equality versus equity - the history of this meme and the discussions it started

Today, I stumbled across an article by the creator of the equality versus equity "accidental meme" (as he calls it).

The Evolution of an Accidental Meme - How one little graphic became shared and adapted by millions by Craig Froehle.



There are some subtleties to Froehle's image that I hadn't noticed until I read through all of his comments about variations to his image. It's quite thought-provoking.

This is definitely a hotbed topic in which I'm not promoting any specific viewpoint. I just think it's rather amazing how an image can explain a concept so, so well. And how that image can be morphed and expanded upon (or bastardized, as the case may be).

The first image shows two criminals.

The second image shows three criminals.  

It sounds like somebody wishes to encourage crime?

paul wheaton wrote:The first image shows two criminals.

The second image shows three criminals.  

It sounds like somebody wishes to encourage crime?

It is a crime to try to attend or watch something for free that requires a paid ticket.

Though I think the fence is meant more as a metaphor - an obstacle to a part of life.

There are some versions of the meme where the fence was removed or changed so the kids could see through it. Which meant removing the source of inequity instead of adjusting for it, which the original creator thought was brilliant.

@P&J:  Re-Criminality.

This does seem to be a brilliant meme on many levels.  For instance, one could ask, and perhaps Dostoevsky did, which is more criminal--- coopting "America's past-time" into a multimilliondollar industry, or surreptitiously witnessing such ....."play".... at the rather minor expense of that industry.

I'm thinking that kids these days would be sitting in lawn chairs, having placed wireless cameras atop the fence, and enjoying the game on their iPods/Smartphones.  Now, if they were broadcasting their feed, ESPN may have a case.....

My brother would take one look at this and say, "Build your own damn box."

Paul, it seems you are not alone...

From the creator's commentary:

"Curiously, there was no shortage of complaints that the kids were just freeloaders and should buy a ticket to be inside the stadium if they want to watch the game. Which, I think, entirely misses the point."

...in missing the point. Though, i'm guessing intentionally.

my first impression on seeing this meme, was how nice for the older child to help out the youngest.  The game, in my mind, wasn't the point.  

I don't think I would assume that it was a pay to view game...can't tell from the action or the fence....I sure didn't assume they were cheating/criminals right of the bat...that never crossed my mind.

I also think the meme could be about helping those who are at a different level than oneself...I don't see the downside to that.....

And then, there's the risk that they are all taking by having their unprotected heads above the fence line, that fence may have been intended to keep balls in the field.  I can see where some might accuse the older child of putting the younger in harms way....

Yes, I did intentionally miss the point.  

An optimist sees the glass half full.  A pessimist sees the glass half empty.  An engineer sees the glass as larger than it needs to be.  And a politician says "who the fuck has been drinking from my glass?"

I think that a good part of the point would be that if you seek something for all people to be able to have access to a thing, you recognize that some people will need a boost, some will need a bigger boost, and some will need no boost.  

I guess my comment earlier has a strong focus on how this thread is in the social justice forum.   So the real lesson here is to be really careful that we are figuring out how to help folks.   To help folks that have been falsely accused of stuff get a high priced lawyer?   Medical care, housing, food?   Or, will boxes help people commit crime?  Or hurt others, or give some sort of inappropriate advantage to bad guys. So I am thinking that if we are talking about these boxes in a forum called "social justice" we need to be very careful about the full picture of what they will be used for.  I saw that the boxes were being used for crime.  Apparently, others are willing to look past the crime in favor of appreciating the cleverness of the box distribution algorithm that assisted with there being more crime.

I've always wondered if there should be a branch of government that would be the "consumer advocate" that would look out for all of us little folk to protect us against the shenanigans of the naughty (corporate and corrupt gub'mint).  I think this is probably more important than "homeland security" or the nsa.  

Reading the article that Jocelyn linked, and how the artists original drawing morphed and was adapted by dozens of people in the years since he drew it, it appears that he approaches the world with a number of assumptions.

1.  That there is a fixed number of "boxes" to go around, and that if we only redistribute the boxes, everyone will be served.  I don't think that it is in any way presumptuous or casting aspersions on the artist to say that this is an assumption fundamental to socialism: that resources are finite, and that if you somehow have more than me, you have taken an unfair amount of them -- fundamentally, you've probably stolen them from me.

In permaculture, we speak of abundance.  We take the worst piece of land, invest sweat and time and treasure into that land, and build a system where it goes beyond productive to a point where we are able to give away a surplus beyond what we are able to consume ourselves.  There is not underlying assumption of limited good.  The sky is the limit.  There are not just 3 boxes.  There are an unlimited number of potential boxes, you just have to do the hard work to build them.

