How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself • Hacker News Board

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#81

Post by clarkmoody » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 7:35 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #70

api wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: merit is not one-dimensional. Which merit is being measured? Merit at what? I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers. They're very good at rapidly building social networks, smoke and mirrors, and shell games that create the illusion of value. The game they play could be called "lie, leverage, flip."…

I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers. Exactly. The Economist article lost me at the point where it said this: The top 1% have seen their incomes soar because of the premium that a globalised high-tech economy places on brainy people. No, the top 1% have seen their incomes soar because they have been a…

The top level comment mentioned extreme sacrifice as a way to move to the 95th percentile. I argue that investment bankers also make extreme sacrifice to stay where they are, in the form of 80 hour weeks, horrible family life, etc.

Anger and jealousy toward the "1%" is a dangerous road for a country to go down. Besides, without investment banks and private equity firms, an essential part of the economy -- namely, buying and selling companies -- would be missing and we would be worse off.

The place where you should direct your ire is toward corrupt government policymakers who allow corporate interests to override the basis of our civil society, which is equal protection under the law. Corporations do not want free markets; they want government-sponsored monopolies. We the people should hold our government responsible for succumbing to corporate special interests instead of blaming the companies once they are granted such privilege.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#82

Post by saraid216 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 7:49 PM UTC

gyardley wrote: post #54

"Using one-generation measures of social mobility—how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son—America does half as well as Nordic countries, and about the same as Britain and Italy, Europe’s least-mobile places." Good, because of course I would want my income to influence that of my children. Yes, yes, I would want them to work hard and be curious and chart their own path, etc., but because I…

Yes, but that's precisely the definition of what a meritocracy is not.

Here's the thing: do you want to stack the deck so that only your children have such favor, to the extent you are able, or do you want to stack the deck so that all children have such favor, again to the extent of your ability? Yes, of course, if it's an either-or choice then you'd go with your kids. But if you weren't forced to make such a choice, which would you go with?

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#83

Post by saraid216 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 7:53 PM UTC

cbeach wrote: post #77

vannevar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the article brushes aside the idea of wealth redistribution, but the simple truth is that, all else being equal, the more money you have, the easier it is to make more of it. It's like a marathon that gets easier as you go on. Even the wealthy acknowledge it: "The first million is the hardest." So we have (or had) a progressive system of taxation to attempt to counter the natural flow of wealth toward the wealth…

I disagree. A threshold amount of wealth makes it easier to make more, sure. But IMO that threshold is low (i.e. enough to cover the basics of life). Rich people can lose wealth far faster, and far more easily than poor, trust me. The difference is that people who are capable of becoming wealthy are generally able to make more (through sensibly investing their cash and working hard in good jobs)

> Rich people can lose wealth far faster, and far more easily than poor, trust me.

I don't know you, so I can't; can you provide numbers, or at least an argument with some intuitive strength, rather than just asserting it?

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#84

Post by saraid216 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 8:01 PM UTC

drakeandrews wrote: post #12

This, yet again, reinforces my view that funding schools through property taxes is a perverse and ultimately damaging idea. I understand the ideals behind it (schools are funded locally, playing into the strange american fixation with avoiding distributing tax revenues). Affirmative action is mentioned as outdated, but perhaps it is a sign that american society still feels guilty over the fact that not sixty years ag…

> perhaps it is a sign that american society still feels guilty over the fact that not sixty years ago large swathes were still arguing against the integration of schools

Smaller swaths of American society are still against the integration of schools, for the record. If you survey and abstract the arguments made, you'll find a lot that have the structure, "If this political action (e.g. bill passes; bill is defeated; president elected, etc.) happens, then our children will be forced to learn that apostasy (e.g. gay agenda, lots of sex, non-Biblical whatevers, etc.)." As has been pointed out repeatedly by pro-gay advocates, this is a verbatim, find/replace repetition of arguments against racial integration.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#85

Post by ef4 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 8:23 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #70

api wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: merit is not one-dimensional. Which merit is being measured? Merit at what? I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers. They're very good at rapidly building social networks, smoke and mirrors, and shell games that create the illusion of value. The game they play could be called "lie, leverage, flip."…

I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers. Exactly. The Economist article lost me at the point where it said this: The top 1% have seen their incomes soar because of the premium that a globalised high-tech economy places on brainy people. No, the top 1% have seen their incomes soar because they have been a…

> Exhibit A: Wall Street investment banks.

Then you're thinking of the top 0.01%.

The people right at the 99th percentile are still considered peons by Wall Street investment banking standards. And the kind of money that puts you at 1% (about $500k annually for a household) isn't enough to get you special access to powerful politicians. That costs a lot more.

I agree with you that we have a corrupt elite. But I prefer we use realistic statistics in defining them. The people right at the 99th percentile are not the problem.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#86

Post by eropple » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 8:31 PM UTC

Evbn wrote: post #43

michaelochurch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top. How? Please explain what magical elevator makes this happen, because VC-istan seems to be a combination of connections and luck, large organizations tend to be clueless and political, and academia has been dying for at least a generation and a half. What I've seen may be limited and atypical, but I haven't seen anything…

If working at a big company gives a low level employee an upper middle class lifestyle, who needs advancement? That is extremely advanced (95%) compared to the developed world as a whole.

Advancement and improvement over time are, for many (I might say most), fairly major parts of what Maslow would call self-actualization--the drive to improve and better oneself.

So, "most people"?

