There’s a problem with the way we define inequality
The above is an article on the BBC about what inequality really means. Wealth is not really something that we see as inequality in fact no wealth difference according to the article is perceived as inequality.
3 Ideas from the study quoted from the article
It’s important to remember that, as we figure out ways to combat inequality, that there are three separate (but related) ideas.
First, the idea that people should have equal opportunity in society, regardless of their background, race, sexuality, gender and so on.
The second idea is fair distribution, which says that benefits or rewards should be distributed fairly based on merit.
The final idea is the notion of equality of outcome, or that people receive equal outcomes regardless of circumstance. This last one is a little trickier to grasp. Many of the experts BBC Future talked to brought up the phrase ‘inequality of outcome’: say if you were given £5 and your friend was given £10. That represents inequality of outcome, since the two of you have different amounts of money, regardless of how that came to be.
I agree with the first 2 but there 3rd one seems to differ with the rest of the article and then in the end of the article they say we need to concentrate on making less poverty which seems to be completely against their findings.
I believe we need to definitely concentrate on the first 2 to combat inequality. What I'd like to do is debate what they are stating. Debate their solution and find out what other people believe the solution to be.
The above is an article on the BBC about what inequality really means. Wealth is not really something that we see as inequality in fact no wealth difference according to the article is perceived as inequality.
3 Ideas from the study quoted from the article
It’s important to remember that, as we figure out ways to combat inequality, that there are three separate (but related) ideas.
First, the idea that people should have equal opportunity in society, regardless of their background, race, sexuality, gender and so on.
The second idea is fair distribution, which says that benefits or rewards should be distributed fairly based on merit.
The final idea is the notion of equality of outcome, or that people receive equal outcomes regardless of circumstance. This last one is a little trickier to grasp. Many of the experts BBC Future talked to brought up the phrase ‘inequality of outcome’: say if you were given £5 and your friend was given £10. That represents inequality of outcome, since the two of you have different amounts of money, regardless of how that came to be.
I agree with the first 2 but there 3rd one seems to differ with the rest of the article and then in the end of the article they say we need to concentrate on making less poverty which seems to be completely against their findings.
I believe we need to definitely concentrate on the first 2 to combat inequality. What I'd like to do is debate what they are stating. Debate their solution and find out what other people believe the solution to be.