Equality of opportunity

[Figleaf]

happy now greg?

Edited July 24, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

I got 3 out of 3

[geoffrey]

Well, society does offer pretty much equal opportunity to everyone, anyone can go to university if they want to, ect. ect.. Pretty much the unsucessful have themselves to blame. Canada is pretty good at showing hard work pays, laziness, well, reflects itself too. The exception being the EI leeches and the such, but there will always be some of them.

The reason why I voted that Canada doesn't have equal opportunity for everyone, is that minorities have more opportunities than us general majority folk. Indians have so much opportunity, true, few of them do anything with it, but hell they can do anything for free, school, health care, free income on reserves. Such a good deal. Any of you in university know that minorities have numerous support centres on campus, where us majority people might have a long line up at one.

There is also very unequal access to student loans. Poor people have no issue finding money to go to school, the government will give you whatever you need. Middle class people though, can struggle to find enough at times. I have some friends that fall into that gap between rich enough parents (or well off enough themselves) and poor enough to get loans. It's a struggle for them. They'd be better off and have more opportunity if they were poor.

So yes, it pays to be minority or poor in Canada. Other than that, people are pretty equal.

[BubberMiley]

Some people are a lot stupider than others though. You can only work with what you've got.

[Argus]

So simple, isn't it?

You can never provide completely equal opportunity. Even trying is a fools mission. There are far too many elements of opportunity to regulate them. What about a child born to loving, caring parents who happen to be poor, but pay a lot of attention to that child's upbringing and education VS a child born to lazy, indolent, dishonest, self-centred, well-off parents who teach the child nothing but spoil it rotten instead?

The poor child graduates from university and becomes a doctor.

The well-off child overdoses on cocaine at nineteen.

Who knows?

Wealth plays a part, but so far as I know, the biggest component in a child's success in Canada today is the parents, and whether they provide a stable, loving, supporting environment and do their level best to see their child gets ahead.

[M.Dancer]

Some people are a lot stupider than others though. You can only work with what you've got.

And some people have parents who drive them and coach them to succeed..and some have parents who are too busy to help with homework......

In theory everyone has equal opportunity but in reality tutors cost $45.00 and hour.......

[myata]

Opportunity and the result aren't the same thing. Simple illustration is a lottery.

[Renegade]

Of course opportunity varies by individual circumstances. There are some variables both the individual and parents control and many they don't. Some variables have a large influence on results, others do not. IMV, the largest influence on success in life, is the individual themselves, much more so than the circumstances they are in.

I don't think the the question which should be asked is whether there is equality of opportunity, because clearly there can never be equality of opportunity. The question to be asked is "Does the individual have a reasonable chance of succeeding, despite the circumstances they are born into?"

I would answer yes.

[M.Dancer]

"Does the individual have a reasonable chance of succeeding, despite the circumstances they are born into?"

I would answer yes.

I would say that's true 75% of the time...maybe more....but sometimes you see a kid, and you see the parents (or parent) and you know the kid is snookered from day one. I've seen it, parents are addictc of some sort and the kids get taught all the wrong lessons. Now maybe 1 out of a 100 can beat those odds.......and I've seen it the other way too....parents are old money, kid learns sailing at the RCYC, did well at Prep school, marries a Branksome Hall Blonde.....law degree.....hired by Faskem Martineau (his uncle's there too!) odds must be 25 to 1 that someone could fuck up badly enough to throw all that away....

but occasionly, like the crack baby who becomes the doctor, it happens........

But put the two together...the blue blood kid and crack baby bob.....and then ask which one has the easier time rising to the top.........

[bradco]

Exactly equal opportunity isnt the goal. The goal is that everyone has an opportunity. I would say for the most part if people want to succeed in this country they can. Problem is people in western society are generally lazy, plain and simple. In Canada if you fail you are most likely the reason why. And the great thing about this country is we have so many programs set out to at least offer you second and third chances and at least a way to live even when you fail. As a university student I hear lots of people whine about how they cant afford their tuition and that the government needs to do something. This upsets me because these people dont even realize how much the government is already subsidizing post secondary education. The level that it is at now is fully achievable by anyone. If you cant afford it then you can get a loan and presumably your education will make you able to pay it back. If your in the middle class and there are no loans available you are probably in a situation where you would have no problem earning enough if you really want it. Sure you might have to work for it but it is possible. I work 70-80 hours a week in the summer so when I hear people who arent even working full time whine about how hard it is to pay their tuition I cant help but shake my head.

[Renegade]

But put the two together...the blue blood kid and crack baby bob.....and then ask which one has the easier time rising to the top.........

