6 ms·

Intergenerational wealth and meritocracy are not incompatible. People can spend thier money how they want, if they want to give it to thier kids they still ear

Intergenerational wealth and meritocracy are not incompatible. People can spend thier money how they want, if they want to give it to thier kids they still earned it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KittenInABox 5y ago
The kids didn't earn it though ;)
- elefanten 5y ago
  Yeah and? In a meritocracy, they wouldn't be given positions of responsibility and power without earning them. So the unearned economic advantage will dwindle within a couple generations unless they can produce something of value. In no scheme can you regulate away all forms of unearned advantage. The skills, capacities and potential we are born with vary. People are tremendously motivated by providing for their children. Taking that motivation off the table will drive people to places where they can achieve it. The long-term, highest-net-value producing system of distributing power / responsibility will be a meritocracy.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    The motivations of the average person are not aligned with efficiency.
    - elefanten 5y ago
      But the motivations of those shaping the structure and systems of civilization should be.
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        Efficiency for efficiency's sake isn't congruent with a free society.
  - geofft 5y ago
    First off, merely having money is a position of responsibility and power. Second, money doesn't "dwindle" on its own. Unless you are actively gambling it away (literally or metaphorically), a large amount of money by itself produces more money of value at a certain baseline rate (by the ability to make broader and individually-riskier investments while managing aggregate risk - tl;dr, "why banks are profitable"), entirely independent of the merit of the person with the money. And even if you were to bury it in the ground like the dude in the parable of the talents, it would only lose out on inflation. It wouldn't rot or evaporate. Finally, a couple of generations is a long time! Nations rise and fall in less time than that. My grandparents grew up under the British Raj. The whole of the Soviet Union lasted a couple of generations. If your "meritocracy" recognizes merit with latency on the order of a couple of generations, I'm not sure it's an effective meritocracy. If the US Senate had free and fair elections once every generation, replacing one-third of the participants each generation and allowing senators to hand-pick their successors whenever they wanted to retire, would you call that government a democracy?
    - elefanten 5y ago
      My comment followed from the claim about whether meritocracy and inheritance are compatible. I'm addressing the notions in theory rather than in present situational terms in any given country. From that perspective: 1. Disagree. Yes, money can be used to buy power. But it's not power in itself. A strong meritocracy would focus on giving positions of responsibility (auditing/regulating/decision-making type powers) to people who show the merit to perform them well. Money is an advantage, but it is not the power to shape social systems. 2. Rich heirs who put all their wealth into safe investments and sit on it also aren't really getting much out of it. And that money isn't sitting away in a vault, it's a part of the economy. Rich heirs who buy yachts and mansions and hang with celebrities, but lack the merit to contribute anything useful, will burn through (most of) the wealth. It's not just common... it's the default outcome within a few generations. 3. Yes, generations are a long time. But that latency would apply to personal/family wealth rather than decision-making authority. I'm not a pro-inheritance maximalist. I agree with various forms of taxation on inheritance. But there is value is allowing people to be motivated by their family's future. Inheritance is not inherently at odds with meritocratic assignment of political power.
erwald 5y ago
i think the idea is that the kids did not earn their inheritances.
- kiba 5y ago
  Nobody earns their inheritances, parents, or upbringings.
  - moate 5y ago
    Right. So then how do you justify intergenerational wealth if you also support the idea that a meritocracy is the "most fair" system? OP's point was that you can't, you either support the meritocracy or you support inheritance providing some people an unjust advantage.
    - kiba 5y ago
      It is incorrect to think of meritocracy as necessarily egalitarian. If all we care about is merit, then the rich are going to be selected more often than the poor, simply on the basis of ability alone.
      - moate 5y ago
        How do you define "merit"?
timkam 5y ago
Then the kids did not "earn" it, though; they got it because of their parents' merit, which means it is not meritocratic.
- mc32 5y ago
  That's like saying a welfare recipient didn't "earn it" so it's not meritocratic.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Yes?
  - timkam 5y ago
    What we consider "welfare" is typically not handed out based on merit, but based on need (and, from a global perspective, also based on privilege). The idea of a welfare state is not meritocratic. Many societies strive to be meritocratic with egalitarian constraints: anyone should be able to have a decent life (egalitarian), but to have a great life, one needs to contribute (meritocratic). Interestingly, inheritance neither fits the egalitarian nor the meritocratic perspective.
moate 5y ago
Okay, now keep going. How did the kids "earn" their money? The general understanding of a meritocracy is that merit is rewarded. "Having wealthy parents" isn't usually considered a merit...
TuringNYC 5y ago
I think there are two problems -- 1. Good education hard to come by in the US, and immense wealth allows some people almost automatic access to the best education while others are outbid (either via property/school districts or via private school "donations" for entrance or via access to best prep services or via influence which is used to navigate "leadership" based entrance applications for k-12 schooling ) 2. See item 1 -- this should not happen in the US, but it does. Our population has grown, but we've underinvested in schooling and all the foundational systems. The number of great schools has not necessarily grown with population. I see it myself in my hometown as skyscrapers rise, but schools are not built in proportion. Allowing intergenerational wealth to bypass Problem 2 allows the plutocracy to avoid the problem with money (Problem 2) since it isnt their own problem anymore.
- elefanten 5y ago
  You're arguing against the American system as it is. Proponents of meritocracy wouldn't say that America has achieved it. I agree with the other comments that meritocracy and inheritance are not at odds, especially if the meritocracy component is referring to positions of power & responsibility. But your point is valid wrt America as it is. Education is a lynchpin of meritocracy. So, America's solution may need to include some reshaping of inheritance as a means to reshape the mechanisms of meritocracy. But the facile leftist take of (more or less) "ban inheritance" would be an overstep and create far more problems than its simplicity solves.
iammisc 5y ago
Sure they are. Individualistic meritocracy and intergenerational wealth are not compatible. But familial meritocracy and intergenerational wealth are self-requiring.

