Discussion On Inequality Of Opportunities And Inequality Of Outcomes
Inequalities are always present in our societies but the remedies are not necessarily always the same. The debate between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunities is thus an attempt to address the issue by identifying the tradeoff that we face. This goes into deciding whether to give a man a fish or teach him how to fish, and picking either side would yield significant consequences in our public policy. Inequality of outcome aims to restore equality by changing where the disadvantage ends up, rather than redrawing the starting line. Measures such as racial quota for admissions into top universities or mandatory female makeup for board members fall under such ideology.
The idea can also be extended to introduction of social welfare system and minimum wage. Critics for introducing these performance indicators believe that it introduces perverse incentives and fail to tackle the core issue. In contrast, proponents of inequality of opportunities still prioritize meritocracy, but they believe that it is the institutions and social framework that require a change so that everyone begins on the same footing. Inheritance tax, public education, public spending that does not excludes anyone from benefiting (due to their nonrivalry and nonexcludability) are some policies that belong to this school of thought. Inequalities of opportunities are associated to the environment in which one grows up from and is therefore also related to the notion of social mobility. Kids who hail from a lower social ladder will find it harder to break into the higher ranks as they often attend inferior schools that lack resources.
The lack of opportunities is also reflected in the job market when they graduate, as high paying jobs are often concentrated in big cities. It is estimated that the social mobility in the United States has decreased as only 20% of Americans in our generation can expect to earn more than their parents as compared to 50% of the Baby Boomers (Duncan and Murnane 2011). In Thomas Piketty’s Capital (2014), he states that the last century has seen an increasing share of wealth generation going into asset appreciation rather than wage growth, suggesting that capital owners are enjoying disproportionate benefits of the global economic growth.
Implications on public policies
Education is often termed as the great equalizer in our society. Public schools welcome kids from various social strata and create an equal playing field, although the proliferating charter and private schools has offset somewhat the facilities’ purpose. More and more we are seeing neighborhoods being segregated by race and income, urging state governments to mandate urban housing development that is inclusive to all communities. Besides social upbringing, racial and gender are also important factors in understanding the inequality of opportunities. A famous study found that African American job applicants receive less callbacks from employer compared to Caucasian applicants with similar educational qualifications (Riach and Rich 1991).
The Hispanic community has also been vocal about the limited opportunities and the elevated hostility seen in the American society. Similarly the gender pay gap is still persistent especially in conservative societies like Japan where women are supposed to be a homemaker while the man joins the workforce. That said, even the supposed beneficiary of societal bias is struggling in the strong economic backdrop. It was reported that the middle-aged white man population has experienced higher mortality rate due to their propensity to engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices such as alcoholism and smoking (Case and Deaton 2011). The study may be contentious but it shed light that it is the lack of opportunities that this population have experienced that drove them to poor habits. The problem is even more acute acute among those with without a college degree, which goes to show the importance of establishing equal opportunities for all.
Conclusion
In my view correcting inequalities by altering the outcome is akin to a diagnostic approach to treating diseases. For example, redistributive tax policies may bring down Gini coefficient (indicator for income inequality of a country) but it may not necessarily improve the earnings potential of the poor. They are still without a safety net against future technology advancements which may render them obsolete in the workforce. Instead, more structural reforms are vital, including access to STEM education and other reskilling program that could allow them acquire new skills that would later present them ample job opportunities. It could even justify affirmative action to compensate victims of perennial discrimination, but it must be carried out in a way that focuses on the process rather than the end outcome.
