kkj

But the best approach to try to in capitalism would be to provide equal opportunities to everyone and promoting a society where this concept is considered a virtue,

The point is that you can’t do that. If you don’t intentionally try to correct for past (and current) societal discrimination, you’re effectively reducing or outright eliminating opportunities for people with certain kinds of marginalization.

• Prefer degrees from prestigious schools? Legacy admissions mean that people with rich families are heavily favored.
• Credit for internships? Rich kids can afford to take unpaid internships, while poor kids cannot, so they get an advantage regardless of their actual skill.
• A degree in general? A poor kid might be able to make ends meet with scholarships and grants, but they’ll likely have to work full time just to cover housing and textbooks. That’s 40 hours a week they can’t study or relax. And if they can’t complete the degree in 5 years or less under those circumstances, the grants dry up and they might not get another chance. And that’s if they can afford to go to school at all and don’t have to help support their family
• Work experience? Easier to get if you count low-prestige jobs, but most employers for careers don’t.
• No criminal record? Potentially easier said than done if you’re very poor. Poor neighborhoods tend to be heavily policed, and stealing food is much more illegal than, say, dumping toxic waste in a river.
• Even something as simple as not having a wheelchair ramp eliminates some people, which is why many institutions refer to DEIA initiatives for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

By the way, this isn’t a discussion about compensation and overcompensation anymore. While compensation can be compared to E. o. Opportunity under those aspects, overcompensation can not be compared to E. o. Outcome in the same manner. The topic moved into a way more economic territitory than my initial statement intended to cover.

The whole reason for there to be any compensation (regardless of whether you think it’s too much) is economic. If not for the economics, sure, it would be a lot less important to actively combat these disadvantages rather than letting them work themselves out over time, but capitalism ensures that they not only won’t solve themselves, they’ll self-propagate and become worse with time.

Edit: Btw, appreciate talking to you :)

Likewise. I had a mindset very similar to the one you seem to at one point, so it’s been interesting trying to articulate the thoughts that changed my mind.

capitalism, besides every other form of economy, is more of a challenge to some individuals than to others.

And you have no desire to change that?

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

The camera crew walked out over gun safety. I’m not seeing anything about the armorer yet, so I may have misremembered.

All for a stance that amounts to “we should waggle our fingers disapprovingly at Israel while selling them unlimited weapons to do a genocide.”

Too late for that, I suspect.

But most importantly, don’t hire scabs. The union armorer staff walked off the set of Rust due to repeated safety violations. Instead of fixing the issues, management hired unqualified scabs and continued.

If your outcomes keep being unequal, you have two options:

1. Concede that the opportunities weren’t as equal as you thought they were
2. Convince yourself that the people with the worse outcomes are somehow inferior

I prefer the first solution.

DEI and affirmative action aren’t perfect solutions, sure, but doing nothing and hoping the problem goes away is a response that is known to exacerbate the issue, not gradually solve it.

Hologram + Constellation my beloved

But they apply it to anarchists and other leftists who believe in abolishing private property, which is wholly incompatible with liberalism.