To rephrase my bother's comment (that I quoted above): when someone argues, "We just want a slice of the pie", he would respond, "You mean you want a slice of my pie?  Bake your own damn pie."  I will help you, give you assistance, coaching, and support while you get your system up and running, but don't expect to eat from my fruit trees for the rest of your life.  Plant your own trees.  Invest in your own chickens.  Bake your own pie.  Build your own damn box.

2.  While all three people have a box (in the first panel), it's still considered unfair because the one dude is taller than the little dude.   I want to ask: how did he get so tall, and why are you so short?  The underlying message: he has more money (power, access to education, etc.) and the other guy has less, so give him yours.  This is the default response of many: redistribute the resources, rather than expand the resource base.  

3.  In the American context, these issues are most frequently framed in terms of race.  (And this is where I recognize I am walking into very sensitive territory, but as a person of color and under-represented minority myself, I will enter where angels fear to tread).  But when you look at the roots of social and economic inequality, the question of culture needs to be teased-out from race.  There is a huge and significant distinction between culture and race.  People just look at the skin color and say, "Well he's poor or uneducated -- someone must be discriminating against him -- it's a racist system."  Perhaps.  Racism is a very real and significant problem.  But is that it?  Is that all it is?  Or is there a larger unspoken issue of culture that is far more at the root of problem?

Why are some cultures (Asian, for instance, and increasingly Hispanic/Spanish speaking cultures) able to rise from the bottom of the American socio-economic strata) while other cultures remain stuck at the bottom?  If a culture values education, delay of gratification (as evidenced by saving money, investing for the long term, spending excess resources on personal development rather than entertainment, a stoic hard working emotional posture, etc.), family unity, sacrifice of the individual for the good of the group, etc., that culture (regardless of the color of their skin) will move ahead in front of any culture that celebrates a live-for-today ethos.  Again, it has nothing to do with your race and everything to do with the internalized values and social norms that guide your behavior.

So is shorty short because of something he's choosing to do or not do?  Is stretch that much taller because he's worked hard, paid his dues, and invested in miracle grow pills?  If you use terms like "protestant work ethic" or "land of opportunity" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" in certain audiences, you'll be shouted down.  It implies that some cultures are superior to others, and that is the reason for their success relative to others that are still unable to peek over the fence and enjoy the game.  

I reject that.  If a family or group of families spend their available resources on instant gratification, toys, and non-durable consumer goodies, they will fall behind that family or group of families that invests their money in education, durable resources (land, tools), family stability and long-term economic stability.  

Put simply -- if one guy invests in the latest iPhone and lease a bling'ed-out car, while the other guy works 2 jobs and goes to night school, you tell me, who will come out ahead in the end?  Values and culture matter.  It's the difference between renting your whole life or sacrificing and getting into a mortgage, even in a crappy small house, and building equity.  

And lest you think I'm just another member of the tight-ass republican trickle down club, that couldn't be farther from the truth.


Permaculture would say, "Hey shorty, do you know that there is a better way to go about this?  Ever think of building a second box for yourself?  Ever think about how to go about growing another two feet taller?  You have more resources available to you than you may even realize.  You don't have a shortness problem, you have a drill deficit.  Let's get a cordless drill and a 2 inch hole-saw and we'll take care of your visibility issue in about 30 seconds."

Marco Banks wrote:
In permaculture, we speak of abundance.  We take the worst piece of land, invest sweat and time and treasure into that land, and build a system where it goes beyond productive to a point where we are able to give away a surplus beyond what we are able to consume ourselves.  There is not underlying assumption of limited good.  The sky is the limit.  There are not just 3 boxes.  There are an unlimited number of potential boxes, you just have to do the hard work to build them.

Make a better world through learning good things, rather than being angry at the bad guys.  Paul Wheaton

Marco Banks wrote:
To rephrase my bother's comment (that I quoted above): when someone argues, "We just want a slice of the pie", he would respond, "You mean you want a slice of my pie?  Bake your own damn pie."  I will help you, give you assistance, coaching, and support while you get your system up and running, but don't expect to eat from my fruit trees for the rest of your life.  Plant your own trees.  Invest in your own chickens.  Bake your own pie.  Build your own damn box.

Well said!

When people ask me to make them something or grow them something, or for me to something-something for them for free; I always respond by offering to give them free lessons on how to do it themselves.  Maybe one in fifty people take me up on the offer.  Out of a dozen people who took me up on the offer, only one of them was over 10 years old.  

I think equality is teaching people how to build their own 'damn boxes' and bake their own 'damn pie'.  

