What's your thought on the current equally status. World wide and within your country. Is it fair? Or is it not controlled? This applies for all categories.

Equality based on religion? or gender? or something else?

Bad.

In Australia the majority of our minority indigenous population lives in poverty. Many are unemployed, have serious alcohol and drug addiction problems, and they commit more crimes proportionally than other groups. It's a big problem and a lot of money is pumped into the problem.

Unfortunately many live away from major cities and towns, and it's hard to get education and supplies to them. Integration isn't something that seems to be happening - most of the time if you ever see an aboriginal they are most likely homeless or being a nuisance.

It's not an easy situation to fix sadly, even now cultural values are hugely disparate.

He means equality in general.

it varies from country to country on how equal people are. Europe tends to be more progressive than other places like the middle east where in some counties people will be hanged for being homosexual. As time progresses things will get better but I doubt we'll see equality everywhere in our lifetimes.

In America we're getting better but we're still not there yet.

This is so general.
Unfortunately equality in terms of wealth is almost inevitable in capitalism although this doesn't mean capitalism is bad. We should of course try to help reduce poverty but this seems to be difficult because of sustainability and education and suchlike (you have probably just realised I have no idea what I am talking about).

Equality in terms of treatment is easier to achieve as a government but probably not always advisable since there may be actual differences between groups or categories of people which will make certain ways of treating that group more effective. Some groups will want to be treated differently to others and as long as it isn't a case of favouritism towards certain cultures or minorities etc. then this should be allowed. People can't all be the same so they should not all be treated the same.

To reduce poverty we must provide different amounts of wealth to people who need it. The important think is to only respond to actual verifiable statistics or issues rather than prejudicial discrimination.
-----
Now that you mention Hanz0 (in the post you deleted a minute ago), I think I will make a point which he puts so well that equality is impossible because the world is not perfect and some people will always try to take more than others.

There would need to be someone to enforce equality to actually achieve it and they would need power which would contradict the idea of equality. It is easy to disregard those who do not share their wealth but if there was a pile of money in the middle of a public space it is unlikely that anyone would just take enough for themselves and leave because humans are generally selfish. That being said some religious or spiritual figures would probably share it but they tend to be a minority.

I really hope nobody minds me quoting Hanz0 since I am probably unworthy of interpreting such wise words and I hope most of what I say makes sense.

Thank you for reading.

lolno.

America is experiencing one of the largest economic inequalities in history, for the entire world. As an example, current America has a greater wealth discrepancy between the average worker and the top percent of the wealthy than Victorian-era England, considered by many the prime example of economic inequality. And it's getting bigger.

There's a specific measurement that is used to reflect economic equality. I can't remember it's name, but it rates a country with 0 being a perfect equality of wealth, and 1 being all wealth owned by the top percentile. The average rating for developed countries was between .2 and .3. America was in the high .4, comparable to countries run by dictators and failed states.


And this isn't even touching gender and racial differences within the population. Wage discrepancy between males and females have stayed constant, despite females receiving more post-secondary degrees than males. Even with comparable credentials and comparable positions, females still earn around 3/4 of what their male counterparts would earn.

Black families still earn around $20,000 less per year than the average white household. Whites graduate from highschool at a higher rate, even when comparing children who performed similarly in lower grades. Whites are more likely to be hired over similarly qualified blacks. Blacks are more likely to be stopped for drug searches, despite the fact the average drug dealer is white. And there has been very little, if any progress, in these and several other fields.

Heck, we even had the Supreme Court strike down a clause of the 14th amendment, that prohibited states with a poor track record of racial discrimination for voting rights from changing voting laws without federal government approval until they showed a decade of no voting rights violations, in the past couple years. And what a surprise, every single one of those states have enacted voter ID laws that restrict certain populations from easily voting. And it's no surprise, but these populations are primarily minorities, poor people, the elderly, and students. In some of those states, married women also have problems because they need an ID with their given last name, not their married name. And in some of those states, a gun permit is enough ID to vote, but a state-issued student ID is not. It's also not surprising that the majority of these populations that have a harder time voting vote primarily Democrat, and the states that passed these laws are almost entirely dominated by Republicans.


We have made significant strides since the 70s, but we have made significant strides backwards in the recent years.

Oracle I haven't read the whole of your full length novel reasonable length post yet so I will probably correct some of this later. However, you seem to only be focusing on economic inequality, which, while being the governments task to combat, is an almost inevitable side effect of democracy or capitalism as a whole. If rich people get richer it doesn't mean poor people are any worse off (ignoring the likelihood of inflation) than before. Some minorities will earn less than other groups because of the position they were in as minorities 50 years ago. Black people who are descended from freed slaves would have similar economic opportunities to white people who are descended from freed slaves but almost, if not all, slaves were black so many black families started off with less wealth and had to make up for it. I don't think I can add anymore to this as it is so take from it what you will.

Thank you for reading.
-----
Turns out I do have more to add.
I can't be bothered to quote quotes in quote boxes and for this I am sorry. You said that the average drug dealer is white but what about drug traffickers and takers, maybe it is simply that there are more black people in poor areas where drugs are more of a problem, as you said black families earn less on average than white families and people who earn less probably do more street level crime.

You said that less black students graduated from collage despite similar performances in "earlier grades" but earlier grade could mean anything, I am therefore highly suspicious of such a vague statistic.

People will never be, nor should they be, equal. Why should someone who doesn't care about their education or job be equally considered with someone who does? In response to ImmortalPig's scenario, if someone from that impoverished community truly wants to make something of themselves, they will work their asses off and climb the socioeconomic ladder to get there. Yes, this means that some people will have to work harder than others to get where they want to go, but that simply makes their success all the more impressive. Those who are doomed to a lifestyle of poverty, racial stereotypes and stupidity are there because they either failed or never tried.

You are correct, but because of the overwhelming negative experiences and statistics against the minority in this case, it's very hard to be given a chance. Of course, there are some special interest groups which exist specifically for the point of giving them a chance. But there's also the issue of cultural values. It's not really possible for someone to wake up one day and decide to have different values than all their peers and relatives in order to fit into the wider society. It's a very very tough situation.

You should also consider that due to alcohol and drug abuse, as well as limited education and discipline, many of these people are born with fetal alcohol syndrome, various birth defects, etc.

But yes, it is definitely possible for someone to claw themselves out of the trenches by sheer hard work and will power, there are examples of this like Kathy Freeman, Ernie Dingo, and Sally Morgan, etc.

You can't argue that it is always people's own fault for living in poverty since it is not easy to escape from it. We shouldn't just say "oh you were born in a family who can barely afford good because your parents are alcoholic, tough luck." Because these groups of people can drag down the economy both through causing national image problems and through crime. I am exceptionally lazy and selfish but I was born into a wealthy family and got into a great school and am expected to do pretty well in life because someone has always been there to push and pull me up the steps to success. If I had been born into a less wealthy family I would probably have been a pretty massive failure as a person. What I am trying to say is that a lot of success depends on luck.

Thank you for reading.