I think the question is, how much do you want to make up for the fact that some people are born with advantages that other people don't have?  We all say we want equal opportunity, but does a poor man have the same opportunity that a rich man has?  Should we try to even the playing field?

Equity should be a minimum standard.  

We want everyone to have equitable living standards (fresh water, a roof over their heads, access to essential utilities etc).  It doesn't mean everyone has the same house.

Same with Mike's education example.  We should strive for equity (minimum language skills etc) but not hold back high achievers.  If that means spending more time to help some kids get to that minimum, then that should happen.

That’s a good explanation.

---

That's a terrible explanation. Equity, but don't hold back high achievers? Lol... that's not equity.

---

That's a terrible explanation. Equity, but don't hold back high achievers? Lol... that's not equity.

When I change word definitions I can make a great case for anything.

In fairness, the concept of equity could mean leveling the playing field by filling in the holes, but in practice it's achieved by grading the hills.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's a terrible explanation. Equity, but don't hold back high achievers? Lol... that's not equity.

I think it’s a good explanation of the philosophy. Execution, on the other hand,…

---

That's a terrible explanation. Equity, but don't hold back high achievers? Lol... that's not equity.

When I change word definitions I can make a great case for anything.

In fairness, the concept of equity could mean leveling the playing field by filling in the holes, but in practice it's achieved by grading the hills.

This is exactly my point. It's impossible to fill in all the holes. It's a nonsense term when applied to humanity. It can't be broadly applied to large concepts because there's just too much variability. People who use the term and paint with a broad brush can ONLY do it by bringing others down. It's not a concept you can use to build a civilization. You can use the word equity in very specific circumstances for specific reasons, and anyone who's trying to broaden the term is either disingenuous or stupid.

---

When I change word definitions I can make a great case for anything.

In fairness, the concept of equity could mean leveling the playing field by filling in the holes, but in practice it's achieved by grading the hills.

This is exactly my point. It's impossible to fill in all the holes. It's a nonsense term when applied to humanity. It can't be broadly applied to large concepts because there's just too much variability. People who use the term and paint with a broad brush can ONLY do it by bringing others down. It's not a concept you can use to build a civilization. You can use the word equity in very specific circumstances for specific reasons, and anyone who's trying to broaden the term is either disingenuous or stupid.

In fairness you do have to bring others down.  But that's pretty much the status quo and the cost of civilization.  It''s not a free-for-all. A progressive tax system, for example, aims are bring others down.  But it's the price we pay for a civilized world.

As for your last sentence, that's just [BLEEP].

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

This is exactly my point. It's impossible to fill in all the holes. It's a nonsense term when applied to humanity. It can't be broadly applied to large concepts because there's just too much variability. People who use the term and paint with a broad brush can ONLY do it by bringing others down. It's not a concept you can use to build a civilization. You can use the word equity in very specific circumstances for specific reasons, and anyone who's trying to broaden the term is either disingenuous or stupid.

In fairness you do have to bring others down.  But that's pretty much the status quo and the cost of civilization.  It''s not a free-for-all. A progressive tax system, for example, aims are bring others down.  But it's the price we pay for a civilized world.

As for your last sentence, that's just [BLEEP].

Progressive taxation does take more from those who have the most income, but they still maintain their position in the income rankings.  If I made more than you before taxes, I still made more than you after taxes.  They are still ahead and can still buy more stuff than everyone else if they want to.

Progressive taxation has almost no impact on the income ladder and the days to day economic relationships and incentives.

But progressive taxation makes it harder to build wealth and climb the generational wealth ladder.  If you're an aristocratic family you would actually favor progressive taxation even though it makes you pay more, because it will prolong your family's time in the sun and delay the time when the nouveau riche take over and have their children dominate yours.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is exactly my point. It's impossible to fill in all the holes. It's a nonsense term when applied to humanity. It can't be broadly applied to large concepts because there's just too much variability. People who use the term and paint with a broad brush can ONLY do it by bringing others down. It's not a concept you can use to build a civilization. You can use the word equity in very specific circumstances for specific reasons, and anyone who's trying to broaden the term is either disingenuous or stupid.

In fairness you do have to bring others down.  But that's pretty much the status quo and the cost of civilization.  It''s not a free-for-all. A progressive tax system, for example, aims are bring others down.  But it's the price we pay for a civilized world.

As for your last sentence, that's just [BLEEP].

Say what you want, pal. Equity is not achievable, nor is it even desirable for humanity. I am all for leveling the playing field to some degree. I am for gradual release welfare and social safety nets. I'm even for jobs programs. I am the most progressive conservative you will ever meet in your life. 

DEI was instituted by the WEF. Corporations are pushing that into America. Do you see them cutting their pay? Equity is a line used for gullible people. Its sole purpose is served by lowering wages for the middle class as wealth is transferred up to the .01%. You guys are going to pat yourself on the back all the way back to the feudal era.

---