My high school math teacher use to yell at the class at the top of her lungs, so loud, you could hear it halfway across the school (it was a fair size school).  She would yell "NO FISH!!!"

The other thing she would yell is "COWF" (cancel only whole fractions - but that's not relevant to this discussion).  Basically, she was the best math teacher ever!

NO FISH was what she yelled when someone whispered the answer to a classmate.  It's from Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

Like I said, best math teacher ever!

As a person with an invisible disability, I view equal opportunity as teaching me how to fish.  In tern, within my means, I teach others how to fish.  You wouldn't believe how low my disability pension is, so let's just say it's well below the national poverty line and leave it at that.  To compensate, I use the library to borrow everything from books to videos to seeds for my garden. To me, equal opportunity is providing a well-stocked library and encouraging people to use it.  

It's nice when someone gives me a box, but I don't like to stand on it.  These metaphorical boxes are for taking apart and learning how to make my own.  Then I put it back together, stand on it, and see if I like the view (I often don't).

Jocelyn Campbell wrote:
It is a crime to try to attend or watch something for free that requires a paid ticket.

I believe it is not a crime.  Or, to be more precise, it's not a "malum in se" (bad in itself) crime as recognized by the English common law from which we here in the US take our legal traditions.  It may be a "malum prohibitum" (bad because it's prohibited) crime in select American jurisdictions, but if so it's not even close to universal in all US jurisdictions.  There's also a tricky freight hidden in that word "required" because it's a business requirement of the exhibitor, not a legal requirement of the state.

I'm not just law-geeking here because I can.  This is important.  Our unexamined assumptions are what bring us down. Paul sees (I imagine) a certain failure to honor some businessman's business model and parses it as crime.  It's not clear that businessmen have (or should have) the automatic right to legal-system protection for their business models.  In some jurisdictions, it might be "theft of services" or "trespassing" (depending on whether the ball park owns the land outside the fence) or some odd extension of European-style "creators' rights" to control access to an exhibition.  If you really stretch, you can maybe get to an intellectual property law violation, which are usually civil but not criminal unless truly egregious and for profit, like mass-producing DVDs or pirated playing cards.  (That had to hurt; ouch; full sympathies.)

But really, the same freedom that allows an entrepreneur the flexibility to organize a sporting event that people want to see and charge for tickets to see it gives that entrepreneur the right to decide how tall to build his fence and how much money to spend on that fence and how much land to buy outside that fence and whether or not to control access to that land outside the fence.  All of those things are simple business decisions.  You make them and you abide by the consequences and if the "freeloaders" watching your game while standing on boxes or flying nearby in small airplanes or overhead in hot air balloons, those are simply losses that you absorb because you didn't want to spend the money to prevent them.  There are places where condo towers with balconies overlook professional ballparks and people routinely hold viewing parties on their own balconies; nobody considers that a crime because it isn't.  It's just a leakage in the business model, not worth plugging because there's no practical way at reasonable expense.  

Again, I'm not just law-geeking because I can.  Who the legal system protects goes to the heart of what equality and equity mean.  I understand Paul's point; all the people in the graphic who can see over the fence are getting something for nothing, and that feels like injustice from the perspective of the person who pays out huge money to organize the sporting event and has a righteous expectation of being paid.  But it may not feel the same way to the viewers; and the criminal justice system has never pretended to address every injustice.  I'm way too much the anarchist to automatically assume that a capitalist's grievance (however righteous, and I do believe in and support the many great things that capitalists have, like the Romans in The Life Of Brian, done for the rest of us) ought to automatically be mapped to an offense in our criminal justice system; and as a point of fact, in our current system, those grievances do not automatically map to crimes, even if there is a growing trend in that direction.  And this one, in particular, is not well mapped to any broadly-recognized crime.

Everyone should have basic rights, dignities and access to things necessary for survival. I don't deny that. When there is an excess, it depends on the gulf between the haves and the have nots. I don't have a lot other than knowledge and a willingness to share that with others, so others can do what I can, to accomplish that which I need (providing for myself). In the same sense, I do not go about things 'selfishly' (hog the whole pile just because I can) but as a 'treat others how you would like to be treated'.

As someone said, the Earth is capable of providing your needs, not your greeds. If you need, you should be able to get. If you're greedy, I hope the karma-wagon backs up and dumps on you.

I had the epiphamy some years ago when we were in a rock and hard place, both spouse and I had a horrible cold, and we were within the throes of a killer move. I had hit the grocery store for a BOGO sale and brought the second loaf of bread home. It was now so old it should have been green. We were 10 days overdue for our last trip, the one to leave and move to the new place for good. The people buying the house allowed us access to it for one more night and our old bed someone was picking up in the morning. So as the new owners dictated, the lights were off and the thermostat set to about 50. I had the emergency blanket from the car, a working toilet, running water, and that loaf of bread. Plus the old mattress that was being picked up. I went to say my grace, and stopped.

