Equality - what is it?

I think expanding the skill base of your people should be of benefit to you all, if people who work  on the building side of your business understand the office side of things then they're more likely to be patient when the office side of things has a problem. If the office staff have experience of the building end, then they will appreciate the logistics of site management and how that works. Everybody would gain skills, somebody who thinks they're no good at "academic" stuff might find that in the right context they are, my Dad for example, would run a mile if you gave him a set of sums, but if you asked him to measure up a room and work out how many rolls of wallpaper would be needed to decorate it he'd be fine. You may find that each side of your business, understanding the other, could bing more eficiency and a whole new wa of working and understanding?

My take has always been, different therefore equal, we should value the bin collector as much as a doctor, a man as much as a woman. I look forward to the day when we stop seeing male people, gay people, woman people, disabled people etc and just see people, all of whom have something to offer, most of whom never reach their potential through lack of encouragement, money or paucity of the ambitions of the others for them, such as teacher and parents who stymie us.

On the whole women seem to have a better eye for detail and can mulitask better than most men, so a woman would most likely be a good project manager. Not all will, some wont' be able to cope either emotionally or physcially, but isn't that the same for men? Equality of possibility should be a goal for every business and we'd all be much richer for it.

I've worked in some traditionally male areas, like building dry stone walls and stuff, I've found that once past the initial scepticism of having a woman working along side them, as long as the men can see you're willing to get stuck in and dirty, they just accept you. They start appologising during breaks for saying something a bit rude, so my response was to say something even ruder and funnier. Theres always one or two who will feel that his testicles are in danger if he see's a woman lugging a sack of cement around, but the other guys often just laugh at him. Another thing, these guys that freak out at a woman lugging a sack of cement or something about and think its to heavy or unfeminine, are quite happy for a woman to lug a small child, a buggy and some shopping about, the chld buggy and shopping weigh more than a 25kg sack of cement too!

TheCatWoman said:

I think if we all do small acts of kindness then the world does get better and more equal because theres just less aggravation around and more people are willing to challenge those who cause aggravation.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I was pointing out that if we were being equal for everything then the short person in the supermarket would need to bring their own stepladder to get to the top shelf - by helping them we are treating them as if they were not the same as us.

This is being a bit extreme but it highlight the point - we are not all equal and can never hope to be.

I do plenty of charity work myself and provide social housing for local charities as well - I'm even trying to take on an apprentice from the autistic school leavers I help but few are interested in manual work.

In the end I will probably take someone on from the local favelas (slums) who is young enough to be willing to learn and old enough to be able to do some of the heavy labour I currently do.

On my wifes request we are also looking for a female hire who can be trained on the project management / development side but I've pointed out that her stance on femanism means that in the interests of equality then both the hires for manual and office work need to exhange roles for a while to establish the equality of genders.

Do you think this is unreasonable?

I want the world to be a better place and I know that it has to start with me, so any small thing I can do is good, whether its reaching a tin for a short person from a high superamrket shelf, to do something a bit nore long term and intense I try to do it, whilst at the same time looking afer myself. I think if we all do small acts of kindness then the world does get better and more equal because theres just less aggravation around and more people are willing to challenge those who cause aggravation.

Bored and irritable said:

There goes much of your solution. The vast majority of people think similarly. Did Gandhi not say, "Be the change you want to see in the world", or something similar? 

What will make it very hard for most autists is our lack of "spoons" to be able to deal with the extra hassle that being the change brings with it.

Many of us struggle with changes to routine, conflict or trauma which makes us particularly poor at being that change.

For most I suspect that simply being alive and accepting some of the way the world is will be as much as they can aspire to.

Bored and irritable said:

From my perspective, it is impossible to achieve any form of equality

Fundamentally we are not equal though. Men and women are physically and pysiologically different so cannot be truly qual. Autists and NTs have very different was of experiencing the same environment meaning we cannot be equal. An old man and a teenage boy are also very different in their capabilities through their physical body and experience so they cannot be equal.

The list goes on.

