4 ms·

Meritocracy in principle is a solid idea, but in practice, it simply has never existed. Even in what most would define as meritocracy's golden age, the "merit"

Meritocracy in principle is a solid idea, but in practice, it simply has never existed. Even in what most would define as meritocracy's golden age, the "merit" of a person still depended massively on their upbringing; even the neighborhood a child grows up in (or the quantity of neighborhoods) can tell you a lot about what someone will be able to achieve in life. The rich hate this, and have clung to meritocracy to excuse the fact that their children, brought up with staff to see to their needs, with education to explore every curiosity, with hobbies to learn what they like, and with resources to attend college virtually without cost, are somehow not advantaged over a child who's mother has to work two jobs to scrape out a meager living, and sees said child maybe 3 hours a day, to send them to a public school or daycare where they are treated like cattle, until they can sign up for enough debt when they barely understand finance at all, to assure they won't be able to buy a home until their thirties, at best. It's ridiculous. The core tenet of meritocracy is a level playing field and the rich and poor have never had one, ever, at any point, and arguably could not as long as markets exist. It's just not possible. As long as there are financial barriers to child care, to housing, to education, you cannot claim we have meritocracy. Simple as.

viklove 7y ago
Meritocracy implies nothing about fairness or a level playing field. Meritocracy implies the person with the best skills gets the job. If someone with worse skills gets the job because they're the bosses son, or even just because of their gender/race, it can no longer be considered a meritocracy. The only way to fix what you've brought up is to have all children be taken from their parents at birth and raised in an equal opportunity community akin to The Giver. Is that what you want?
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > Meritocracy implies nothing about fairness or a level playing field. Meritocracy implies the person with the best skills gets the job. This only works if you completely disregard the entire process through which someone attains skills. If this is indeed what Meritocracy is then it's even less adequate as a system than I previously believed. > The only way to fix what you've brought up is to have all children be taken from their parents at birth and raised in an equal opportunity community akin to The Giver. Is that what you want? False dichotomy. There is no possibility of a system between totalitarian child rearing by the state and a system rigged entirely and completely for the wealthy? Spare me.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >False dichotomy. There is no possibility of a system between totalitarian child rearing by the state and a system rigged entirely and completely for the wealthy? Spare me. The claim is that any such system would still have biases. Though I would claim even The Giver is not truly equal as parents are still individuals with unique roles in society and thus what they impart on their children is still unequal. So I would make a stronger claim. That level of equality is not physically possible. We can make things more equal, but you get into the messy politics of who do we do it on behalf of (for example, why favor people living in the US over people not).
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      > The claim is that any such system would still have biases. Any system built by humans has biases, thankfully we're not discussing The Giver, we're discussing our system here in the states, one that heavily biases the wealthy to the point of punishing the impoverished, and I don't believe either of those were accidental, and I also put forth that the myth of meritocracy is put forward BY those in power to dissuade criticism of it, specifically by invoking the argument you put forward, that absolute equality is impossible. Because apparently, because we can't make everyone absolutely 100% equal in opportunity (which is debatable, but hey) we shouldn't even attempt to address the gross inequality present in our system. For example, we could provide basic income so that struggling families wouldn't need to sacrifice time with their children to provide a base level of sustaining food and housing. For another, we could make college free, since society at large benefits from an educated populace, and since dozens of other countries have and have reaped benefits