Many would have been outraged, but here I was. It was November and I was in a warm dry place, with a decent mattress, flush plumbing, running water. I had a loaf of bread. Tomorrow I would make a long drive of many hours and there would be real food there when I got there. But. I had a safe place to sleep, food to eat, and clean water to drink. It wasn't a hotel room with cable and room service, but. I had enough. I could eat, I could drink, I could go to the bathroom and I could sleep in safety and warmth, out of the sleet. Tomorrow would be better. I had enough. I was satisfied that I had, indeed, enough. I said my grace in the fading light, I ate my bread, I went to sleep. In the morning we drove out on the next chapter of life, and I tossed the now green bread that was left. That night though, it was still good. I had enough.

We as permies are like this. We strive to have enough, often by our own hands only, and we learn to define, to us, what is enough. Others may not think so, but. Each person has to figure that one out; and often we need a far lot less than we think.

So we share, how to have enough, how to make sure we have enough, how that can change, and how to show others that you don't need so much, to have, enough.

When I first looked at the mime I saw three individuals of different age or by extension different degrees of experience without the means to pay for the best seat in the game of life.  I assumed they were in a free to view area but all of them were young but only one had reach the stature close enough to adult to see over the fence set to limit adults from wandering into prohibited space. I wanted to apply the mime to permies.com

With more than 70 years of homesteading experience I have no problem seeing over the fence here to watch the permaculture game without being right up against the fence. and having been in my own game so long I don't need to pay for a premium seat to observe the advancement in the current game by paying for workshops and certification courses. In fact I can enjoy my maturity by letting the older child have the space at the fence and going and getting a box for the middle child and two boxes for the smallest.
I do that by commenting in the forums and answering questions for those having trouble seeing over the fence or understanding how the game is played.  I think I am getting the equity / equality thing correct because I have been rewarded with apples and even pie for my efforts. So if you are here in the free area show appreciation by doing good. When the little one gets tall enough to see over the fence I may need the two boxes to sit on to see over the fence.

Dan Boone wrote:
...
There are places where condo towers with balconies overlook professional ballparks and people routinely hold viewing parties on their own balconies; nobody considers that a crime because it isn't.  It's just a leakage in the business model, not worth plugging because there's no practical way at reasonable expense.  

...

Probably the price of those condos is higher than condos without that view ... Maybe even those condo towers were built by the owner of the ball-park for that reason

There's ball-game at the other side of the fence ... but what is happening right here, at this side of the fence? What would those three 'persons' see if they turn around and look the other way?

I disagree with some of what Marco said . For me resources are finite as is the earth its how we use them that's important .
Education is a key way of redistribution it should be free and unfetted .
Taxation is how public services are paid for  .
Health is a right
Equal opportunity does not mean everyone is the same but that all should have the same chances - if people  sqander them that's another story

Interesting comments, both sides directions.  My assumption when I looked at the mime was that the three had worked together voluntarily to reach the solution.  That would be the best solution.  Also, I note that the short guy didn't need continued help from the tall guy, just a one time hand up.  

Referring to the meme, when help stops being voluntary and we allow some outside force (maybe govt) to come and force the tall guy to give his stuff to the short guy we get to the start of most arguments.  

Everyone has a basic right to survive.  Not many would argue that.  How much of my stuff are you entitled to in your struggle to survive?  That is where the debates start.  

My dad has a tough love philosophy.  He is willing to help anyone who is actively trying to improve their situation.  The price of his help though, is that you have to listen to his advice and if you refuse it, he may take his help elsewhere.  His advice is generally pretty blunt, but correct.  The way he phrases it, is "if there's going to be a hook in my mouth (his resources and/or time taken up) then I want a hook in your mouth also (at least as much involved on your part).  It's uncomfortable to be the object of his help, but I think he wants it that way.

I was recently told about a conflict between a couple of women I know.  The first woman made a jealous comment to another woman because the second gal is tall and slim and the first struggles with her weight.  The second gal responded "It's not easy for me either, I watch what I eat, I exercise!"  The first gal said "maybe so, but you were just born that way."  It hurt their relationship and their husbands close friendship.  I think both women were correct in their comments.  Yes, the second gal watches what she eats and exercises, but she "won the genetic lottery", like her mother and sisters, she's tall, slim built and has a high metabolism.  (Interesting point, I think the first gal is much prettier and has a nicer shape than the second gal, but what do I know).