In life we can only really hope for fair, not equal in the vast majority of things.

Lotus said:

I'm not expecting anything to change - I've accepted that the world is what it is

There goes much of your solution. The vast majority of people think similarly. Did Gandhi not say, "Be the change you want to see in the world", or something similar? 

From my perspective, it is impossible to achieve any form of equality after the 'property is theft' discussion and even more impossible once capitalism is unleashed. Biologically, the species is hardwired for perseverance.

I had equal opportunity to play in the NBA, alongside Michael Jordan. (Thomas Sowell)

With the benefit of hindsight, equality proved to be a false-virtue. DEI hires became the new Hopless Talent Show contestants.

Cloud44 said:

boycott companies like Amazon

There's a good policy

I try my best to shop in the high street if I can, even if it costs more (when I can afford to that is). I don't completely boycott Amazon but I try to only buy there when I can't buy anywhere else 

I feel like pay should be worth the stress level of the job, for example, surgeons - they literally take people's lives in their hands so should be paid more. But on the flip side, do I support capitalist greed like Jeff Bazos for example? No, I don't, and I boycott companies like Amazon. They are destroying people's livelihoods - like independent highstreet retailers for example, or people who worked for the bigger retailers who closed down. I guess my point is I think a pay difference has to happen in some jobs otherwise people might not want the stress of a career like a surgeon if they could be a cleaner for the same wage, so we could end up with a shortage. No disrespect to cleaners, I used to be one in operating theatres and I remember thinking I wouldn't want the stress the doctors were under, but what we can do is boycott the billionaires and not give them as much power.
I realise *stress* is subjective so maybe that's not the best word but hopefully you'll know what I mean.

I like this 

I'd instill a culture of enough, where we don't go mad for stuff, to live with enough to keep us comfortable, happy, healthy, well fed and clothed. I think directing human creativity away from acquring all this cargo that just seems to blight our lives and end up in landfil and directing instead towards nurturing each other and our planet, to live lightly on the earth. Not to stiffle innovation, but to be more mindful of it's consequenses, to be  more thoughtful generally, to value thinking and creativity.

This is better than I ever could word it. Totally agree with your explanation.

I think, different therefore equal is for me more realistic, yes I do think some professions should be paid more to reflect greater skill and time spent studying etc, but there should be a proportionality to it, not the massive leap. It's also about attitude, we look down on cleaners and bin collectors as being stupid, lesser people, but we all know what it's like if the bin collectors strike and theres rubbish piled up everywhere.. I think as part of equality we need to change how we think about jobs like cleaning, we're seeing it now in the care sector, where care workers are finally starting to be seen as doing a vital job that takes skill and compassion and yet they work for a pittance. I think some of it is sex discrimination, things like cleaning and caring are traditional female roles that were often unpaid "house work", this needs to change, traditionally female roles need to be seen as being as vital and worthy as traditionally male roles.

I find the financial renumeration of sports players like footballers obscene, how can somebody be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for kicking a ball about?

Many actors the same. Why do some get paid millions?

I would like to get rid of or radiclaly change the honours system, so as ordinary people who do extraordinay things are valued with more than a bit of metal on a ribbon and a day out to the palace. I'd like to see those people have the seats in the HoL rather than the superanuated politicians and civil servants.

""Equality," I spoke the word as if a wedding vow

Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach

Fearing not that I'd become my enemy In the instant that I preach" - Bob Dylan

Equality can be overdone. I think that I consider that a meritocratic system, not based on inherited wealth or position would be my ideal. With cast-iron protection for basic human rights, a functioning, well-funded welfare system and a health system free at the point of delivery. I think that those with wealth should be taxed proportionately more than those with less. The concentration of inconceivable wealth in the hands of of a tiny number plutocrats, like Elon Musk, is just obscene. If a middle way could be brought into existence, that incentivises and rewards hard work and innovation, but which gives everyone a reasonable level of comfort and freedom from stress about feeding themselves and having a roof over their heads, that would be the ideal.

