4 ms·

I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. It's not meaningful to say an abstract ideal is a

by strken 5y ago

I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. It's not meaningful to say an abstract ideal is a myth when it's not fully realised, because meritocracy still exists as a relative measurement between different times and places. It still means something to say "our workplace should be more meritocratic." It would also be meaningful to say "our country should be freer," even if absolute freedom doesn't exist.

doggodaddo78 5y ago
It's sorta meritocratic. The world is imperfect but the US is fairly free for individuals as long as they don't step on powerful-people's toes. There are no ideal utopias, nor can there be. Wishing and whining that it doesn't exist is like complaining about a lack of unicorns.
- rurban 5y ago
  Nope, the US is not free at all. There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Getting rich is mostly driven by inheritance, class, luck and sociopathy, not by individual people on the basis of talent, effort and achievement. The US has extremely expensive schools. The US favors private contracts over civil rights, which is the base definition of fascism. Your worker is your slave because he signed this contract out of his free will. The only advantage is the lack of middle management. But calling that freedom is hysterical.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Are you going to tax my parents away from me? They gave me 18 years of care. You'd have to tax those 18 years for things to be truly fair. I don't believe in inheritance taxes because someone has to own all the stuff a person with low wealth enjoys. The government builds streets that are worth millions but even the poorest of society benefit from the wealth inequality of state and citizen. There are similar situations where wealth inequality benefits the poor and rich alike but things have been rigged so that these situations are rare or non existent. I do believe in a cap on the maximum amount a single person can inherit in their life. We don't want to take wealth away, we want it to spread. Everyone is born poor. People only become wealthy during their life. Some get wealthy earlier than others but that is not the problem. It's the quantity of wealthy people that is important. If everyone could be wealthy a day after they were born that would be fantastic.
  - madengr 5y ago
    You do realize the average lifespan is about 80, and people have kids in their 20/30s, which puts the typical age of inheritance in the 50/60s, who themselves are already near retirement age. It’s not as if you have a bunch of 18 YO using inheritance to gain edge. There are taxes on gifts, so parents can’t just give their kids more then $15k without massive taxation. Hell, you can’t even invest more than $2k/year tax free for college savings.
kiba 5y ago
I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. I still doubt it is something that we want in our society, because meritocracy is about promotion of ability above all other consideration, which exactly favored anyone with resources, and spending resources on the most capable members of society.
- wlpu 5y ago
  While there is a want or whim, those with ability, real or apparent, will always be highly sought after. I doubt it's possible to solve without removing humans from the equation. That said, I would gladly be convinced otherwise.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Meritocracy means to get jobs and positions based on your merits (i.e. objective skills and criteria), not birth or connections. Of course, luck will always be part of it but that's unavoidable. This has been pushed by the Enlightenment and even before because that's the fairest and most just. For example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789: "All the citizens, being equal in its (the law) eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents." (Article 6) That's what meritocracy means. In the same way as in a fair competition you want the best player(s) to win, not those who know or pay the referee. It does not mean leaving the poorer and less able fend for themselves on the thinking that perhaps it's their fault if they poor.
  - kiba 5y ago
    Meritocracy means to get jobs and positions based on your merits (i.e. objective skills and criteria), not birth or connections. Of course, luck will always be part of it but that's unavoidable. It doesn't matter because the elite always have advantage. They have better access to tutors and education and can go very far. If all that we care about is awarding the best for every position, then that's fine, but that's not entirely how we want to structure society.

by strken 5y ago

doggodaddo78 5y ago

It's sorta meritocratic. The world is imperfect but the US is fairly free for individuals as long as they don't step on powerful-people's toes. There are no ideal utopias, nor can there be. Wishing and whining that it doesn't exist is like complaining about a lack of unicorns.

rurban 5y ago
Nope, the US is not free at all. There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Getting rich is mostly driven by inheritance, class, luck and sociopathy, not by individual people on the basis of talent, effort and achievement. The US has extremely expensive schools. The US favors private contracts over civil rights, which is the base definition of fascism. Your worker is your slave because he signed this contract out of his free will. The only advantage is the lack of middle management. But calling that freedom is hysterical.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >There is no inheritance tax. This tax would provide equal opportunities for students to start afresh in a meritocratic society. Instead they are getting a huge headstart. Are you going to tax my parents away from me? They gave me 18 years of care. You'd have to tax those 18 years for things to be truly fair. I don't believe in inheritance taxes because someone has to own all the stuff a person with low wealth enjoys. The government builds streets that are worth millions but even the poorest of society benefit from the wealth inequality of state and citizen. There are similar situations where wealth inequality benefits the poor and rich alike but things have been rigged so that these situations are rare or non existent. I do believe in a cap on the maximum amount a single person can inherit in their life. We don't want to take wealth away, we want it to spread. Everyone is born poor. People only become wealthy during their life. Some get wealthy earlier than others but that is not the problem. It's the quantity of wealthy people that is important. If everyone could be wealthy a day after they were born that would be fantastic.
- madengr 5y ago
  You do realize the average lifespan is about 80, and people have kids in their 20/30s, which puts the typical age of inheritance in the 50/60s, who themselves are already near retirement age. It’s not as if you have a bunch of 18 YO using inheritance to gain edge. There are taxes on gifts, so parents can’t just give their kids more then $15k without massive taxation. Hell, you can’t even invest more than $2k/year tax free for college savings.

kiba 5y ago

I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. I still doubt it is something that we want in our society, because meritocracy is about promotion of ability above all other consideration, which exactly favored anyone with resources, and spending resources on the most capable members of society.

wlpu 5y ago
While there is a want or whim, those with ability, real or apparent, will always be highly sought after. I doubt it's possible to solve without removing humans from the equation. That said, I would gladly be convinced otherwise.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Meritocracy means to get jobs and positions based on your merits (i.e. objective skills and criteria), not birth or connections. Of course, luck will always be part of it but that's unavoidable. This has been pushed by the Enlightenment and even before because that's the fairest and most just. For example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789: "All the citizens, being equal in its (the law) eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents." (Article 6) That's what meritocracy means. In the same way as in a fair competition you want the best player(s) to win, not those who know or pay the referee. It does not mean leaving the poorer and less able fend for themselves on the thinking that perhaps it's their fault if they poor.
- kiba 5y ago
  Meritocracy means to get jobs and positions based on your merits (i.e. objective skills and criteria), not birth or connections. Of course, luck will always be part of it but that's unavoidable. It doesn't matter because the elite always have advantage. They have better access to tutors and education and can go very far. If all that we care about is awarding the best for every position, then that's fine, but that's not entirely how we want to structure society.