The Pitfalls of Equality: Does Making Everyone the Same Lead to Universal Unhappiness? The Complex Relationship Between Equality and Rewards

Taking on more work than anyone else and handling difficult projects. Yet, neither the evaluation nor the salary changes much.

For those who have had such experiences, the phrase "everyone is equal" may not necessarily sound comforting. This is because they feel their efforts are being overlooked in the name of equality.

On the other hand, there are people who, despite making the same efforts, achieve different results due to their family's economic situation, learning opportunities, or caregiving responsibilities. Can we confidently say to them, "All results are due to your ability"?

The article "Equality of Outcome Is Equality of Misery" by Ileana Johnson Paugh, published in Canada Free Press, serves as a starting point for considering this conflict. The essence of the title is that "equality of outcome is equality of misery."

However, this is not an article reporting new empirical research. It is an opinion piece written from a critical perspective on socialism, communism, and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives. The author's questions and the conclusions drawn from them need to be read separately.

Is it acceptable for rewards to be the same despite differences in effort?

At the core of the original text is a question about the motivation to work.

The author argues that if those who work diligently receive the same rewards as those who shirk their duties, the former will eventually reduce their efforts. As an expression symbolizing the work style under communist regimes, the author introduces the irony that both workers and payers pretend to work and pretend to pay.

This point is easy to imagine when applied to Japanese workplaces.

For example, a person who improves operations to shorten work hours only ends up with more tasks. The contributions of someone who nurtures juniors and prevents team failures go unrecognized, while promotions are decided solely by conspicuous numbers.

In such workplaces, it's not surprising that a sense of "there's no point in trying" emerges.

However, this does not immediately lead to the conclusion that all policies aimed at reducing disparities diminish the motivation to work. This is because systems that completely fix rewards regardless of outcomes differ in purpose and structure from those that support basic living standards or expand educational opportunities.

The word "equality" encompasses different goals

One reason discussions often don't align is that the same word "equality" is used to talk about different things.

Opening eligibility to everyone. Supporting education regardless of family income. Ensuring a minimum standard of living. And making final income or status the same for everyone.

These are not the same systems.

For example, providing learning support to students from economically disadvantaged families does not guarantee that all those students will pass exams or have the same future income. There is a distinction between setting conditions for challenges and unifying the results of those challenges.

Regarding DEI, one cannot judge its validity without looking at individual hiring systems and evaluation criteria. Are applicants' abilities being properly assessed? Were there unnecessary barriers in traditional selection processes? Are numerical targets becoming ends in themselves? What needs to be examined are the specific designs and actual effects.

The original text strongly links DEI with equality of outcome, but it does not present comparisons of individual systems or measurements of effects to verify this claim.

The "80/20 Rule" cannot determine a person's value

Particularly noteworthy in the original text is the explanation regarding Pareto.

The author discusses the "80/20 Rule," linking it to the argument that the top 20% with high ability and work motivation generate most of the group's value.

However, the observation that wealth is concentrated among a few in a society is not the same as claiming that the wealth holders generated the same proportion of value by themselves.

One cannot directly infer the proportions of effort or ability from asset ownership ratios. Other factors such as inheritance, ownership rights, and negotiation power need to be considered.

Moreover, workplace achievements are not always neatly divisible by individual. Without manufacturing, maintenance, accounting, and customer support backing sales, a business cannot continue. Jobs that are less visible as direct sales also play roles in driving the organization.

Additionally, "Pareto efficiency" is a different concept from the 80/20 Rule. It refers to a distribution where no one's situation can be improved without worsening someone else's. The CORE Econ economic textbook also explains the distinction between efficiency and equity.

Thus, just because a distribution is Pareto efficient does not mean it is recognized as fair. The name "Pareto" alone cannot justify current disparities or deny the correction of disparities.

Does redistribution inevitably weaken the economy?

In discussions about equality of outcome, income redistribution through taxes and benefits also becomes a contentious issue.

Does collecting taxes from high earners to support those with lower incomes diminish the motivation to work?

A useful reference is the 2014 publication "Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth" by IMF researchers. This analysis reported that, except in extreme cases, there is little evidence that redistribution harms economic growth.

However, this does not mean that "all redistribution succeeds." It is a trend derived from international comparative data and not a study that uniformly guarantees the effects of specific policies. Moreover, it represents the authors' research views and does not directly imply IMF's official policy.

What can be inferred from this is that one should not prematurely conclude that reducing disparities will inevitably sacrifice growth.

How will increased support change work styles and take-home pay? Will learning and employment opportunities expand? Is there funding to continue the system? To evaluate policies, specific questions like these are needed, not just ideals.