Intergenerational wealth and meritocracy are not incompatible. People can spend thier money how they want, if they want to give it to thier kids they still earned it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

KittenInABox 5y ago

The kids didn't earn it though ;)

elefanten 5y ago
Yeah and? In a meritocracy, they wouldn't be given positions of responsibility and power without earning them. So the unearned economic advantage will dwindle within a couple generations unless they can produce something of value. In no scheme can you regulate away all forms of unearned advantage. The skills, capacities and potential we are born with vary. People are tremendously motivated by providing for their children. Taking that motivation off the table will drive people to places where they can achieve it. The long-term, highest-net-value producing system of distributing power / responsibility will be a meritocracy.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  The motivations of the average person are not aligned with efficiency.
  - elefanten 5y ago
    But the motivations of those shaping the structure and systems of civilization should be.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Efficiency for efficiency's sake isn't congruent with a free society.
- geofft 5y ago
  First off, merely having money is a position of responsibility and power. Second, money doesn't "dwindle" on its own. Unless you are actively gambling it away (literally or metaphorically), a large amount of money by itself produces more money of value at a certain baseline rate (by the ability to make broader and individually-riskier investments while managing aggregate risk - tl;dr, "why banks are profitable"), entirely independent of the merit of the person with the money. And even if you were to bury it in the ground like the dude in the parable of the talents, it would only lose out on inflation. It wouldn't rot or evaporate. Finally, a couple of generations is a long time! Nations rise and fall in less time than that. My grandparents grew up under the British Raj. The whole of the Soviet Union lasted a couple of generations. If your "meritocracy" recognizes merit with latency on the order of a couple of generations, I'm not sure it's an effective meritocracy. If the US Senate had free and fair elections once every generation, replacing one-third of the participants each generation and allowing senators to hand-pick their successors whenever they wanted to retire, would you call that government a democracy?
  - elefanten 5y ago
    My comment followed from the claim about whether meritocracy and inheritance are compatible. I'm addressing the notions in theory rather than in present situational terms in any given country. From that perspective: 1. Disagree. Yes, money can be used to buy power. But it's not power in itself. A strong meritocracy would focus on giving positions of responsibility (auditing/regulating/decision-making type powers) to people who show the merit to perform them well. Money is an advantage, but it is not the power to shape social systems. 2. Rich heirs who put all their wealth into safe investments and sit on it also aren't really getting much out of it. And that money isn't sitting away in a vault, it's a part of the economy. Rich heirs who buy yachts and mansions and hang with celebrities, but lack the merit to contribute anything useful, will burn through (most of) the wealth. It's not just common... it's the default outcome within a few generations. 3. Yes, generations are a long time. But that latency would apply to personal/family wealth rather than decision-making authority. I'm not a pro-inheritance maximalist. I agree with various forms of taxation on inheritance. But there is value is allowing people to be motivated by their family's future. Inheritance is not inherently at odds with meritocratic assignment of political power.