as a result. This eliminates the barriers the impoverished have to education, and stops a gutless and corrupt system from signing up the poor to an impoverished life of servitude in exchange for a modicum of opportunity. Neither of these does anything really radical other than take back power from the wealthy, which is probably why wealthy interests lobby so hard against them. Because while the rich preach meritocracy, they only do so on the grounds that the merit is money. > We can make things more equal, but you get into the messy politics of who do we do it on behalf of (for example, why favor people living in the US over people not). No I'd imagine we couldn't make a system that removes the advantages given from standing NATIONS. Do you have any other ridiculous ideas you'd like to put forth?
traderjane 7y ago
Performance and value of performance has always been a thing in all nations, whether or not there's the backdrop of nepotism or corruption. However, if you're saying that somebody has been starved from youth and is now way behind on the kinds of skills which would help a company compete, then in a sense that person is no longer meritorious. Merit and fairness aren't the same thing, and are intuitively at odds even if you had a magical wand and could reset everyone's "starting position." If you cannot work because you were subjected to unfair biological risks throughout life, can you continue to be a metaphorical stunt double? The hard question to resolve is not "if we can have it all, shall we not just have it all?" The question is when merit is in tension with fairness, what do we value more? Whether the metaphorical movie comes out better? Or that the movie provides opportunities for society to correct injustices? In the context of global economy, the ones who vote on this question are the citizens of the world.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > Performance and value of performance has always been a thing in all nations, whether or not there's the backdrop of nepotism or corruption. Agree. > However, if you're saying that somebody has been starved from youth and is now way behind on the kinds of skills which would help a company compete, then in a sense that person is no longer meritorious. While this is true, it's also an ultra-extreme example. I'm not talking about people born with developmental disabilities, physical or mental, or people who suffer accidents or traumas in life rendering them less competitive. I'm talking about perfectly able-bodied, sharp minded, sprung-from-the-uterus youngsters who's parents committed the crime of being poor in America. Their parents crime (most not even aware it was a crime) sentences them to a youth of substandard living in homes priced far too expensively, substandard education provided by teachers trying their best in a school system that is funded only 30% as well as a neighboring one, despite having twice the students, because property taxes fund schools for some reason, which I'm sure isn't that wealthy people demand better schools and can pay for it. They are also unable to attend extracurricular activities (if they are even available) unless they can transport themselves to and from them, and of course find the money to pay for what's needed for those activities. And they also more than likely come home to either an empty home or a sleeping parent who's trying their very best to provide them a decent life, and is being hamstrung by stagnant wages, poor working conditions, and is almost certainly strung out to the edge of reason themselves, because again, this system sucks. And even if you're absolutely perfect at navigating this travesty, which again, I emphasize, is entirely man-made and 100% controlled and facilitated by our Government and society, you are still starting out magnitudes behind your wealthy counterparts. And if you make a mistake!? Hoo boy. Get ready to do years in prison of your most valuable time because you couldn't sleep with your stomach aching and in a moment of desperation, stole a $0.99 hot dog and got caught. That is of course assuming you aren't shot and killed in the process, again, over a dollar hot dog. > The hard question to resolve is not "if we can have it all, shall we not just have it all?" The question is when merit is in tension with fairness, what do we value more? Whether the metaphorical movie comes out better? Or that the movie provides opportunities for society to correct injustices? In the context of global economy, the ones who vote on this question are the citizens of the world. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