Most of what I see in the US is in a similar vein.  The social programs are such that no one needs to go hungry long term.  The west side of Chicago has some really nice architecture and used to be the upscale part of town.  It's the people living there  now who make it an undesirable and unsafe area.  Desperate, third world poverty isn't really the complaint in Europe, Canada or the US.  It's perceived poverty because others have more.  Most of the poor live a lifestyle that would have seemed decadent to most people 150 years ago, with indoor plumbing, hot and cold water, heating, air conditioning, tv, internet and some sort of transportation (even if it's a scooter).  I've worked with and lived with multiple groups (of various ethnicities) whose primary disadvantage despite their claims, is that:
1       they look down on those who try to learn (calling them yuppies, oreos or apples)
2       they have disfunctional, disastrous families
3       they spend way too much time high or drunk.  
4       they think it's normal for the police to be at the house every week or so for trouble of some sort.
It's a vicious cycle because their children pick up the bad attitudes and habits.  The tragedy is that many of these kids are bright, talented and could shine, but their home life and the attitudes of their parents and peers make it a rare thing for them to escape their lifestyles.  When they do escape and come back to help, they are usually driven out within a few years because they don't fit in anymore.  If they stay, someone makes a movie about it.  

I have an aunt who lived in one of 'those' neighborhoods in California.  When my folks went to visit her, the little girls she cared for asked my mom where her grandkids lived.  She said they were home with their mommies and daddies.  The little girls laughed and wouldn't believe her, they had never heard of kids being with their moms and dads at the same time.  My mom talked to my aunt and my aunt told her that the only stable family in their 200 apt complex to her knowledge was a family who had just immigrated from Taiwan.  There were lots of mommies, lots of kids, lots of boyfriends who rotated around, but no daddies.  My cousin's  boyfriend was just out of jail, but figured he'd be going back soon, because he was a thief.  A few months later he ended up in San Quintin.  None of these people were necessarily bad, they just live the life they and their peers were born to.

There's a line in the move "Second Hand Lions" where an old uncle says something like "It's not our fault you have a terrible mom."  to the main character.   It sucks, but some things can't be fixed with money.

I think I've nailed the real problem with poverty in first world countries (the US anyway).  What the solution is, I'm not sure.  Education of some sort.  Maybe begin with moral education like "you are responsible for your life.  you are responsible for your own children.  You can solve your own problems."  If they choose to pour their life down the drain, you can't save people from themselves.

The other thing needed when someone wants to get out of poverty is a way forward, because there is a 'gap' between being on benefits and fully independant that is sometimes hard to bridge.

I found another version of this discussion as it was demonstrated to a classroom of eight-year-old students.

I think this originated in Twitter, but I found it as an image on Facebook.

I'm a school teacher and coach debating. In the context of debating the equity vrs equality issue comes up all the time.

In the various comments above there are points raised about scarcity of resources etc... and that socialism in general assumes that there are finite resources to go round and that equity or equality requires some form of redistribution. I don't think that is entirely false, but there is more that can be drawn from that image.

In an equal society, those children would have seats of their own in the stadium alongside everyone else. Those on the inside still have a substantial degree of privilege compared to those outside, but I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that that is the form of social equality/equity that advocates may campaign for. And yet that is frequently used as a strawman argument by those who are opposed to social support systems - whether intended or not.

Here in the UK we have a welfare system that systematically punishes, stymatises and shames the poor - and is rife with perverse incentives against them taking actions that would improve their lives. For example, I have close friends on very low family income, who are entitled to a low level of income support and housing benefits, but this is calculated on their earnings. If he increases his earnings, by working more hours or increasing his hourly rate, his benefits will be suspended and recalculated and he will potentially have to repay the benefits he has taken. This is based on his annual income - he cannot afford to take a risk an earn MORE than the estimated income he has claimed for, because he could be left with a potential bill for hundreds of pounds. In their case their finances are so tight that that would potentially end up with them losing their home. If he wants to renegotiate his benefits he needs to take a day off work and spend it in an office proving entitlement - he cant do it over the phone, or electronically, because he is self employed and they demand physical evidence - even requesting a review would cost him and his family considerably. And this all for someone who is working 12 hour days 5 hours per week.

It is generally true that the very poor in the UK, and I imagine elsewhere, have the least control over their financial lives. Have least opportunity to change. Have more barriers to change than anyone else (if I want to earn more, I don't risk losing my home, or have to spend a day in an office explaining myself). Have less valuable skills - poverty and lack of qualifications often go together. So when people talk about the poor and the rhetoric becomes "they should get jobs/work harder/spend less/get qualified" I simply accept that those talking have no clue what barriers true poverty puts in the way of accessing normal everyday life. Society is structured in such a way that, even if opportunities may exist to improve your situation, there are serious structural problems that prevent that.