A very interesting question Lotus thanks for posting. I agree with a lot of the points below. At heart myself I am a big believer in being free and independent and not having other people deciding what is best for you. That being said I also think its only right that we look after those that are not able to take care of themselves or need help. Any good society should have compassion and ensure we try to avoid/minimise suffering in whatever shape that takes.

There seems to me, there is a greater divide to those that have and those that don't. Not sure how to address it but these extremes need to be tackled properly. It doesn't seem right when there are people going without food/basic needs and you have a number of people wasting money on pointless things. A lot of these folks pay very little in tax/contribute very little to society in comparison to those that are hard working but pay a disproportionate amount of tax.

I don't believe in people should all get paid the same regardless of skill/work ethic, there would be no incentive to do anything but the bare minimum and no need to make the investment on studying for particular careers. This is one of the draw backs of communism and leads to a lower level of output generally. 

We need to find a way to try and deal with the extremes in my view and close these gaps properly. No idea how tbh....

Lotus said:

Is it fair that a doctor gets paid more than a builder?

In a nutshell - absolutely.

To become a doctor you need to be very intelligent (to pass all the exams and practicals), have incredible resiliance (to cope with the crazy hours), be very skillful (to be able to administer the medical procedures / operations) and have the skills to deal with people often having the worst day of their lives.

For a builder - say a bricklayer for a lower level role - there are probaby 6 months of training and they can do the job. They typically work office hours (more or less) and have to work in harsh conditions sometimes (they don't tend to work when it is freezing as the cement does not work in those conditions with its water content).

So 6 months of a college course and on the job training and occassionaly harsh-ish working conditions.

A doctor has to go to uni to get a medical degree (4 years typically and very competetive), then a further 3 years at medical school before being brought in as a trainee in a hospital to go through years more of on the job training and testing.

So a doctor needs about 9 years of highly challenging study before they get the title of doctor.

They they then have literally life and death decisions to make of a daily basis, saving lives, saving people from pain, often working on medical research to advance patient care and still working obscene amounts of hours to do all of this.

Looking at those facts it seems clear the doctor is worth about 20 times what a bricklayer is worth, not just for the skill and dedication it took them to get there but for what they do day-to-day and the effort it takes.

Lawyers have a similar route to their title but once in work they are less involved in life and death situations typically and can have much more of a normal working life ( I know that not all do).

The entry level jobs are ones that a doctor could do no doubt with some hands on training but I don't think a bricklayer could remove my appendix (without getting cement all over my liver). So a lot of the value caculation is that the lower positions can be done by so many more people that they are not really that demanding over all.

You see this start to be more obvious in a recession when lots of more skilled workers are laid off and are competing for jobs like barristas or bartenders.

So when we look at this it becomes clear we cannot be equal and give the skilled people the incentive to go through the challenges it takes to reach their required skill level.

Think of it as if you were offered 2 jobs paying the same. One starts next week and you can walk in and get shown to lay bricks while the other needs 9 years of training before you get paid and then you only earn the same as the bick laying gig.

I think the best we can ever hope for is fair, not equal.

Lotus said:

I'm a bit of a weirdo politics wise - I strongly support freedom and personal choice & independence, but I'm also a socialist in many ways as I believe a society should take care of its vulnerable members

I support those things too so that makes at least two weirdos on this site! 

I am struggling with this one. I would like to see every person over the age of 18 have an income equivalent to a real living wage. Nobody should struggle to afford decent accommodation, heating, food, health and social care. I don’t think a society can function well without jobs attracting renumeration according to type of work and required training/study for the position. I don’t necessarily think that posts requiring professional academic qualifications should attract more pay than those needing unqualified labourers who might need to work in freezing and dangerous conditions. How does one measure the amount of effort required by each employee? We are individuals with unique challenges and talents so how does one evaluate the effort each individual makes in a working day? Individuals might struggle psychologically if their earning potential were to be restricted. 

