2 ms·

I agree with you that the end of legacy and race-based admissions is a good thing. I think it's dangerous to think that a meritocracy always leads to good outco

I agree with you that the end of legacy and race-based admissions is a good thing. I think it's dangerous to think that a meritocracy always leads to good outcomes when there is huge inequality. This best analogy I can give is the "sports stars" analogy. Professional sports is probably the most even playing field I can imagine - there is such a huge incentive to win games that pretty much all else besides skills on the playing field is ignored. But what it results in is a teeny tiny elite making millions, and nearly everyone else barely making enough to get by. So if the rest of the economy was like the sports stars world (and more and more of it is leaning that way), what reason do the rest of the 99.99% have to support this meritocracy? Sure, you can say it's an improvement that the best people are in charge, but if it's clear my genetic talents will prevent me from ever being a star, my incentive is really to tear the whole system down if none of those benefits ever make it my way. I think one contributing factor you see behind so much increasing social strife, the resurgent interest in unions, etc. is the belief that unless you make it to a top job after a top school, you'll barely be scraping by your whole life. Pure meritocracy in a "winner take all/most" economy leads to a very unstable society.

commandlinefan 3y ago
> dangerous to think that a meritocracy always leads to good outcomes People who argue against meritocracy seem to forget that it's the only proposed alternative to the "birthright"-ocracy that civilization has been trying to pry itself from the jaws of for centuries.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Not really. Countries that are consistently at the top of world happiness rankings are ones that (a) both support a dynamic economy through meritocracy and (b) have high taxes and a broad social safety net that limits inequality. To put it another way, I'm not arguing against meritocracy; I'm arguing that it alone does not lead to good outcomes - i.e. I think it's necessary but not sufficient. It's like when people thought "bringing democracy" to all these countries without democratic institutions would be a good thing. Democracy is generally better than the alternative, but only if there are broad protections like equality under the law for minority groups, otherwise it's just the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner" issue. Meritocracy is similar. It's generally a good thing but not if it results in a very small number of people hoarding all the spoils while everyone else barely scrapes by.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Why are the reward ratios in professional sports relevant to other occupations in society? > But what it results in is a teeny tiny elite making millions, and nearly everyone else barely making enough to get by. That is because a very small number of people can satiate the demand for almost all of the world’s people for entertainment from watching sports. Simple supply and demand. It has nothing to do with meritocracy or how meritocracy distributed rewards. Making sure doctors/lawyers/engineers are appropriately qualified is not going to result in only a few getting the rewards, because their work does not scale as much (for the most part).
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Why are the reward ratios in professional sports relevant to other occupations in society? My whole point is that the hollowing out of the middle class and the huge growth in objective measures of inequality in the US are precisely because many other occupations are looking more and more like "sports star" economies. E.g. just look at how the former "main streets" of many smaller towns in the US have been decimated. There used to be "local leaders" in retail in cities all over the US, now it's extremely difficult to compete if you don't have the scale of Amazon. Just look at all the recent stories about fears of AI taking jobs. E.g. it used to be that lots of people could get copywriting jobs. Now it looks like in a pretty short time frame that only the very, very best copywriters will be employable as so much other work is delegated to AI. Look at how most smaller news outlets have completely disappeared across the country. These smaller news outlets used to be fairly important factors in their community, but now they simply can't compete with the Internet giants for ad dollars. I can go on and on, but the "winner take all" dynamic of sports economics has been spreading to pretty much any occupation that faces competition over the Internet.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    That is true, but I do not see the connection with meritocracy. I see “winner take all” dynamics to be a property of economies of scale, which technological advances and computing have greatly enhanced. One might say meritocracy might lead to technological advances leading to economies of scale, but the solution to an increasing income/wealth gap would not be getting rid of meritocracy, but rather redistributing some of the wealth so as to provide a floor for quality of life and quality of opportunities (I would hope).
jcranmer 3y ago
> Professional sports is probably the most even playing field I can imagine - there is such a huge incentive to win games that pretty much all else besides skills on the playing field is ignored. Match fixing has been a perennial problem in sports.
michaelt 3y ago
> So if the rest of the economy was like the sports stars world (and more and more of it is leaning that way), what reason do the rest of the 99.99% have to support this meritocracy? Pretty sure a big fraction of that 99.99% love the top sports stars. For example, major league baseball games have higher attendance than Single-A games.
golemiprague 3y ago
[dead]

commandlinefan 3y ago

> dangerous to think that a meritocracy always leads to good outcomes People who argue against meritocracy seem to forget that it's the only proposed alternative to the "birthright"-ocracy that civilization has been trying to pry itself from the jaws of for centuries.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Not really. Countries that are consistently at the top of world happiness rankings are ones that (a) both support a dynamic economy through meritocracy and (b) have high taxes and a broad social safety net that limits inequality. To put it another way, I'm not arguing against meritocracy; I'm arguing that it alone does not lead to good outcomes - i.e. I think it's necessary but not sufficient. It's like when people thought "bringing democracy" to all these countries without democratic institutions would be a good thing. Democracy is generally better than the alternative, but only if there are broad protections like equality under the law for minority groups, otherwise it's just the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner" issue. Meritocracy is similar. It's generally a good thing but not if it results in a very small number of people hoarding all the spoils while everyone else barely scrapes by.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Why are the reward ratios in professional sports relevant to other occupations in society? > But what it results in is a teeny tiny elite making millions, and nearly everyone else barely making enough to get by. That is because a very small number of people can satiate the demand for almost all of the world’s people for entertainment from watching sports. Simple supply and demand. It has nothing to do with meritocracy or how meritocracy distributed rewards. Making sure doctors/lawyers/engineers are appropriately qualified is not going to result in only a few getting the rewards, because their work does not scale as much (for the most part).

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Why are the reward ratios in professional sports relevant to other occupations in society? My whole point is that the hollowing out of the middle class and the huge growth in objective measures of inequality in the US are precisely because many other occupations are looking more and more like "sports star" economies. E.g. just look at how the former "main streets" of many smaller towns in the US have been decimated. There used to be "local leaders" in retail in cities all over the US, now it's extremely difficult to compete if you don't have the scale of Amazon. Just look at all the recent stories about fears of AI taking jobs. E.g. it used to be that lots of people could get copywriting jobs. Now it looks like in a pretty short time frame that only the very, very best copywriters will be employable as so much other work is delegated to AI. Look at how most smaller news outlets have completely disappeared across the country. These smaller news outlets used to be fairly important factors in their community, but now they simply can't compete with the Internet giants for ad dollars. I can go on and on, but the "winner take all" dynamic of sports economics has been spreading to pretty much any occupation that faces competition over the Internet.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  That is true, but I do not see the connection with meritocracy. I see “winner take all” dynamics to be a property of economies of scale, which technological advances and computing have greatly enhanced. One might say meritocracy might lead to technological advances leading to economies of scale, but the solution to an increasing income/wealth gap would not be getting rid of meritocracy, but rather redistributing some of the wealth so as to provide a floor for quality of life and quality of opportunities (I would hope).

jcranmer 3y ago

> Professional sports is probably the most even playing field I can imagine - there is such a huge incentive to win games that pretty much all else besides skills on the playing field is ignored. Match fixing has been a perennial problem in sports.

michaelt 3y ago

> So if the rest of the economy was like the sports stars world (and more and more of it is leaning that way), what reason do the rest of the 99.99% have to support this meritocracy? Pretty sure a big fraction of that 99.99% love the top sports stars. For example, major league baseball games have higher attendance than Single-A games.

golemiprague 3y ago

[dead]