I attended a very interesting talk on Tuesday at the London School of Economics which was on Universal Basic Income (a welfare reform which is being widely discussed and trialled properly in a few countries at the moment). One of the big take away points from it was the level of stress and anxiety that the poorest face routinely. These are crippling - as I have seen first hand - and the lack of security of income itself is at the heart of it. Lack of secure income means that, even when they want to, those in poverty cannot take risks to improve their situation. And every part of their life becomes that much more challenging, and exhausting. People operating under high mental stress levels make worse decisions, have less resilience, greater mental health problems etc...

One last thought to finish on:

One technique I use with my students when they are considering the implications of a particular debate motion is to consider things using the Veil of Ignorance. Essentially you ask yourself "If I were to be inserted into this situation today, at random, without knowing what role I would have, would I be happy with the outcome?"
What if I were rich? Poor? Black? white? a woman? mentally or physically disabled? gay? elderly? a landowner? Intelligent? Not intelligent? A convicted criminal? a victim of crime?

Note that the Veil of Ignorance does not presuppose equality. There is no mass redistribution of wealth inherent in it, but it makes you question whether your basic societal and economic structures are just.

Most discussions on this topic, here and elsewhere, perpetually ignore how we arrived at our current situation of gross socioeconomic inequality! Then when some measure is taken to help the "unfortunate", the notion is that something is being given for nothing, that any such action represents a great act of charity and largesse on the part of society and those who are presumably paying the taxes which fund the remedy.

All of this ignores that society has been structured, engineered, by those in power and with most of the wealth, to keep them in their privileged position, and to ensure that the masses never escape from their necessity to provide underpaid labor which continues the flow of wealth to the few people in power.

And so the billionaire asserts that to use taxes from him to feed a hungry poor child is somehow theft...

Anyone with an awareness of the history of Western civilization knows that any "theft" which is pertinent to this conversation has been occurring for many centuries. The poor didn't make themselves, after all...

I was talking recently with someone about the hidden costs of poverty. The inability to afford necessities is kind of obvious, but she explained what a difference it makes on a practical level.

For example, my weekly shop:
I jump in my car on the way home from work. I stop at the supermarket and do a quick whizz around, chucking in the usual items and a few things that look nice. I'm well aware that taking my time and planning more carefully could result in a cheaper trip, but saving a few pounds at the expense of substantially more time and thought isn't a good deal.

My friends shop:
Her weekly food budget is about half mine, for a family the same size. She avoids driving her car to the shops, because of the extra cost. She has a 20 minute walk each way, carrying heavy bags. When she goes around the shop she takes considerably longer, because she has to shop for bargain, saving a few pounds here and there. Frequently her kids have to come with her, because she her husband is working and she can't pay for child care. Her shopping trip takes twice as long as mine, is far more strenuous, more emotionally exhausting (tired kids in a supermarket is never fun), and more difficult because of how tight her budget is.

This pattern is repeated over and over in all their planning and decision making. They decide where to park based on where is free, so often end up walking a mile to what ever their destination is. They go to multiple shops, instead of just one, trying to save a few pence and buy toilet paper on discount.

I frequently see this type nuance missed from discussions about poverty. The poor work harder everyday, in every facet of their lives, just to participate in things that the more affluent can choose to simply ignore. This hidden cost has a huge impact on health, mental wellbeing, stress levels and general happiness.

I posted a version of this meme today on Facebook in response to a sort of "alt-right-lite" relative I have, who had posted something arguing -- well, more like assuming and arguing by repetition -- that equality should be all about equal opportunity and nothing to do with equality of outcomes.  His spouse then replied to the equality-versus-equity meme with a milder (and less of a legal stretch) version of the "they should buy a ticket" perspective.  What I told them was that I see this as the rhetorical tactic known as "derailing" -- changing the conversation to more comfortable ground instead of grappling with it -- since the point of the meme is about the relationship between the three people, and it could be any sort of spectacle at all on the other side of the fence.  The example I used was skinny-dippers in a water trap at the city golf course -- totally free, totally "in public", a delightful spectacle, and no moral opprobrium of any kind attached to watching it.  Just three people enjoying a scene.  (Make up any attractive spectacle on the far side of a physical barrier that you want, if you don't like or or if you disagree with the ethics of mine.)  

In the process of all that, I happened to find myself back at the link in the OP.  And I noticed that the creator of the meme also has an opinion about this "they should buy a ticket" framework:

Curiously, there was no shortage of complaints that the kids were just freeloaders and should buy a ticket to be inside the stadium if they want to watch the game. Which, I think, entirely misses the point.

