How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself • Hacker News Board

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#51

Post by Evbn » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:11 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #17

CJefferson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that someone on a site like hacker news (which I like consider are on the more intelligent side) would make a comparison like this, deeply disturbs me. We clearly have fundamentally different world views. (edit: I don't want this to sound like davidirch shouldn't have that opinion, just that it's easy to assume people will share your opinion) I don't understand how you can be against what seems to be a compl…

Making University education free won't solve the problem. If Education was free, entrance exams would be much more difficult. Rich kids could still pass the exams, because their parents would pay for more tutoring/education.

India uses strict exam-based entrance exams. US doesn't. Admission criteria can be lotteries above minimum standards, or designed to choose the students who responded most to the level of investment they got (a bit harder to measure)

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#52

Post by svachalek » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:11 PM UTC

chime wrote: post #18

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 ;)

I disagree. Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top. A good surgeon can make 3-4x a poor surgeon. A good programmer can make 2-3x a poor programmer. If you are a fantastic programmer and you make $50k/yr in US, it means either (1) you don't care about money (2) you don't know how to negotiate. There is no way a fantasti…

Whenever you talk about what someone can "make", salary, earned income, you are automatically excluding the "top". Engineers and surgeons may be at the top of the middle class but their kids are still not getting auto-accepted at Harvard because there's a building named after Dad.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#53

Post by druswick » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:13 PM UTC

So I love this topic. This is a big deal now, and looking at trends in demography, incomes, and wealth, it's going to be a yet bigger deal for many years to come. But is there something that can be done? Is there a tech/business solution that helps alleviate the mutual exclusive quality that bingobangobongo mentions? If you could crack that, you could probably be make a big impact for a long time.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#54

Post by gyardley » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:15 PM UTC

"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'm their father I'm going to try and stack the deck in their favor as high as I can possibly stack it.

And let's not kid ourselves - everybody who cares about their children, no matter what their political inclination or relative level of wealth, tries to do exactly the same thing. From the hedge-fund billionaire to the immigrant janitor.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#55

Post by hnal943 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:17 PM UTC

This article seems to misunderstand the definition of merit as something related to education or money. In a true meritocracy your standing is based on your value to others. If you do valuable work, the market rewards you. If not, then not. In capitalism, the market decides what is valuable; it seems to be pretty efficient at it.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#56

Post by bingobangobongo » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:17 PM UTC

svachalek wrote: post #44

bingobangobongo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not the term "meritocracy" is thrown around as propaganda is a separate issue from whether or not we should want to live in a meritocracy, which is what the article was about. In fact, most people don't want to live a pure meritocracy, as that would for example preclude the freedom to give gifts to others (as gifts are by definition unearned). I think one property that our economy ought have as we head int…

And in a world without work, what is "fair"? It will almost certainly go to those who own the machines.

I almost wrote "uniform", but that seemed simplistic since it didn't take into account factors like age, number of children, etc. But if the majority of the wealth goes to the few owners of the machines, then the economy certainly doesn't have the property I'm talking about.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#57

Post by hnal943 » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:20 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #14

maeon3 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meritocracy is not a problem with government, it is the solution. This badmouthing of Meritocracy is a way for the ones who are in power but don't deserve to be there as a way of maintaining that power. On the other hand, if you make it too easy for a young person to climb the ladder (working like a dog), than what's the point of getting to the top? There are no benefits to being there except you will be living a lif…

Merit == effort? I don't think so.

Merit == Value to others. Most of the time, that will require effort though.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#58

Post by drakeandrews » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:22 PM UTC

druswick wrote: post #38

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…

Definitely! This was the most line of reasoning in the article with the most impact. Property taxes are often progressive, disproportionally affecting the relatively wealthy. That's good. But when the benefits are collected and spent too locally, it means areas with higher property values also get better services. It takes away the progressive quality of property taxes. Continue this to an extreme: property taxes tha…

I think you've gotten your definition of progressive muddled. Property taxes are considered to be progressive because property values are widely considered to correlate strongly with income and wealth. Spending those taxes locally (or apportioning funds for local amenaties based on local tax revenue) is regressive, because increased benefit is then therefore correlated strongly with increased wealth and income. Therefore, your example represents a most regressive distribution of tax distribution.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#59

Post by polymatter » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:27 PM UTC

bingobangobongo wrote: post #11

CJefferson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that someone on a site like hacker news (which I like consider are on the more intelligent side) would make a comparison like this, deeply disturbs me. We clearly have fundamentally different world views. (edit: I don't want this to sound like davidirch shouldn't have that opinion, just that it's easy to assume people will share your opinion) I don't understand how you can be against what seems to be a compl…

The following are mutually exclusive: a) All children have equal opportunity. b) Parents are able to spend money on their children. I've spoken with many people who are in favor of both a) and b) and don't see the cognitive dissonance, but from this: > like expensive tutoring aimed towards helping them pass exams, which is not available to many. I guess you really favor a) over b). Unless your point was that exams sh…

Excellent point. I certainly favour a) over b), but in the real world we need to appreciate there is a balance here. The aim should be to limit the effectiveness of parental help by giving 80% of the benefit to all children.

In regards to b), not all help is monetary in nature. Some of it can be in the form of social favours, familiarity of cultural norms (national, company and industry culture) and expectations etc.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#60

Post by eriksank » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:28 PM UTC

Good academic training/education used to be inaccessible to the poor. This is no longer true. The internet is busy changing all of that. Home schooling at any level has now become feasible. The difference that remains, however, is the difference in outcome for children due to family breakdown. That has, however, nothing to do with income, and everything with the views on marriage with which the person was educated. To the extent that keeping children away from the often rampant depravity prevalent in the government-run education system will preserve their home-instilled views on marriage, NOT expanding the school system will contribute to improving the outcome for the demographic that has less trouble with marriage breakdown and other social ills. In my opinion, it is about time to remove the control of the depravity-encouraging politicians from anything related to education.