Equality, Equality, and Equity

In a cartoon political ad, Kamala Harris narrated, "Equality means 'Everyone should get the same amount'."

No, not really.

In political parlance, equality means the equal application of rules and laws such that everyone operates on a level playing field, as far as policy goes.

The definition Kamala uses is one that operates strictly within the welfare state model of how to distribute public goods. She goes on to talk about equity versus equality, which talks about giving the needy more than those that are less needy. Her promotion of equity over equality is more of a statement against a UBI than any free-market economy. I'd normally just chalk it up as a video that doesn't have me as its intended audience, but this is public policy and she very well may become the president within the next four years, so it really kind of does have something to do with me. And quite frankly, the continual manipulation of the English language for political ends irks me.

Equality versus equity was explained in a viral meme long ago where there are three people of different heights watching a baseball game over a fence. Not explained in the meme is how, if as a matter of policy, everyone gets boxes to stand on outside the fence from the government, there would be no funds from ticket sales to actually hold a baseball game, making everyone suffer. It also doesn't explain who provides those boxes (money is taken from all of the people inside that paid tickets) or what the resources would have been otherwise used for (what if the boxes were supposed to ship food to people, and now they don't have access to food). It also doesn't consider that perhaps if so many resources weren't wasted manufacturing boxes for people to freeload on a baseball game, perhaps there would be employment opportunities for the family below so they can afford their own damned ticket. These are all important issues with public policy, which pretty much destroy the meme's premise.

The meme explaining the difference between equality and equity. Honestly, if you can't think beyond what you immediately see in front of you in a meme, please don't vote or become engaged in politics. // original author unknown

As it more or less stands now, there are three ideals of equality: Equality of law, equality of distribution, and equity of distribution.

Equality of law

This is the libertarian understanding of a just society and the method that produces the best results for everyone. Everyone operates under the same rules. Nobody may aggress against another so the only way to earn one's riches is to provide a good or service that other people want, at a price they're willing to pay for.

This results in maximal efficiency in the market, with price signals indicating what people want and need, instead of politicians trying to garner favor with special interests manipulating the market to prioritize certain behaviors over others. It is also the ultimate meritocracy, where people who maximize the benefit to society for the lowest cost rise to the top.

The criticism is often what happens to people who don't have sufficient ability to survive? People often have difficulty with this, particularly when considering this system would result in extremely different outcomes than what we presently have. Due to the above, the economy would significantly accelerate given that resources would be far better managed and allocated, vastly increasing opportunity and wealth for everyone. Competition in the free market between firms would keep prices low and wages high as much as the market can support. This reduces the existing resource load given to people who don't produce anything tangible to society. Further, the lack of price controls like minimum wages allows people who have less ability, whether due to a disability or otherwise, to compete on price. This is evident in the cessation of hiring of people with mental disabilities and ex-convicts following minimum wage increases. The remaining would be much easier to handle with charity. Would charity be enough? I tend to think so, but if it is shown that it isn't outside of some anomalous situations, I'm not against maintaining a baseline survival program.

Equality of distribution

Some libertarian economists and philosophers such as Milton Friedman have discussed equal distribution methods such as a negative income tax to completely replace welfare, which is based more upon equity principles than equality. The idea here is to avoid the welfare cliff where people tend to cease working when working would result in lower benefits than receiving welfare, resulting in massive resource drain. This has the unintended consequence of people not bettering their lives like they could have when working and getting promotions as they improve their skills, instead staying at the baseline welfare level.

People that advocate for equity often point to Scandinavian countries, but Scandinavian countries today operate more upon the equality of distribution model than equity. Taxes are high and flat with a baseline untaxable income, whereupon public services are paid. It is not a model where the rich pay for the programs of the poor.

In any distribution model, this is the only one that really makes any kind of sense, due to the welfare cliff of unequal distribution.

Equity

The idea of equity is to give resources to those who most need it, from those who have most of it. While this is a nice sounding policy at face value, any deeper investigation would show that this is an utterly broken system. Numerous federal welfare programs in the United States today is based upon an equity system. Most programs like food stamps or Section 8 are provided only to those in the lowest socioeconomic status. While these programs are popular (who doesn't like free stuff?), rarely evaluated is what the resources would have been used for otherwise and how it might have been utilized or distributed either more efficiently or elsewhere to provide opportunity, instead of handouts, to the recipients.

This model, promoted primarily by the socialist left is, quite frankly, a rainbow unicorn. The government can try, but there will never be equal distribution as a consequence. Even programs that can seem pretty straightforward like affirmative action, has shown that it can even be counterproductive to the people they're trying to help. 

For total equity of outcomes, consider the scenario of a concert. Let's say one is successful in achieving perfect equity via policy and everyone now has exactly the same level of wealth. The next day, a musical artist holds a concert for 10,000 people, each of whom pays $100 for a ticket, grossing $1 million for the artist. Now the artist is a million dollars richer (let's assume he had zero costs, for calculation's sake) and the audience is $100 poorer. Now what? Do we re-equitize society and take a million dollars away from the artist that just did all the work and distribute it back to the audience? It is easy to see here, then, that equity of outcomes by government mandate is a ridiculous position to take, as people would no longer work since their income would then just be stolen from them.

Indeed, this is exactly what happens in purer socialist societies, as defined as "the government ownership of the means of production" such as the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, socialist Zimbabwe, etc. They don't even reach equity despite their attempts, with the political class getting a far outsized portion of the wealth and the common folk equitably starving to death from famine. This is also what happened on a smaller scale among the first European settlers in America, when they had communal farming and nearly didn't survive the first winters. It wasn't until after private property was established that they began to thrive and outputs went up. (Look, Slate, I don't care what the technicalities were of the legal organization around it, the point is the method doesn't work, which you basically conceded)

Though Dave Smith doesn't agree, I still think equity is a good goal to have on a voluntary basis, not as government fiat. Smith argues that people strive to be better than others. True, but in an equity sense within a free market framework, the idea is that people want to be elevated to the Jeff Bezos level. And honestly, at that point, why would it not be a virtuous personal goal to engage in philanthropy toward the less fortunate, as numerous billionaires have? It is true that people of this kind of (non-inhereted) wealth are fantastically good at allocating resources, so they should continue to do what they do with their money to increase opportunity, at some point, as with Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, the large amounts of cash become cumbersome to achieve returns. While Dave Smith may have a point if we're all starting from a completely equal situation, that isn't the reality today.

In the end, who knows if Kamala Harris even believed the words she wrote. Given her previous disgusting actions like trying to condemn an innocent person to death row just to further her career, I have little doubt that she is someone who just says whatever she thinks would help her get elected.