One of the problems is that we all are dealt a different hand in life.  Some are smart, good looking, tall, (fill in the blank), some are dealt a much poorer hand.  Some are born into a strong, supportive family, some not.  

Some work really hard, others just drift.  

I don't know how to fix this inequity and I don't think anyone does.

We have reached a point in western society where we try to provide a safety net where people can live in conditions that would have seemed wealthy a couple hundred years ago.  The problem is, we compare our situation with others doing better and realize we are poor and disadvantaged.  (If you were living in some 3rd world country you might feel rich, it's comparitive).

Maybe someone smarter than me has a better answer, but most of what I see is nothing new.  I think the besy answer is to change the mindset of the people.  Hard to do.

Hi Mick,

I find the issues you mention creeping their way into the subject of choice.  Does one make a specific  choice because that is what the individual wants, or is it because the individual is not aware of the options available?  Of course, this connects into choices involving permaculture as well.

I think most of the time people look at the options represented by the people around them and assume those are the only options.  

We are in the middle of selling our house and the real estate agent told us that in his experience, most people lack imagination.  They have a hard time imagining the house in front of them with a good cleaning or a coat of paint or even with the outlet covers replaced.  How much harder to imagine a way of life you havent seen?

Hi Mick,

I used to flip houses before it was a thing. Back in the 70s I raised my funds to buy my first homestead that way.  Anyway, yes, if it was a bedroom, you have better have a bed in it.  If you have a desk and not a bed then it is a study and is missing  bedroom.  The issue is not simply choice .... it is informed choice.

So this old thread has resurfaced.  I would imagine that future contributions to the thread will reflect those that have already been posted.  There are two camps:

Camp 1: Inequity is the responsibility and fault of those who have, and their resources need to be redistributed to the have-nots to make things fair.  Your prosperity is evidence that you have somehow taken something undeserved from me.

Camp 2: You can't blame people if they worked harder, sacrificed and built something better for themselves.  Your choices matter.  Individual responsibility matters.  Take a look in the mirror, and stop blaming your problems on others.  Be a maker, not a taker.

Camp 1:  How can people be a "maker" when they don't have resources, access to capital, and are systemically kept down by the man when they try to get ahead?

Camp 2:  Stay in school.  Save a bit of your money.  Stop making self-destructive choices.  Don't create children you can't take care of (or intend to walk away from).  Nobody is forcing you to make bad decisions so stop blaming "the man" for your lack of discipline.

Camp 1:  You were born with more and that's unfair.  We should establish a "fair" threshold and then tax anyone whose income is above that and give it to those below it.  You were given everything you have -- born at the top of the strata.  You didn't earn it.

Camp 2: Where is it written that life is fair?  Work harder.  I'm sorry if you didn't win the "genetic lottery", but my intelligence, strength and good looks are not something you should punish me for.  Be angry at your dumb, weak and bad looking parents, but that's not my problem to fix.  And who are you to say that I didn't earn what I have?  


And from there, the two camps build a higher and higher wall between them, lobbing rhetorical bricks over it at one another.

There is truth to what both camps are saying.  There is also a big blind spot inherent in each camps' perspective.

I don't imagine that this thread will change either of their perspectives.

Marco Banks wrote:So this old thread has resurfaced.  I would imagine that future contributions to the thread will reflect those that have already been posted.  There are two camps:

Camp 1: Inequity is the responsibility and fault of those who have, and their resources need to be redistributed to the have-nots to make things fair.  Your prosperity is evidence that you have somehow taken something undeserved from me.

Camp 2: You can't blame people if they worked harder, sacrificed and built something better for themselves.  Your choices matter.  Individual responsibility matters.  Take a look in the mirror, and stop blaming your problems on others.  Be a maker, not a taker.

Camp 1:  How can people be a "maker" when they don't have resources, access to capital, and are systemically kept down by the man when they try to get ahead?

Camp 2:  Stay in school.  Save a bit of your money.  Stop making self-destructive choices.  Don't create children you can't take care of (or intend to walk away from).  Nobody is forcing you to make bad decisions so stop blaming "the man" for your lack of discipline.

Camp 1:  You were born with more and that's unfair.  We should establish a "fair" threshold and then tax anyone whose income is above that and give it to those below it.  You were given everything you have -- born at the top of the strata.  You didn't earn it.

Camp 2: Where is it written that life is fair?  Work harder.  I'm sorry if you didn't win the "genetic lottery", but my intelligence, strength and good looks are not something you should punish me for.  Be angry at your dumb, weak and bad looking parents, but that's not my problem to fix.  And who are you to say that I didn't earn what I have?  