viklove 7y ago

Meritocracy implies nothing about fairness or a level playing field. Meritocracy implies the person with the best skills gets the job. If someone with worse skills gets the job because they're the bosses son, or even just because of their gender/race, it can no longer be considered a meritocracy. The only way to fix what you've brought up is to have all children be taken from their parents at birth and raised in an equal opportunity community akin to The Giver. Is that what you want?

FussyZeus 7y ago
> Meritocracy implies nothing about fairness or a level playing field. Meritocracy implies the person with the best skills gets the job. This only works if you completely disregard the entire process through which someone attains skills. If this is indeed what Meritocracy is then it's even less adequate as a system than I previously believed. > The only way to fix what you've brought up is to have all children be taken from their parents at birth and raised in an equal opportunity community akin to The Giver. Is that what you want? False dichotomy. There is no possibility of a system between totalitarian child rearing by the state and a system rigged entirely and completely for the wealthy? Spare me.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >False dichotomy. There is no possibility of a system between totalitarian child rearing by the state and a system rigged entirely and completely for the wealthy? Spare me. The claim is that any such system would still have biases. Though I would claim even The Giver is not truly equal as parents are still individuals with unique roles in society and thus what they impart on their children is still unequal. So I would make a stronger claim. That level of equality is not physically possible. We can make things more equal, but you get into the messy politics of who do we do it on behalf of (for example, why favor people living in the US over people not).
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > The claim is that any such system would still have biases. Any system built by humans has biases, thankfully we're not discussing The Giver, we're discussing our system here in the states, one that heavily biases the wealthy to the point of punishing the impoverished, and I don't believe either of those were accidental, and I also put forth that the myth of meritocracy is put forward BY those in power to dissuade criticism of it, specifically by invoking the argument you put forward, that absolute equality is impossible. Because apparently, because we can't make everyone absolutely 100% equal in opportunity (which is debatable, but hey) we shouldn't even attempt to address the gross inequality present in our system. For example, we could provide basic income so that struggling families wouldn't need to sacrifice time with their children to provide a base level of sustaining food and housing. For another, we could make college free, since society at large benefits from an educated populace, and since dozens of other countries have and have reaped benefits as a result. This eliminates the barriers the impoverished have to education, and stops a gutless and corrupt system from signing up the poor to an impoverished life of servitude in exchange for a modicum of opportunity. Neither of these does anything really radical other than take back power from the wealthy, which is probably why wealthy interests lobby so hard against them. Because while the rich preach meritocracy, they only do so on the grounds that the merit is money. > We can make things more equal, but you get into the messy politics of who do we do it on behalf of (for example, why favor people living in the US over people not). No I'd imagine we couldn't make a system that removes the advantages given from standing NATIONS. Do you have any other ridiculous ideas you'd like to put forth?

traderjane 7y ago

Performance and value of performance has always been a thing in all nations, whether or not there's the backdrop of nepotism or corruption. However, if you're saying that somebody has been starved from youth and is now way behind on the kinds of skills which would help a company compete, then in a sense that person is no longer meritorious. Merit and fairness aren't the same thing, and are intuitively at odds even if you had a magical wand and could reset everyone's "starting position." If you cannot work because you were subjected to unfair biological risks throughout life, can you continue to be a metaphorical stunt double? The hard question to resolve is not "if we can have it all, shall we not just have it all?" The question is when merit is in tension with fairness, what do we value more? Whether the metaphorical movie comes out better? Or that the movie provides opportunities for society to correct injustices? In the context of global economy, the ones who vote on this question are the citizens of the world.

FussyZeus 7y ago
> Performance and value of performance has always been a thing in all nations, whether or not there's the backdrop of nepotism or corruption. Agree. > However, if you're saying that somebody has been starved from youth and is now way behind on the kinds of skills which would help a company compete, then in a sense that person is no longer meritorious. While this is true, it's also an ultra-extreme example. I'm not talking about people born with developmental disabilities, physical or mental, or people who suffer accidents or traumas in life rendering them less competitive. I'm talking about perfectly able-bodied, sharp minded, sprung-from-the-uterus youngsters who's parents committed the crime of being poor in America. Their parents crime (most not even aware it was a crime) sentences them to a youth of substandard living in homes priced far too expensively, substandard education provided by teachers trying their best in a school system that is funded only 30% as well as a neighboring one, despite having twice the students, because property taxes fund schools for some reason, which I'm sure isn't that wealthy people demand better schools and can pay for it. They are also unable to attend extracurricular activities (if they are even available) unless they can transport themselves to and from them, and of course find the money to pay for what's needed for those activities. And they also more than likely come home to either an empty home or a sleeping parent who's trying their very best to provide them a decent life, and is being hamstrung by stagnant wages, poor working conditions, and is almost certainly strung out to the edge of reason themselves, because again, this system sucks. And even if you're absolutely perfect at navigating this travesty, which again, I emphasize, is entirely man-made and 100% controlled and facilitated by our Government and society, you are still starting out magnitudes behind your wealthy counterparts. And if you make a mistake!? Hoo boy. Get ready to do years in prison of your most valuable time because you couldn't sleep with your stomach aching and in a moment of desperation, stole a $0.99 hot dog and got caught. That is of course assuming you aren't shot and killed in the process, again, over a dollar hot dog. > The hard question to resolve is not "if we can have it all, shall we not just have it all?" The question is when merit is in tension with fairness, what do we value more? Whether the metaphorical movie comes out better? Or that the movie provides opportunities for society to correct injustices? In the context of global economy, the ones who vote on this question are the citizens of the world. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.