Where the liberals once uttered the word “equality,” progressives have since replaced it with another word, “equity.” As with so many words that seem destined to mean whatever Humpty Dumpty feels it should, the word “equity” has largely escaped definition to be used as a catch-all for whatever outcomes are in need of rationalization.
But columnist Nancy Kaffer at the Detroit Free Press has offered a definition of the word “equity” in her quest to explain why Detroit should be “more fair.”
What does equity mean?
If you own a home, you’re familiar with this term as a measure of the value you hold in your property; in other words, the worth of the property after the debt you hold against that property is deducted.
Analogies are often a good means of explaining an amorphous concept, and certainly the concept of equity in a home, the different between the home’s market value and the outstanding debt, is a fine, concrete, easily comprehensible concept. So is that what they’re talking about?
Applied to social justice or economic inclusion, it’s more or less the same thing.
Equity takes into account the structural challenges individuals may be required to overcome to participate in the workplace.
Well, that went down the rabbit hole quick. So it’s “more or less the same thing,” except it’s not remotely the same thing. That’s the funny thing about analogies; they only work when they’re slightly analogous. But maybe there’s more that will illuminate the definition.
Anika Goss, executive director of Detroit Future City, says those working to create economic equity in the city “are really trying to create an environment in which everyone, no matter where you stand on the socioeconomic ladder or continuum, has the opportunity to achieve wealth and prosperity in the same place.
So America should be the land of opportunity? That’s great, but not particularly helpful in defining the word “equity.” Is there a connection here that’s missing?
“If you live in Detroit and have a bachelor’s degree and you want to be a teacher, you should be able to live in Detroit and be a teacher and make the same amount as a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in Southfield or West Bloomfield,” she said, “but right now there’s about a $20,000 pay difference. The inequities, the barriers create too many limitations for Detroiters to be able to thrive, living in Detroit, and that [is] problematic.”
So “equity” means all teachers should be paid the same salary? Putting aside that teaching may not be the occupation of choice if one’s goal is to “achieve wealth and prosperity,” it’s also not a particularly good example for a host of other reasons, not the least of which is that teachers are paid what their union negotiates for them. If Detroit teachers are paid less than Southfield teachers, is their lack of “equity” due to their having a lousy union?
On the other hand, compensation theory provides that an employer will pay as much as is necessary to obtain a sufficient number of qualified personnel to fill their need. If the pay is too low, then they will not have a sufficient number of teachers. If it’s too high, they’re squandering the public fisc. After all, public employees aren’t paid from the vast profits gained off selling public school seats.
But that’s just teachers, an example perhaps, even if a poor example, but not a definition. Is the point that Detroit teachers aren’t paid enough to live in Detroit, to pay rent or buy a home due to high costs? Are they constrained to use every penny of their salary just to survive, leaving nothing for their morning latte or evening food delivery?
Perhaps the means of measuring “equity” will provide some substance to the jargon.
“Jobs, definitely, at multiple levels, jobs with varying qualification levels, jobs without high school, jobs with diplomas, with degrees … educational attainment, commuter access to jobs, how people actually get around — that’s also an indicator of economic health, if people are not isolated. The amount of public and private investment, and things that are more obvious, like vacancy rates,” Goss said.
What about jobs? Detroit is enjoying exceptional job growth, although that may be a product of its exceptional job loss after the last recession. But this still doesn’t actually mean anything.
Between government, business and philanthropy, lots of money is spent on economic development.But if you’re not measuring outcomes against an equity yardstick everyone agrees on, it’s hard to tell if Detroiters are making progress.
The new center, Goss says, will develop a 2020 baseline delineating Detroit’s economic health and existing inequities that will make it possible to measure progress.
“The fixes we are collectively spending money on — Are they helping us or hurting us?” Goss asked. “When a new skyscraper comes in downtown, is that helping? Are we advancing? …
If you’re the people building the skyscraper, or who needs space within the skyscraper, or will get paid to work in the skyscraper, or earn a living serving the skyscraper or the nice folks inside the skyscraper, then it’s helping. If you’re a teacher, then maybe it won’t help all that much beyond providing an additional source of tax revenue to pay your salary. This doesn’t seem like hard stuff, but it also doesn’t have much to do with “equity.”
A theme is emerging here, and readily observable if you choose to open your eyes and ears. The problem with these efforts to determine whether progress is being made by “measuring outcomes against an equity yardstick” is that you are spewing strings of meaningless words that will never be able to serve any useful purpose because they have no definition.
As for the favorite word of the woke moment, “equity,” its definition seem as elusive as ever. Yet, it still serves as a placeholder for whatever outcome we like, as opposed to the old lib favorite, “equality,” which means you get treated as well, and as poorly, as anybody else, and what you make of it after that is up to you.