Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This picture is cheating and conceptually messing up.
The height of people are naturally different and don't forget children are still developing and the present weakness is due to the natural process not their own choice as if they choose not to work hard to grow tall.
I am not against the care for people with natural or health issues because they did not choose their situation via not working hard enough. They are like the children in the picture.
However, for some people, their situation most likely is due to their own choice, then letting them take the result of their own choice is a way to be fair. Otherwise you are hurting the people who work hard to be in a better position.
This picture is cheating and conceptually messing up.
The height of people are naturally different and don't forget children are still developing and the present weakness is due to the natural process not their own choice as if they choose not to work hard to grow tall.
I am not against the care for people with natural or health issues because they did not choose their situation via not working hard enough. They are like the children in the picture.
However, for some people, their situation most likely is due to their own choice, then letting them take the result of their own choice is a way to be fair. Otherwise you are hurting the people who work hard to be in a better position.
In the country today what is really happening is the boxes to stand on are there for everyone but some people do not make the effort to pick one up.
I liked the original graphic better when it had all kids. This one includes a man and two kids, so not really ideal.
But yes. I believe in equity of opportunity for all kids. It's not fully achievable, but it's good to see it as the end goal. If kids don't have school clothes, we have clothes closets of gently used clothing. If they're not getting academic help at home, do it with after school programs. If they don't have a close relationship with an adult to look up to, find a volunteer mentor. Like that.
A child who comes from a middle class, two parent family with parents who are engaged and loving, and focus on the success and well-being of the children will always have an advantage over children raised in less ideal environments. But the goal of helping those kids get an equal shot in life is important.
and you'd have very few people disagree with you. If it was too many people, you wouldn't have Clothes Closets, Backpack Buddies, Boys & Girls Clubs, free tutoring, etc etc etc.
So why are there still so many under-educated economically-disadvantaged youth/young adults?
So let's talk a great example where "equity" would be wrong. You might find the Harvard report talking about "8 million at risk of homelessness".
Part of this Harvard report promotes the Biden idea of "$15,000 grant to low-income homeowners" ... as a means of equity. Their justification appears to be:
Black renters have "wealth" of $1,000
White renters have "wealth" of $16,000
So, for them and too many, EQUITY says "let's craft a program (can't do it by race even though we'll try) to make those Black renters have the same wealth as the white renters." That would be "equitable".
Except there's a problem - there's no consideration of WHY the Black renters only have $1K vs $15K for whites.
Is it education level?
Is it wage income (when the Black education level = white level)?
Is it spending habits?
Is it # of household occupants/dependents?
we don't know.
But until you do, you can't try to create equity by an oversimplified and destructive wealth transfer.
well, Tiger and I can go out for a friendly round, and he will indeed give me many strokes so that we have an "equitable match". Thing is, I still have to actually beat him with that advantage.
But until you convince the PGA Tour to use handicap strokes, then neither will I ever get to earn $1MM playing golf, nor will the 150th best player make more than the #1 player.
well, Tiger and I can go out for a friendly round, and he will indeed give me many strokes so that we have an "equitable match". Thing is, I still have to actually beat him with that advantage.
But until you convince the PGA Tour to use handicap strokes, then neither will I ever get to earn $1MM playing golf, nor will the 150th best player make more than the #1 player.
It's the concept of equity that I'm talking about, not $$$. The concept of equity is used in a game that's played by very conservative, upper middle class people.
They get it, and use it. The concept that you can play with an opponent and they get a head start. And with their head start, they may win the round. Even though by all accounts, you're the better player.
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but equity is not a concept that's brand new, or liberal.
I'm talking about children, and equal opportunity for them.
If you want to talk about adults in the workforce, maybe quote another poster who's discussing that?
equal opportunity, or equality?
in your opinion, what needs to be done for children for either?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
