6 ms·

Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That’s the Point

25 points by ivanvas 5y ago

warrenm 5y ago
“There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.” --John F. Kennedy
- olliej 5y ago
  That doesn't mean we should go and send a bunch off to die for no reason. That doesn't mean you get to maintain old biases, and continue to deliberately discriminate against women, PoC, etc. Some unfairness is unavoidable, but using the idea that some is unavoidable to to justify maintaining biases is bullshit. Otherwise we might as well go back to segregated schools, and red lining, after all life is unfair
empressplay 5y ago
A rising tide floats all boats.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  And drowns those treading water.
- vannevar 5y ago
  Unfortunately, the economy does not behave like a fluid, and a rising economy raises the wealthiest boats orders of magnitude higher than middle-class boats, and thousands of times higher than the poorest boats, which rise imperceptibly by comparison.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    If something helps everyone, it's a good thing even if it helps rich people more than poor people.
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      So-called meritocracies don't help everyone
    - vannevar 5y ago
      Really? Say you're working for a company that has a great year, profits up 50%. Your boss gets a 20% raise. You and your team get coupons for free fries at McDonald's. As your boss hands out the coupons, he assures you that profit is a good thing, even if it helps management more than workers.
      - olliej 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you're trying to say - that because some "undeserving" people will get more as well, nothing should change?
        vannevar 5y ago
        No, I'm pointing out that the wealthy take a bigger cut of economic growth not because they contributed more, but simply because they are in a position of power to do so. We can't leave capitalism unregulated and expect a meritocracy to emerge spontaneously.
    - nileshtrivedi 5y ago
      Wealth inequality leads to inequality of dignity as it's directly tied to power balance among those unequal individuals.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  Good ole trickle-down theory, eh
  - robocat 5y ago
    Do you think trickle-down maybe works for technology? The iPad I am typing on in New Zealand, communicating with the world. How many people in the world have a smart phone and access to fantastic public information on the internet? Or is trickle-down working for the majority of people around the world that have moved out of extreme poverty? In 1990 36% of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2015 that had dropped to 10%. Is that trickle-down? The ultra-wealthy are obscenely richer, but that doesn’t mean that the poor are not better off too. I agree with your sentiment: trickle-down doesn’t feel like it is working in New Zealand, but I’m unsure how much of the feeling is based on fact versus envy.
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      No, I don't think trickle-down theory is working for anyone except the propagandists who propose it as anything less than a plain insult to people with less. Are you actually suggesting that Reagonomics was not an outright fraud?
FFRefresh 5y ago
I directionally agree with the author, but I wish they had defined what they meant by 'fair', since the concept is so prominent in their post. The meaning of that word seems to vary depending on a speaker's intent and underlying beliefs about humanity.
vannevar 5y ago
> Corrupting this process by discriminating on the basis of family ties, personal friendships, wealth, race, or gender, is simply cutting your nose to spite your face. Right. This is the precise argument in favor of diversity: that we have, for centuries now, been discriminating on the basis of race and selecting inferior performers over better choices because they were white, or male. The purpose of social justice is to bring us closer to meritocracy. >Social justice teaches us how to distribute the pie fairly, so that no one is left behind. No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se.
- FFRefresh 5y ago
  > No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se. Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? Perhaps this is just the circles I am around, but there has been increasing insistence on 'equity' by those who purport to be championing social justice. With 'equity' being exclusively determined by looking at distributions of outcomes, not opportunities.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    >Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? This is a good question, but I would defer to liberal leadership, and their rhetoric consistently refers to equal opportunity. I think a lot of people rely on conservative commentary on "what liberals think" rather than simply reading the original sources. Equity refers to equality of opportunity. See, eg, the official White House executive order regarding racial equity: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... "Equal opportunity" is literally the first two words of the very first section. You can't ignore outcomes as a useful metric, of course, but the objective is clearly equal opportunity, which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.
    - 5y ago
karmakaze 5y ago
A description of a choice of definitions: Meritocracy and Fair. I think what we're currently in is a period of Moneyball where we can do better.
zozbot234 5y ago
Meritocracies are both unfair and inconvenient, but that's not the "point"; the point is rather that assigning responsibility based on competence ought to lead to better social outcomes across the board. To the extent that this fails, there would be no "point" to an actual meritocracy, either.