An interesting theoretical exercise and I would like to see the divide between the very rich and the very poor decrease. Unfortunately, the reality is that things are going in the opposite direction and the very rich are getting obscenely rich. This is going hand in hand with self serving interest, increasing political control, and disregard for ethical and moral decision making. 

This is a really fascinating question, thank you so much for posing it. Like you I have several different ideas on the topic.

Firstly, I think there is a distinction to be made between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity means that everyone would have the same chance in life, the same level of education and opportunity for advancement and achievement. Clearly this isn't the case in our society but it should be. 

Equality of outcome, however, would mean everyone would have the same salary, success and achievement level regardless of the effort they put in or how skilled they were. For instance, if you and I both worked in the same office and you turned up at 8am every morning and worked your socks off until 5pm and I turned up late and then sat at my computer playing games all day, we would both be rewarded the same. That clearly isn't fair. 

A fully equal society is never possible because some people will work harder than others and some people are more skilled than others. For instance, I will never be as good a footballer as Lionel Messi even if I practice football 12 hours a day every day. Doctors are paid more than cleaners because of supply and demand. I'm not in any way putting cleaners down, I have the utmost respect for them and have done similar jobs myself. However, the fact is most people are skilled enough to clean whereas very few people have the skills required to be a doctor so their skills are paid more highly. 
If everyone was paid the same or had Universal Income there would be no incentive for anyone to work hard and society would soon, if not collapse, then certainly struggle. 

What I firmly believe though is that the people in positions of wealth and influence should use that for good and NOT to oppress or exploit those below them. That's why I loath people like Mike Ashley, a billionaire who operates warehouses that resemble Victorian workhouses and treats his staff at Sports Direct appallingly. ( I used to work there myself) Jim Ratcliffe is another one like that

What I don't understand is how anyone could be rich and not want to help the poor. Sadly, there are many people like that it seems but it baffles me. If I was a billionaire I wouldn't be able to sleep at night for thinking of all the people who were homeless or struggling unless I was doing something to help them 

I agree with you about renationalisation. One only has to look at train fares and energy bills to see that privatisation has not been a good thing 

I've been a Socialist most of my life, and I could probably monopolise this post which would make it tedious and boring for everyone else.  I don't think massively long contributions make for easy reading generally on a forum...  

I think many confuse Socialism with Communism and that is likely the deliberate aim of the right-wing media.  I don't think anyone would say there should not be reward for attainment, but there has to be a point where - in a decent society - to have/own more than you and those you are responsible for would ever need in your lifetime and still be engaged in the pursuit of wealth has to be looked upon disfavourably.  

It cannot possibly be right, ethical nor fair - let alone compassionate that many own a multitude of homes that they either rent out for personal gain, or hardly use at all, while over 300,000 are classed as homeless in the UK (Shelter).   Meantime Councils pay out an inordinate amount to private landlords in Housing Benefits because we've so little council housing left, it being the policy of successive Governments to sell it off and not replace it.  

Let's not get started on everything else that was sold off too, and the amounts we now pay to private firms who run essential services, profiteering at our expense.  What was the purpose of all that privatisation?   Only today we hear of a large hike in the energy cap, again.  

I think many affluent or wealthy individuals forget that we come into this world with nothing & take nothing out.  It seems to be a pastime of certain individuals to grasp as much as they can during their lifetimes, as if they were playing a game - with no idea or care as to the way the majority have to live, or what they have to endure. 

I could go on, but you get a flavour of the sentiment.  

I totally get where you are coming from and I do question whether it is right that the differences in pay are so vast. A cleaner is just as vital for a hospital as a doctor.

I guess the difficult part comes with... if everybody got paid the same is would the motivation be the same to do the more challenging jobs, to do the jobs that involve a 5 year degree. Yes some people would naturally have that motivation to be challenged but others may say well I can get paid for doing a far less difficult/pressurised job. You also then run into the issue of is it fair that people who want to be doctors have to pay to do their degree when someone can get paid the same amount to do a job without a degree.

I would love this to be really black and white with a definite answer that shows total equality but I think the reality is that it's just not as simple as that.