Cartoon: Equal Opportunity

equal-opporunity-1200

Transcript of cartoon:
The cartoon shows two men. The first man, a young man wearing a suit and tie, is clean-shaven with short hair, and is standing near a park bench, talking on his cell phone. Seated on the park bench is the second man, a bit older in appearance, with stubble and a van dyke beard. He is wearing a knit cap, a hoodie, and sweatpants.

PANEL 1
SUIT: We need equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. No free lunches for anyone! You can’t get more egalitarian than that.
SWEATS (cheerfully): There’s no such thing as “equal opportunity.”

PANEL 2
Suit removes his phone from his ear and turns to face Sweats.
SUIT: Excuse me?
SWEATS: Someone who’s tall has a better shot at being a basketball star. Someone with rich parents is born with a big advantage. “Opportunities” are never really equal.

PANEL 3
A close shot of Sweats, as he gestures to indicate himself.
SWEATS: And what about someone like me? I’ve never been able to hold down a job… would you say I deserve starvation and homelessness?

PANEL 4
Suit looks abashed.
SUIT: Well… not to your face.
SWEATS: Mighty egalitarian of you.

This entry posted in Cartooning & comics, Economics and the like. Bookmark the permalink. 

19 Responses to Cartoon: Equal Opportunity

  1. 1
    Eytan Zweig says:

    It feels to me that this cartoon is less succesful than most of your cartoons in unpacking what is wrong about the suit guys’s argument. In the second panel, it looks like the homeless guy is critical of the idea of equality, rather than being critical of the fact that what suit guy means when he says “equal opportunity” is not at all equal. Then in the last panel, the argument shifts to being about whether anyone deserves homelessness, which is not actually something that the suit guy said (though it’s not surprising that he would think it, but it’s not actually in the text of the comic).

    Part of the problem was that the words of the suit guy in panel 1 are ambiguous because they can – and are – used by people with different political opinions. “No free lunches” can mean “no wellfare”, or it can mean “no nepotism”. It’s language some of my more socialist friends use to complain about the advantages of the people born to wealth and power.

    So there’s a reading of the comic up where essentially you have a socialist-leaning suited guy arguing for equalising starting points being schooled by an objectivist homeless guy. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but it muddled things up for me.

  2. 2
    RonF says:

    Then there’s the question of WHY the guy on the bench can’t hold a job. Is he disabled? Was he born to a 16-year old mother on drugs and a dad in jail? Was he born in a middle-class home, went to college and then decided to dump school and is blowing all the cash he can get together on weed? Did he go to college and take out $100,000 in loans to get a degree in a field that has no job prospects?

    Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that you are foolish and make bad decisions.

  3. 3
    Jason says:

    I love it! I might even go a step further and point out some societal advantages that come with race (which can play an even larger role than height in my opinion).

    PS: Why is the suit guy black!?

  4. 4
    Iftek says:

    I am one of the hated “equal opportunity” people.

    I don’t want to see anyone suffer. I would be in favor of European-type (or specifically German-type) “all-round” coverage when someone is down and out. You get the minimum to live on, and by minimum they are very generous. Most welfare recipients have large-screen TVs etc., but they have the minimum of all modern appliances. A small apartment if they are single, washing machine, refrigerator and all of the normal appliances.

    Otherwise, if you are a proponent of communism, whereby everyone receives the same, regardless of the job, just say so. Some people do produce more than others, and when it is rewarded, you have a system that offers more.

    But I would like to ask you (I doubt this would go heard) to stop attributing a lack of empathy to anyone who is short of a communist, anyone who sees reality (yes, you don’t), or anyone who has a different opinion than you and your safe-space comrades.

    I also know this will likely not be published, because it is banned content here. At least you read it.

  5. 5
    Grace Annam says:

    lftek:

    I also know this will likely not be published, because it is banned content here. At least you read it.

    Could we set up some sort of Motivation Jar, where people have to put a dollar in every time they say they’ll get banned for a civil, on-topic response? It seems to happen a lot, and I’m sure all the moderators have bills to pay…

    We see this sentiment a lot in comments here at Alas. Weird.

    Grace

  6. 6
    Jake Squid says:

    We see this sentiment a lot in comments here at Alas. Weird.

    It’s not so weird if you see it as a talisman or prayer. You know, like, “God bless you,” after a sneeze to ward off the devil.

  7. 7
    RonF says:

    Is it based on their experience here, or is it a reaction to how they’ve been treated elsewhere. Because people being banned on other sites for making a civil on-topic comment that flies against the commonly received wisdom on said site is hardly unheard of.

  8. 8
    LTL FTC says:

    Aside from what he says, there’s just something smug and entitled-looking about the sitting man that I can’t put my finger on. Maybe it’s the posture, or the way his hands are folded in panel 3, or the closed eyes in panel 4.

  9. 9
    Elusis says:

    Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that you are foolish and make bad decisions.

    And sometimes the “reason” is, what, God is an asshole? Life sucks and then you die?

  10. 10
    Iftek says:

    I think that both of the following statements are absolutely true: Part of life is unfair / random. Part of life is based on your own efforts.

    As an example, if Bill is not terribly industrious, but his aunt is the head of International Nepotism Corporation, LLC, he may get a job whereas Sue, who is more industrious and better qualified, is then rejected. Life is unfair / random in part.

