3 ms·
What I said is if you define merit as merely "the best person for the job" you are only really selecting for wealth in the end. Let me direct you to a little ca
by nickbauman 11y ago
What I said is if you define merit as merely "the best person for the job" you are only really selecting for wealth in the end. Let me direct you to a little cartoon that explains it very succinctly.
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
- gozur88 11y agoNo, I don't think so. Wealth is part of it, sure. But so is intelligence. So is looks. So is ambition. You're focusing on wealth because it's the easiest thing to measure, but wealth, especially wealth alone, isn't destiny. Everybody knows people who grew up poor and "made it", and also people who had all the advantages but can't seem to make anything of themselves.
- nickbauman 11y agoI never meant to convey a polemic about wealth alone. What I'm saying is wealth is the strongest correlation to a "meritocracy", not the only one. There are always examples of outliers in both rich and poor camps.