> Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance The you're not talking about the same kind of meritocracy that I am. I explicitly s

> Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance The you're not talking about the same kind of meritocracy that I am. I explicitly spelled out that my usage of the world meritocracy refers to a system in which people are evaluated based on capability and/or performance. If that's not what you're talking about the we're just talking past each other. > Because amongst the "initial resources" you speak of there are also wealth and connections, which do not improve "capability or performance in some task", which only improve the chances of someone obtaining and keeping the job. Wealth creates larger opportunity to improve performance. A wealthy marathon runner can take more time off work to train than one that scrapes by financially. But it does not directly factor into the meritocratic process. Dollars in your bank account make it easier to put in the effort to train, but they don't immediately improve your running speed. Nor do connections. Knowing the right people isn't going to make someone a faster runner. At least short of things like colluding with a referee, but if that happens then the system is no longer purely meritocratic.