting word. Since all people are created equal, then you can only expect that all minorities are represented very close to their percentage of population, same for women and men, etc. And the only way to truly measure equity is via looking at the outcome. Because if your outcome isn’t properly equally represented, then the process you used to get to that outcome is flawed (and racist, sexist, etc-ist). There’s no “quota” involved, it’s just that a fair process that provides equity, can only result in a properly equally represented outcome.
Fair is not part of the Economics vocabulary.
Fair is part of the Ethics vocabulary.
That creates a terrific conflict of interests. Most importantly, in my opinion, it relegates achievement to the dust bin. Everyone is handicapped to the level of the lowest achiever.
The Captain
1 Like
I didn’t get that understanding from the cartoon at all - I was focused on the foreground v. the game itself.
Pete
1 Like
The trouble with this picture is it shows a perfect solution to a problem.
What if there had only been 2 boxes available? Who gets to watch the game?
Also, the tall kid isn’t impacted by the choices made in the second frame. In real life that isn’t always the case.
1 Like
But it’s a cartoon, not Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
The simple idea is meant to convey giving people a simple and cheap solution to providing them opportunity (a couple boxes) not giving them the same outcome of competition from the game itself.
Pete
1 Like
Where I come from, we call it “kindness”.
1 Like
Actually the pic is a perfect example of fairness - the very definition of equity.
NO ONE was disadvantaged in that picture. There is no quota, no was was kept from watching the game - but those with less “whatever” were provided a fair opportunity to see the game.
The guy without a box enjoyed the game in exactly the same what he would have otherwise.
1 Like
I disagree. This assumes that the groups in question are biologically and culturally the same, which is obviously not true. Women are severely underrepresented among NBA players. That’s not sexism, that’s biology. Asians are underrepresented in the police force. I suspect that has more to do with culture than racism.
Group differences in outcome does not mean that the process was prejudiced. Fairness is in the process, which is not necessarily indicated in the outcome.
Fairness is also a moving target. In the 1950s and 1960s fairness in the movie industry was defined as equal opportunity for actors regardless of ethnicity. We’ve gone backwards today in demanding that actors must limit their roles to their ethnicity.
Racial fairness to Martin Luther King (IMO) is a process where ethnicity is irrelevant “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Sadly I don’t believe this philosophy of “color blindness” is embraced by either conservatives or progressives today.
3 Likes
I agree with all of that. Everybody wins in that picture. Nobody suffers.
But answer my question. Remove one of the boxes. Who chooses who gets to watch?
Life isn’t as clean and simple as that picture.
I don’t get your hypothetical. Why would we arbitrarily remove a box?
Now, if there were an unrectifiable scarcity of boxes, one could consider lowering the fence - assuming it doesn’t negatively impact the game.
If that is impossible for some reason, then one could consider putting windows in the fence. Same result but the game isn’t impacted - sort of like how restaurants have high chairs for children.
We already know the answer to this one!!! If there are only 2 boxes available, you exclude some of the Asian-Americans to make space for the xyz-Americans that need boxes. Because Asian-Americans are all smart and studious folks that aren’t interested much in sports anyway. 
There is also the assumption that the boxes have no cost.
DB2
@pauleckler
Yay! Many fictional characters were put out of work. Finally, justice. It reminds me of Nina Katchedourian’s Genealogy of the Supermarket:
It depends. In a capitalist society, the big guy would take both boxes, then sell them to the highest bidder.
The defect with the illustration isn’t the boxes. It’s the use of height as the analogy, and the labelling.
Height is a physical aspect of a person, almost always not the result of their personal choices or decisions, immediately visible and easily measured, usually unchangeable, and not correlated to merit or capability.
We do lots of things in our society to mitigate the impacts of those kinds of differences. One notable program is the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have braille signs in elevators, ramps for curb cuts, flashing lights in addition to audible alarms - all designed to make sure that people who have different physical abilities have the chance to participate in society. But those things are rarely labeled as equity measures - they’re usually discussed as equality of opportunity things, giving folks with disabilities equal (not equitable) access to various places.
“Equity” - as a colloquial label - usually involves issues that are more contested. Either the resources/assets are allocated to different groups (rather than individuals as shown in the illustrations) or are allocated based on traits/circumstances that are far less obvious or apparent or unchangeable than height. Offering affirmative action in college admissions based on membership in a racial demographic group - a common example of an “equity” type program - involves a set of issues that is far less analogous to those in the illustration than the “equality” program of making sure the school buildings are wheelchair accessible.
1 Like
Nah. There is clearly a cost - which is why there might be a finite amount of boxes. The owner of the field likely suffers the cost - and probably passes it along in ticket prices (assuming one had to pay to see the game) - in much the same way that the cost of handicap spaces (parking, seats, restrooms) are part of the cost that we all pay.
This clearly illustrates the grave misunderstanding so many (too many) folks have about capitalism. The “big guy” would “take” nothing, instead the big guy would build the boxes and then sell them to a willing buyer at a the price they agree on. Sometimes the “big guy” will even hire some of the other guys to work for a wage building those boxes.
And guess what? Sometimes (and even usually) it’s the “small guy” who builds and sells those boxes because the “big guy” never even thought of boxes because he doesn’t need them, but the “small guy” did think of boxes because he needed them, and figured “hey, maybe there are other folks that also need them and will buy them from me”.
1 Like
Maybe it’s just the way I interpret the message that this picture sends. Maybe I’m reading it wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time I took something the wrong way.
Since the picture has the words equality and equity, I’m assuming the underlying message is that “DEI is good. Look at this picture. See what DEI accomplishes”.
All I’m saying is real life inequalities/opportunities are more difficult to solve.
I was thinking beyond the cartoon, all the way to 42!
The Captain
PS: The cartoons’s metaphor is pretty good for it’s intended use.
@MarkR
That is not true. The term “burden” comes to mind in regards to tax policies. It is an overriding concept in econ.