    On the other hand, unemployed Rick gets up at the crack of noon and goes down to the corner bar to check on jobs. Charlie treats unemployment as a job, and sends out letters with resumes and otherwise pursues employment from 9 to 5 every weekday. Charlie will statistically find a job far, far quicker than Rick. Part of life is based on your own efforts.

    I don’t know what the breakdown is (50/50?), but both aspects are definitely part of reality.

    So the guy above who “has never been able to hold down a job” could maybe also make some changes in his life.

    Then, since some things in life ARE under the control of the person (and some aren’t), there is the aspect of pushing people who are suckling off the government teat and taking money from people who earned it to, like, make a bit of a real effort towards paying for their own lives.

    Yes, people unfairly hit rough patches. Yes, life doesn’t have to be so hard. Yes, people who are perpetually on rough patches that don’t seem to solely be caused by external factors, and they are taking, taking, taking from others over years and decades can be asked to start becoming part of society.

    Edited to add (in light of the guff above about my cynicism above): My comment is “awaiting moderation”. Huh.

  11. 11
    Tamme says:

    I’m also confused as to why the standing man is black. We all know that the voice of this kind of anti-poor bullshit is almost always a white man. Why put black people on the hook for no reason?

  12. 12
    Ampersand says:

    Etwan: I think your criticism of this cartoon is entirely on target. Sometimes I miss the mark.

  13. 13
    Ampersand says:

    Then there’s the question of WHY the guy on the bench can’t hold a job. Is he disabled? Was he born to a 16-year old mother on drugs and a dad in jail? Was he born in a middle-class home, went to college and then decided to dump school and is blowing all the cash he can get together on weed? Did he go to college and take out $100,000 in loans to get a degree in a field that has no job prospects?

    Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that you are foolish and make bad decisions.

    Ron, leaving why the guy can’t hold a job ambiguous was a deliberate choice on my part.

    You seem to me to be suggesting the concept of the “deserving poor” versus the “undeserving poor.” But what do you think the policy response should be to the undeserving poor? I think there should be an economic floor that no one – “deserving” or not – should be allowed to fall below. What do you think?

  14. 14
    Ampersand says:

    I am one of the hated “equal opportunity” people.

    I don’t want to see anyone suffer. I would be in favor of European-type (or specifically German-type) “all-round” coverage when someone is down and out.

    Iftek, if you’re in favor of “all-round” coverage, then it seems to me that your view is not at all the same as the view of the “no free lunches” character depicted in the cartoon. So I think you’re mistaken to see this cartoon as targeting your views.

  15. 15
    Ampersand says:

    Aside from what he says, there’s just something smug and entitled-looking about the sitting man that I can’t put my finger on. Maybe it’s the posture, or the way his hands are folded in panel 3, or the closed eyes in panel 4.

    Well, I can see how you can get that, but fwiw “smug and entitled-looking” wasn’t what I was going for. I was trying to show that he was someone who was relaxed and comfortable with himself; who, although he is poor, does not view himself as in any way socially inferior to the wealthier person he’s talking to.

  16. 16
    Ampersand says:

    Itfek:

    I certainly agree that, on average, life is a mix of luck and effort.

    On the other hand, unemployed Rick gets up at the crack of noon and goes down to the corner bar to check on jobs. Charlie treats unemployment as a job, and sends out letters with resumes and otherwise pursues employment from 9 to 5 every weekday. Charlie will statistically find a job far, far quicker than Rick. Part of life is based on your own efforts.

    Then, since some things in life ARE under the control of the person (and some aren’t)[…]

    I’d question this a bit. In your example, Charlie is extremely motivated and has the energy to “treat unemployment as a job,” while Rick does not. But is that difference under Rick’s, and Charlie’s, conscious control? Is Charlie more motivated/energetic because he made a decision to be like that, while Rick made the opposite decision, or are there aspects to being motivated and energetic (or not) which aren’t a matter of individual conscious choice?

    …there is the aspect of pushing people who are suckling off the government teat and taking money from people who earned it to, like, make a bit of a real effort towards paying for their own lives.

    Do you favor such a policy of “pushing people off” of government support? If so, that seems to contradict what you said in your earlier comment, about favoring German-style “all-round” coverage. Am I misunderstanding something?

    ETA:

    My comment is “awaiting moderation”. Huh.

    Moderation policy is off-topic on this thread, so I’ve responded on the open thread.

  17. 17
    LTL FTC says:

    Well, I can see how you can get that, but fwiw “smug and entitled-looking” wasn’t what I was going for.

    I assumed as much, which is why I brought it up. What you’re meaning to say is that he’s entitled to at least food and shelter. The smugness makes it seem like he feels entitled to everything the standing man has, as signaled by the way he is dressed – the equal outcome. Others have made similar points, and the way sitting man is drawn strengthens their point.

  18. 18
    MJJ says:

    I’ve always thought that the “equality of opportunity” was more related to discrimination issues than to economic issues in general – more or less used as an argument against quotas and “disparate impact” arguments rather than a general economic argument.

  19. 19
    kate says:

    Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that you are foolish and make bad decisions.

    Some factors which cause most humans to make worse decisions include hunger, stress, and untreated illness. Add to that issues on the community level such as enviornmental toxins (eg. lead), and lack of access to quality education. Without a floor that provides the basics for the human brain to function properly, people get trapped in death spirals which they can’t get out of.