erwald 5y ago

i think the idea is that the kids did not earn their inheritances.

kiba 5y ago
Nobody earns their inheritances, parents, or upbringings.
- moate 5y ago
  Right. So then how do you justify intergenerational wealth if you also support the idea that a meritocracy is the "most fair" system? OP's point was that you can't, you either support the meritocracy or you support inheritance providing some people an unjust advantage.
  - kiba 5y ago
    It is incorrect to think of meritocracy as necessarily egalitarian. If all we care about is merit, then the rich are going to be selected more often than the poor, simply on the basis of ability alone.
    - moate 5y ago
      How do you define "merit"?

timkam 5y ago

Then the kids did not "earn" it, though; they got it because of their parents' merit, which means it is not meritocratic.

mc32 5y ago
That's like saying a welfare recipient didn't "earn it" so it's not meritocratic.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Yes?
- timkam 5y ago
  What we consider "welfare" is typically not handed out based on merit, but based on need (and, from a global perspective, also based on privilege). The idea of a welfare state is not meritocratic. Many societies strive to be meritocratic with egalitarian constraints: anyone should be able to have a decent life (egalitarian), but to have a great life, one needs to contribute (meritocratic). Interestingly, inheritance neither fits the egalitarian nor the meritocratic perspective.

moate 5y ago

Okay, now keep going. How did the kids "earn" their money? The general understanding of a meritocracy is that merit is rewarded. "Having wealthy parents" isn't usually considered a merit...

TuringNYC 5y ago

I think there are two problems -- 1. Good education hard to come by in the US, and immense wealth allows some people almost automatic access to the best education while others are outbid (either via property/school districts or via private school "donations" for entrance or via access to best prep services or via influence which is used to navigate "leadership" based entrance applications for k-12 schooling ) 2. See item 1 -- this should not happen in the US, but it does. Our population has grown, but we've underinvested in schooling and all the foundational systems. The number of great schools has not necessarily grown with population. I see it myself in my hometown as skyscrapers rise, but schools are not built in proportion. Allowing intergenerational wealth to bypass Problem 2 allows the plutocracy to avoid the problem with money (Problem 2) since it isnt their own problem anymore.

elefanten 5y ago
You're arguing against the American system as it is. Proponents of meritocracy wouldn't say that America has achieved it. I agree with the other comments that meritocracy and inheritance are not at odds, especially if the meritocracy component is referring to positions of power & responsibility. But your point is valid wrt America as it is. Education is a lynchpin of meritocracy. So, America's solution may need to include some reshaping of inheritance as a means to reshape the mechanisms of meritocracy. But the facile leftist take of (more or less) "ban inheritance" would be an overstep and create far more problems than its simplicity solves.

iammisc 5y ago

Sure they are. Individualistic meritocracy and intergenerational wealth are not compatible. But familial meritocracy and intergenerational wealth are self-requiring.