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#87

Post by wamatt » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 8:46 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #16

Every elite in history has called itself a "meritocracy". Who defines "merit"? The elite. They will always look out for themselves in doing so. If anything, the "dumb", brutal aristocracy of medieval Europe had more of a claim of innate superiority ("merit") than the current elite. Because of superior nutrition and better working conditions, they were half a foot taller, probably 20 IQ points smarter, and overall mor…

>Every elite in history has called itself a "meritocracy". Who defines "merit"?

I'd concede that the word itself may have been used questionably to capitalize on the associated ideological goodwill. However, simply stating it may have been abused, does not automatically preclude an actual meritocratic group from existing.

For example, while many generally dishonest individuals (eg sociopaths) may profess to being totally honest, it does not follow that a generally honest person, does not exist.

Similarly, it's quite possible to build something close to a true meritocracy. How do I know? Because this happened at my previous company. Merit, at it's core, was defined by outputs. Nothing more. Was it perfect? No, but we are dealing with messy humans, and subjectivity obviously occurs, but the point is to actively and continually encourage a culture of objectivity.

Over many years the track record bore this out.

There were those that started in 'serfdom' and yet over time, rose up. Actually, not always "up", as in traditional line management sense, but certainly in responsibilities assigned to them. Hence they received associated increases in compensation, benefits and peer respect.

Many know the theory, but how well it works in practice, depends on the ability of those leading, to truly believe and continually act in a way that promotes and entrenches the behavior, so that it becomes the culture.

An example, we had (and they still do), employees on the exec management team that started their professional journey's as junior call center agents. Conversely, those persons that partook in politicized self promotion, tended to enjoy a rather brief tenancy at the company. Either they were actively pushed out by peers and managers, or they passively drifted apart on their own accord, as their natural skills of manipulation and politicking, bore scarce fruits.

In summary, while perhaps uncommon, it is possible to for a meritocracy to flourish given excessive care and thoughtfulness is spent designing fair and useful incentives and metrics. Shallow or ill-conceived incentives and insincere leadership, could set the organization on a ruinous path over the longterm.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#88

Post by liber8 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 8:46 PM UTC

The premise of the article is faulty, and the problem overstated.

First, the author has to sleight-of-hand his way into his argument. He's worried that the "elite" will use their money to ensure that their children get such a leg-up on the non-elite children that the non-elite children won't be able to compete and will become (I guess?) the modern equivalent of feudal peasants. Of course, he doesn't present any evidence that this is happening. He states that "the top 1% have seen their incomes soar", but this isn't a statement of a problem.[1]

While it seems intuitive that privileged children will do better than non-privileged children, and even that a cadre of privileged children could keep the non-privileged children non-privileged for eternity, this just doesn't jibe with reality.

For example, across just three generations, the complete loss of inherited wealth is nearly 90%. That means the great-grand children of nearly every founder who had a big exit will never see any of that money. (Note that this same argument is often made with respect to corporations as a basis for stringent anti-trust regulation. But, pick any 50 year increment of the DJIA and see how many companies on the list in the starting year were on the list at the end.) The "problem" of perpetual wealth a specter.

Sure, you can point to the Rothschilds as an example of dynastic wealth. But (conspiracy theories aside) how many “wealthy” Rothschilds are there? Do they wield any real power? What about some of the other richest people in history? If dynastic wealth is a true problem, why aren’t the Hugheses, the Gettys, the Rockafeller’s the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Mellons, and the Fords dominating world politics, finance or culture? (Interesting aside: many of these titans were actually dirt poor themselves before building their own fortunes.)

It’s easy to take a small, 30-year slice of history and claim that, if things continue this way, surely the world will be hell in just a few more short years. Fortunately, it almost never works out that way.

[1] See pg's article re "money is not wealth" here: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html)

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#89

Post by yukoncornelius » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 8:57 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #81

pdonis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers. Exactly. The Economist article lost me at the point where it said this: The top 1% have seen their incomes soar because of the premium that a globalised high-tech economy places on brainy people. No, the top 1% have seen their incomes soar because they have been a…

The top level comment mentioned extreme sacrifice as a way to move to the 95th percentile. I argue that investment bankers also make extreme sacrifice to stay where they are, in the form of 80 hour weeks, horrible family life, etc. Anger and jealousy toward the "1%" is a dangerous road for a country to go down. Besides, without investment banks and private equity firms, an essential part of the economy -- namely, buy…

You cannot simply blame the government policymakers. Civil servants make the policies based on Congressional direction. Congress develops laws due to public pressure which is often led by lobby efforts. Who funds the the lobbyists?

The entire society is guilty for the current state of economic affairs as civil servants don't stand up to Congress, Congress wants to get re-elected, the public is easily distracted, and the 1% or .001% fund the lobbies.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#90

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 9:12 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #24

stcredzero wrote: post #13

An "entrenched meritocracy" is a contradiction. It's not a true meritocracy. Instead, it's an aristocracy claiming to be one, which is a bit tautological, since every such class claims it deserves its privileged position. People in other times and places believed they deserved their privileges just as sincerely as you do right now. Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;) First, we aren't the real elite. Founders are yeoman project managers at best, engineers are less than that-- not even able to raise a family in the Valley-- and even the venture capitalists are, for the most part, merely junior elite. I'm not so sure about that claim, anyway, given that IQ is relative. The intellectual edge of the modern el…

> First, we aren't the real elite. Founders are yeoman project managers at best, engineers are less than that-- not even able to raise a family in the Valley-- and even the venture capitalists are, for the most part, merely junior elite.

I bet a lot of folks in France between 1789 and 1799 were paraphrasing, "I'm not a real aristo," or "I'm only a minor aristo."

Note that the junior elite is more likely to be left as scapegoats to the mob, while the real elites will have the resources to escape.

And you do realize, as a smart, hip, dare I say elite person, that the ;) was a signal of sarcasm.