I don't dispute that the child of wealth has less obstacles rising to the top. My question is so what? Why is it necessary that they both have exactly the same ease at rising to the top? In my view it isn't necessary.

[M.Dancer]

But put the two together...the blue blood kid and crack baby bob.....and then ask which one has the easier time rising to the top.........

I don't dispute that the child of wealth has less obstacles rising to the top. My question is so what? Why is it necessary that they both have exactly the same ease at rising to the top? In my view it isn't necessary.

It's not a question of necessary...we have all acknowledged that miracles happen, that kids from destroyed homes and ruined childhoods sometimes persevere and rise......

But lets not pretend that is either the norm nor that their success is easily duplicated.

.....and that's why some kids need a leg lift up......

[Renegade]

It's not a question of necessary...we have all ackowledged that miracles happen, that kids from destroyed homes and ruined childhoods sometimes persevere and rise......

But lets not pretend that is either the norm nor that their success is easily duplicated.

.....and that's why some kids need a leg lift up......

It depends upon what you mean by success and what you mean by a leg up. In don't see being born poor as an obstacle to success. I define success as having a reasonable standard of living. I don't define success as being a multimillionaire.

If kids are born into situations more disadvantagous than being poor, (such as to addicted parents), then I see that as the irresponsibility of the parents and to better ensure the success of the baby, the baby should be taken from the parents and placed with more deserving adoptive parents.

[M.Dancer]

It's not a question of necessary...we have all ackowledged that miracles happen, that kids from destroyed homes and ruined childhoods sometimes persevere and rise......

But lets not pretend that is either the norm nor that their success is easily duplicated.

.....and that's why some kids need a leg lift up......

It depends upon what you mean by success and what you mean by a leg up. In don't see being born poor as an obstacle to success. I define success as having a reasonable standard of living. I don't define success as being a multimillionaire.

If kids are born into situations more disadvantagous than being poor, (such as to addicted parents), then I see that as the irresponsibility of the parents and to better ensure the success of the baby, the baby should be taken from the parents and placed with more deserving adoptive parents.

I don't see being poor as a huge disadvantage.....I see being poor and having everyone around you being poor as well as being a disadvantage....I see communities where two parent families are rare, where welfare mothers are common and the normal job is drug running....I see that as a huge disadvantage....

[Renegade]

I see being poor and having everyone around you being poor as well as being a disadvantage....

Of course it is a disadvantage, but are you saying that a poor person from a poor community doesn't have a reasonable shot at success?

I see communities where two parent families are rare, where welfare mothers are common and the normal job is drug running....I see that as a huge disadvantage....

I know lots of single parents and I don't think simply being a single parent is a significant disadvantage.

If you have single (or any) parents, who can't support their kids and cannot raise them in a fulfilling environment, then they have abrogated their responsibilities as parents. The "leg up" to those kids should be to relieve those parents of their parenting responsibilites and place kids into an environment where they have a shot at success.

[myata]

I would define success as a function of 1) opportunity (general chance to succeed), 2) personal input and 3)circumstances (out of one's control). These will vary with the individual's progress in life. One can't expect much of personal input from a child, so much of the upbringing problems will fall into the circumstance domain. An adult (other than disabled) has to bear responsiblity for their actions, so circumstance factor should be limited to grave situations beyond one's control (such as e.g. disability).

We generally agree that the society must provide #1 in equal (as far as possible) measure to everyone, but it has far less influence over the other two factors. To what measure it should be responsible for the effects of those, and as a consequence, for the success (as opposed to opportunity) of each individual, is a real and interesting question.

[M.Dancer]

Of course it is a disadvantage, but are you saying that a poor person from a poor community doesn't have a reasonable shot at success?

I would say less that 50/50

I know lots of single parents and I don't think simply being a single parent is a significant disadvantage.

Never said it was. I said in communities where being a single parent is the norm. I grew up with just my mom, as my father was killed at work. But that wasn't the norm, there were other role models.....

If you have single (or any) parents, who can't support their kids and cannot raise them in a fulfilling environment, then they have abrogated their responsibilities as parents.

That's quite a catch all pronoucement. I can assure you people fall on hard times without doing anything culpable. And certainly not to an extreme where families should be ripped apart.

[Renegade]

I would define success as a function of 1) opportunity (general chance to succeed), 2) personal input and 3)circumstances (out of one's control).

Yes but these don't affect success equally. IMV, drive, personal ambition, and work ethic which you class as "personal input" affect it far more then the others. Others factors such as education. which you classify as "opportunity" are simply prerequisites.

We generally agree that the society must provide #1 in equal (as far as possible) measure to everyone,

I disagree. I think that condition to be met is that "opportunity" is provided in sufficient measure. It doesn't necessarily have to be in equal measure.

