3 ms·
I think you are complicated the issue too much. Who cares if a society it's a meritocracy or not? The point, it seems to me, is, is it a meritocracy that work
by RobertoG 9y ago
I think you are complicated the issue too much.
Who cares if a society it's a meritocracy or not? The point, it seems to me, is, is it a meritocracy that work for most of the people? Because what is the point of a society that doesn't work for most of the people?
I know that if I train hard every day I could improve my 100m sprinter time. I also know that never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt.
If we live in societies where the life of the average guy improve at the same time that the pie grows there is not a problem.
If we live in a society where, even when the pie grow my life is worst, and when I complain, you point to Usain Bolt and say "see? it can be done!"; well, I don't think that it's going to work for long.
It seems to me that feeling explain a lot of the "populist" movements around the world.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago> never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt Maybe this is just a bad analogy, but if you're objectively worse than Usain Bolt then in a meritocracy you should justifiably be worse off. That's a bad expectation anyway, at a population level 0% of people are Usain Bolt. This ultimately leads to a question I've been thinking about a lot; should we as a society be okay with a hard working naturally gifted person being higher paid than an equally hard working non-gifted person.