I'd argue in the tech industry at least you get to keep your job because you have very specific domain knowledge and are not easily replaceable without a lot ri

I'd argue in the tech industry at least you get to keep your job because you have very specific domain knowledge and are not easily replaceable without a lot risk and lost time, even if there are people who are theoretically better in some general way. I think your definition of meritocracy is needlessly binary. People don't get assigned a merit number where they get to instantly supersede anyone with a lower one like sorting a list. What most people consider the word to mean is if you do good work you will be rewarded as such (more important role, more money etc.), not some king-of-the hill winner take all competition. There's no question that this very often does not work out in practice, because life is messy. There is no such thing as pure anything when it comes to human relationships, but it's still a good idea to strive for. It's certainly better than the alternative anyway....which is....actually what is the alternative? I've not heard anything besides "meritocracy is bad because not everyone benefits and some get screwed". What should we do, hand out positions and salaries based on random number generators? I think no matter what kind of hand wringing and word twisting people do you're always gonna end up back at a system of quasi-meritocracy combined with nepotism, cronyism and other human bullshit.