Two types of perceived unfairness seen in related SNS discussions

Within the scope of this review, no direct SNS reactions to the original article were found. The following are existing discussions on Reddit addressing the same topic of "equality of outcome and equality of opportunity," and do not indicate reactions to this article or overall public opinion trends.

View the post on Reddit

In related threads within communities themed around social democracy, opinions are seen suggesting that if the results are the same despite different amounts of effort, there is no point in trying harder. This perspective is close to the concerns of the original text.

Conversely, another discussion points out that disparities in results accumulate into disparities in opportunities, highlighting the issue that differences in parental income and assets affect the learning environment of the next generation.

These two opinions observe different types of unfairness.

The former is wary of one's efforts and contributions not being recognized. The latter is wary of conditions beyond one's control narrowing the possibilities for challenges.

Focusing solely on one side leaves dissatisfaction on the other. Recognizing rewards according to effort and creating conditions where effort can be made are both potential challenges for systems.

In Japan, attention should also be paid to "opportunities to develop abilities"

When considering this debate for Japan, attention should be paid not only to salary differences but also to the processes that create those differences.

The OECD's 2024 Economic Survey of Japan points out that the divided labor market between regular and non-regular workers creates issues related to wages and training opportunities.

According to 2017 data introduced in the report, 63% of Japanese companies provided on-the-job training for regular employees, compared to 28% for non-regular employees. Although not current figures, they serve as evidence of disparities in opportunities for skill development.

People who can receive training and those who cannot. People entrusted with jobs to gain experience and those who are not. If only the subsequent outcomes are compared, there is a risk that differences in opportunities may appear as "personal ability differences."

On the other hand, simply expanding opportunities does not resolve all dissatisfaction with evaluations. A system is needed where people who have enhanced their expertise, taken on difficult responsibilities, and contributed to the organization are rewarded in a satisfactory manner.

For example, companies could clarify evaluation criteria and assess not only individual numbers but also work that supports the team. At the same time, they could broaden access to training and challenging jobs regardless of employment type. Such designs can address both rewards and opportunities.

Fairness cannot be measured solely by the size of differences

The question to consider from the original text's problem statement is whether the relationship between effort and reward is being undermined.

However, this question is also necessary in reverse. Do the current differences in rewards truly reflect differences in contributions? Are there people whose opportunities to demonstrate their abilities are limited from the start?

If the sole aim is to equalize everyone's results, there is a risk of disregarding individual choices and challenges. Conversely, if all differences in results are deemed natural, systemic barriers may be overlooked.

What is needed in Japanese workplaces and education is a perspective that examines both. Ensuring that those who contribute receive satisfactory rewards, and that those currently in disadvantaged positions have paths to develop their abilities and retry. By considering these conditions specifically, discussions can move from the dichotomy of "equality or competition" to improving systems.

Sources and References

1. Canada Free Press: The article that served as the starting point
   Refers to the author's claim that equality of outcome undermines work motivation, and descriptions related to Pareto and DEI. Treated as an opinion piece rather than a research report.
   https://canadafreepress.com/article/equality-of-outcome-is-equality-of-miseryCanada Free Press

2. CORE Econ: Distinguishing Pareto efficiency and fairness
   An economics textbook explaining that efficient resource allocation does not necessarily mean fair distribution.
   https://books.core-econ.org/the-economy-v1/book/text/08.htmlThe Economy 1.0

3. IMF Published Research: The relationship between redistribution, inequality, and economic growth
   A 2014 study by Ostry, Berg, and Tsangarides examining the assumption of a significant trade-off between redistribution and growth.
   https://www.imf.org/en/publications/staff-discussion-notes/issues/2016/12/31/redistribution-inequality-and-growth-41291imf.org

4. OECD: 2024 Economic Survey of Japan
   Analysis of the divided labor market between regular and non-regular workers and issues related to wages and vocational training opportunities. The training implementation rate mentioned in the text is based on 2017 data introduced in the report.
   https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-japan-2024_41e807f9-en/full-report/component-5.htmlOECD

5. Reddit: Related discussions on equality of outcome and rewards for effort
   Reference source for opinions on whether differences in effort should be accompanied by differences in rewards. Not direct reactions to the original article.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialDemocracy/comments/1jcpiag/what_do_you_think_about_equality_of_outcome/reddit.com

6. Reddit: Related discussions on equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
   Reference source for the observation that disparities in results lead to disparities in opportunities. Not direct reactions to the original article.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/InsightfulQuestions/comments/hp4g0i/