25 points by ivanvas 5y ago

“There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.” --John F. Kennedy

olliej 5y ago
That doesn't mean we should go and send a bunch off to die for no reason. That doesn't mean you get to maintain old biases, and continue to deliberately discriminate against women, PoC, etc. Some unfairness is unavoidable, but using the idea that some is unavoidable to to justify maintaining biases is bullshit. Otherwise we might as well go back to segregated schools, and red lining, after all life is unfair

empressplay 5y ago

A rising tide floats all boats.

gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
And drowns those treading water.
vannevar 5y ago
Unfortunately, the economy does not behave like a fluid, and a rising economy raises the wealthiest boats orders of magnitude higher than middle-class boats, and thousands of times higher than the poorest boats, which rise imperceptibly by comparison.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  If something helps everyone, it's a good thing even if it helps rich people more than poor people.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    So-called meritocracies don't help everyone
  - vannevar 5y ago
    Really? Say you're working for a company that has a great year, profits up 50%. Your boss gets a 20% raise. You and your team get coupons for free fries at McDonald's. As your boss hands out the coupons, he assures you that profit is a good thing, even if it helps management more than workers.
    - olliej 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say - that because some "undeserving" people will get more as well, nothing should change?
      - vannevar 5y ago
        No, I'm pointing out that the wealthy take a bigger cut of economic growth not because they contributed more, but simply because they are in a position of power to do so. We can't leave capitalism unregulated and expect a meritocracy to emerge spontaneously.
  - nileshtrivedi 5y ago
    Wealth inequality leads to inequality of dignity as it's directly tied to power balance among those unequal individuals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
spacemanmatt 5y ago
Good ole trickle-down theory, eh
- robocat 5y ago
  Do you think trickle-down maybe works for technology? The iPad I am typing on in New Zealand, communicating with the world. How many people in the world have a smart phone and access to fantastic public information on the internet? Or is trickle-down working for the majority of people around the world that have moved out of extreme poverty? In 1990 36% of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2015 that had dropped to 10%. Is that trickle-down? The ultra-wealthy are obscenely richer, but that doesn’t mean that the poor are not better off too. I agree with your sentiment: trickle-down doesn’t feel like it is working in New Zealand, but I’m unsure how much of the feeling is based on fact versus envy.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    No, I don't think trickle-down theory is working for anyone except the propagandists who propose it as anything less than a plain insult to people with less. Are you actually suggesting that Reagonomics was not an outright fraud?

FFRefresh 5y ago

I directionally agree with the author, but I wish they had defined what they meant by 'fair', since the concept is so prominent in their post. The meaning of that word seems to vary depending on a speaker's intent and underlying beliefs about humanity.

vannevar 5y ago

> Corrupting this process by discriminating on the basis of family ties, personal friendships, wealth, race, or gender, is simply cutting your nose to spite your face. Right. This is the precise argument in favor of diversity: that we have, for centuries now, been discriminating on the basis of race and selecting inferior performers over better choices because they were white, or male. The purpose of social justice is to bring us closer to meritocracy. >Social justice teaches us how to distribute the pie fairly, so that no one is left behind. No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se.

FFRefresh 5y ago
> No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se. Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? Perhaps this is just the circles I am around, but there has been increasing insistence on 'equity' by those who purport to be championing social justice. With 'equity' being exclusively determined by looking at distributions of outcomes, not opportunities.
- vannevar 5y ago
  >Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? This is a good question, but I would defer to liberal leadership, and their rhetoric consistently refers to equal opportunity. I think a lot of people rely on conservative commentary on "what liberals think" rather than simply reading the original sources. Equity refers to equality of opportunity. See, eg, the official White House executive order regarding racial equity: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... "Equal opportunity" is literally the first two words of the very first section. You can't ignore outcomes as a useful metric, of course, but the objective is clearly equal opportunity, which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.
  - 5y ago

karmakaze 5y ago

A description of a choice of definitions: Meritocracy and Fair. I think what we're currently in is a period of Moneyball where we can do better.

zozbot234 5y ago

Meritocracies are both unfair and inconvenient, but that's not the "point"; the point is rather that assigning responsibility based on competence ought to lead to better social outcomes across the board. To the extent that this fails, there would be no "point" to an actual meritocracy, either.