Meritocracy in America?

[Ivan Sputnik]

Here's an interesting article in The Economist on the disappearing US "meritocracy":

"A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."

More here:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560

[Fridays Child]

1. So The Economist is just now rubbing its eyes and waking up, huh?

It will take another Great Depression to turn things around, again--that is, if we're lucky enough to avoid even greater catastrophes.

[Solly Mack]

2. No kidding.

[Karenina]

8. "Meritocracy"

was the lifelong LIE that propelled my skinny black ass OUTTA THERE. Not that I've been "lucky" on another continent, just that I didn't have to listen to that pernicious tripe anymore.

[Solly Mack]

11. my "no kidding" was to this statement

"The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."




America already is class based...among other things it bases "merit" on.

I don't buy the myth of "meritocracy"....

I was being facetious

[Karenina]

14. Murika BEEN LONG SINCE

CALCIFIED. The color o'CHALK!!! :evilgrin:

[Solly Mack]

18. BOOM!

(giving away my age):)

[billyskank]

15. Yes, meritocracy has always been a myth

But an exceedingly pernicious one. In truth, wealth naturally follows along class boundaries because wealthy people are able to send their children to better schools, and their kids get the breaks that will be unavailable to everyone else.

Even if you outlawed private education, wealthy people would still get their children to the best schools, because house prices would rise around them and so only the wealthy would be able to afford to live there.

The reason why it is so pernicious is that it enables the wealthy to believe they really deserve their wealth. At least, in unabashed class-based societies, the upper class did at least have some clue that their position was due to a mere accident of birth. There is a slight possibility of some humility creeping in there; not much, I will admit. But with the rich believing that they are rich because of their own virtue, there is effectively no brake on their arrogance and avarice.

[Solly Mack]

17. That was beautifully stated

[bryant69]

6. Actually the Economist is pretty good

In my opinion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[JVS]

3. Meritocracy is an empty concept.

In for a society to even begin making moves to support meritocracy, it is necessary to for the society to have some kind of general consensus about what merit is in the first place; what is good and should be rewarded. Our society is far too heterodox to come up with a definition of merit or what is good, even in Socrates' time they struggled with the question of what is good. Different people put emphasis on different things. One who considers him/her-self strong will claim that society should value strength, one who considers him/her-self intelligent will say that our society should value intelligence, those who are sociable think that our society should value cooperation with others.

[ChairOne]

7. More philistine definitioneering....

I always forget how prevalent this notion is: that if you cannot (or simply don't) precisely define something, then that concept is empty (useless, pick-your-favorite-pejorative).

There's absolutely nothing wrong - in general - with less-than-100%-circumscribed concepts. In fact, pretty much every last one of them is like that. Yes - even in mathematics and logic.

[JVS]

9. We can have a less than 100% definition, but it needs to be broad

Which is why I used the term "General consensus" not "Absolute definition"
And our country doesn't seem close to consensus on the matter.

Let me put it this way: If you want a meritocracy tell me what merit is?

You should read more carefully and name call less.

[ChairOne]

10. Um, I didn't call you a name. Not once.

In any case, you seem to feel as tho any attempts at a meritocracy are hamstrung - even meaningless - for want of a definition-cum-general-consensus on just what merit means.

What would you say about something like, say, "our nation's efforts to improve itself"?

Are all such things off limits until "general consensus" is reached?

[K-W]

12. Yes, but we need a functional definition, we dont have that yet.

If your goal is to design a society predicated on merit you need a functional definition of merit.

Is it based on effort put in. Is it based on the market value of what you produce. How do you compare stock brokers and garbage men? Is a banker who is responsible for handling million dollar deals from a posh office chair more or less deserving than someone who devotedly screws together car parts standing at an assembly line?

[patdem]

16. There are MANY ways to compare a stock broker to a garbage man

use productivity as a measure of income. And for every grade of school one completes you acquire a productivity merit...the higher your learning the more productive you are CONSIDERED when you enter the job market. After that is it YOUR WORK which produces productivity merits...a Hard working garbage man can be rewarded equally as a LAZY stock broker. Why should that be a problem?

MEASURE PRODUCTIVITY...IT CAN BE DONE!

[whistle]

4. Should be retitled: "Meritocracy or Mediocrity in America"....

...as the very wealthy contrary to eugenic beliefs rarely result in superior off-spring only greater privilege. Case in point, successive generations of the Bush family has only resulted in off-spring totally unable to survive on their own merits. Once Pappy Bush passes over to the underworld, his boys will be dragged under by a juggernaut of wolves and jackals clawing to ravage the power vacuum. The off-spring of the Bushie Boyz are hardly equipped to go it alone.

[bleedingheart]

5. I have been saying this for a long time... The Gilded Age II

If it weren't so sad it would be funny...our immigrant grandmothers and grandfathers fought for labor and women's rights and now our generation has forgotten the lesson.

[K-W]

13. Not only forgotten about them.

But in many cases backlashed against them.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Awesome photo on the lower-right, which makes it

look like George W. Bush is laughing at us because he's rich and we never will be.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560

[SmokingJacket]

20. Never was much of a meritocracy...

(anyway, who decides "merit"??)

But he has a point. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.