And from there, the two camps build a higher and higher wall between them, lobbing rhetorical bricks over it at one another.

There is truth to what both camps are saying.  There is also a big blind spot inherent in each camps' perspective.

I don't imagine that this thread will change either of their perspectives.

I agree that this thread will probably not change the minds of people in either camp.  This discussion has been going on through the ages, and probably always will.  As for me, I'm pretty firmly planted in camp 2.  Myself and my brothers came from pretty much nothing.  We weren't raised in a family that encouraged college, and only one of four of us attended. My parents divorced when we were young children.  No one in my family taught us about investing or saving, because they had no money to invest or save.  In spite of that, and the fact that we chose different paths to get there, all of us have a very good standard of living and are what I would call successful.  All of us have some things in common.  We all worked hard, most of the time more than one job.  None of us have $1200 cell phones or drive expensive cars.  All of us live within our means and have some money put away.  All of us own houses.  One big difference I see between my brothers and I and a lot of people is that, for whatever reason, we never saw people that had more than we did as somehow having stolen from us or as owing us anything.  I will never understand the point of view that because someone else is successful or has money, they somehow owe people that have less.  I believe in sharing, and I believe people that have more can and should people that have less.  I also believe it should be voluntary, and the people receiving should feel gratitude, not entitlement.  I have 80 acres of land now.  Lots of people have none.  It took me until a couple years ago to get that land and I'm in the second half of my 50's.  I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to people that don't have land because I scrimped and saved and worked my ass off to get mine.

I suspect I am the exception.  I am firmly in both camps. To establish the base,  I grew up in poverty. I was an "accident".  My father retired 7 years after I was born.  Then he lost his retirement (remember Jimmy Hoffa).  He died shortly afterward. In my early teens I would wake up with my blanket white with frost and more than one I would walk the railroad track to the coal mine picking up coal.  This was in the 1960s ...not the 30s.  My mother pushed me to go to college.  I worked every odd job I could  and saved every penny.  Even so, I would have never made it through college without lots of financial aid.

A decade and a half later. I am CEO of a company.  The first policy I write is to pick up tuition costs for any employee.  Less than a handful took advantage.   Only 2 people complete degrees.  In my private life I have given away substantial amounts of money to individuals. Once to an abused woman to buy  car. The other to a couple for a down payment on a house.  The car was wrecked shortly afterward. The house burned down. Both without insurance.

In a weird way this goes back to Paul's original post.  I do still believe in giving a boost, but values must be taught as well.

Trace Oswald wrote:
I agree that this thread will probably not change the minds of people in either camp.  This discussion has been going on through the ages, and probably always will.  As for me, I'm pretty firmly planted in camp 2.  Myself and my brothers came from pretty much nothing.  We weren't raised in a family that encouraged college, and only one of four of us attended. My parents divorced when we were young children.  No one in my family taught us about investing or saving, because they had no money to invest or save.  In spite of that, and the fact that we chose different paths to get there, all of us have a very good standard of living and are what I would call successful.  All of us have some things in common.  We all worked hard, most of the time more than one job.  None of us have $1200 cell phones or drive expensive cars.  All of us live within our means and have some money put away.  All of us own houses.  One big difference I see between my brothers and I and a lot of people is that, for whatever reason, we never saw people that had more than we did as somehow having stolen from us or as owing us anything.  I will never understand the point of view that because someone else is successful or has money, they somehow owe people that have less.  I believe in sharing, and I believe people that have more can and should people that have less.  I also believe it should be voluntary, and the people receiving should feel gratitude, not entitlement.  I have 80 acres of land now.  Lots of people have none.  It took me until a couple years ago to get that land and I'm in the second half of my 50's.  I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to people that don't have land because I scrimped and saved and worked my ass off to get mine.

I grew up for the first 8 years in a single wide and then my parents worked up to buy a house in a better area and we were firmly middle class then. None of us were encouraged to go to college either. I'm the only one that did. Two of my siblings are just a mess. The other one looks like she's living the high life but they're always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. I, however, live within my means. No one understands that, telling me to just go buy a new car, etc.

ANYWAY, I was going to comment to just say that I do sort of agree with both camps. My husband and I are hard working but everyone is well aware of the good old boy network happening here in WY. I'm sure it's elsewhere as well but being small town it's really bad here. It doesn't matter what you've done and how smart you are, it depends on who you know. That's how you get the good jobs. So on that end, it doesn't matter how good my husband and I are, we will never rise up that particularly much here. Those that have will continue to have, whether they deserve to have it or not.