[Renegade]

I would say less that 50/50

In the absence of evidence, I'd have a hard time believing that.

Never said it was. I said in communities where being a single parent is the norm. I grew up with just my mom, as my father was killed at work. But that wasn't the norm, there were other role models.....

Single parents is more the norm now then 40 or 50 years ago. Personally I see just see it as a variation of family. I'm not sure that it being the norm has significant influence.

That's quite a catch all pronoucement. I can assure you people fall on hard times without doing anything culpable. And certainly not to an extreme where families should be ripped apart.

I don't mean it to be. I'm not saying that familes which fall on hard times beyond their control should be ripped apart. My statement was for parents who despite circumstances make irresponsible decisions. In my view, being a parent is a responsibilty. That responsibilty includes providing sufficiently for your kids under forseeable circumstances. If one can't do that, one ought not to be a parent.

[M.Dancer]

I would say less that 50/50

In the absence of evidence, I'd have a hard time believing that.

In the absence of better odds, that all we have.......

[M.Dancer]

I don't mean it to be. I'm not saying that familes which fall on hard times beyond their control should be ripped apart. My statement was for parents who despite circumstances make irresponsible decisions. In my view, being a parent is a responsibilty. That responsibilty includes providing sufficiently for your kids under forseeable circumstances. If one can't do that, one ought not to be a parent.

Well yes.....people who despite their good fortune fail.....

[myata]

Yes but these don't affect success equally. IMV, drive, personal ambition, and work ethic which you class as "personal input" affect it far more then the others. Others factors such as education. which you classify as "opportunity" are simply prerequisites.

All three are necessary constituents of success. To what extent? Not sure if it's possible to define exact measure, but saying that any one is far more important than others? Let's take extreme cases: no opportunity (i.e, no education, no access to decent jobs, no social services, no medical care) - how much chance of success one'd have in life? Adverse circumstances (very serious disability affecting one's chances to learn skills, move, find employment) - can you say you'd still have same or similar chance to succeed as someone who's able bodied?

I disagree. I think that condition to be met is that "opportunity" is provided in sufficient measure. It doesn't necessarily have to be in equal measure.

Sufficient would work fine if there were someone we could always consult with about what's "sufficient" for this particular individual. As such a godlike creature doesn't seem to be available, equality is the next best options.

[Renegade]

All three are necessary constituents of success. To what extent? Not sure if it's possible to define exact measure, but saying that any one is far more important than others? Let's take extreme cases: no opportunity (i.e, no education, no access to decent jobs, no social services, no medical care) - how much chance of success one'd have in life? Adverse circumstances (very serious disability affecting one's chances to learn skills, move, find employment) - can you say you'd still have same or similar chance to succeed as someone who's able bodied?

Reread my response. What I said was that they are prerequisites, but more doesn't necessarily lead to proportionately more success.

Sufficient would work fine if there were someone we could always consult with about what's "sufficient" for this particular individual. As such a godlike creature doesn't seem to be available, equality is the next best options.

There is no godlike creature which determines equality either. If we take education as an example, are you saying that we should ban private schools and tutoring so that eveyone ends up with "equal" opportunity?

In addition we don't make a determination of what is "sufficient" on an individual basis. We make it on a generalized basis. We collectively decide that 12 years of education are "sufficient" to enable one for life. This may or may not be true, but we don't in advance determine that person A needs 13 years of mandatory education, and person B only needs 10.

In the end both "sufficient" and "equal" are judgment calls.

[myata]

Well, what I mean by "equal" is something like "everybody has the same rights to access service as deemed reasonble by the society". E.g. elementary or high school education. Not "exact same service" as it would be impossible to achieve. So as long as my kid can go to a public elementary school, there's no issue with the private ones.

Simply because it (the society) has not much control over the over two factors, it'd be impractical to make any formal requirement to guarantee anything like "equal chance of success" (what radical left is dreaming about) as opposed to equal opportunity to succeed. This is not to say that it (the society) should not attempt to mitigate negative effect of the other factors, to the extent that is possible and practical.

[Renegade]

Well, what I mean by "equal" is something like "everybody has the same rights to access service as deemed reasonble by the society". E.g. elementary or high school education. Not "exact same service" as it would be impossible to achieve. So as long as my kid can go to a public elementary school, there's no issue with the private ones.

This is more in line of my definion of "sufficient". This means, it is fine that some people have better access than others, as long as everyone has at least whatever we decide is the minimium level.

This is not to say that it (the society) should not attempt to mitigate negative effect of the other factors, to the extent that is possible and practical.

Whenever society tries to "mitigate the negative effect of other factors" it seems to get in trouble. View affirmative action programs as just one example.