Meritocracy Is Bad
slowboring.com
Meritocracy Is Bad
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#2> It’s because just assigning all power and responsibility and economic reward to the best and brightest is a genuinely bad idea.
Very difficult to generalize this as this doesn't apply to 'all' things. Maybe for some types of jobs but not for all types of jobs.
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#3This reads as coming from resentment “sure, they are smarter, more prepared, and more experienced than me… but I want to believe I am more ethical. Yeah, meritocracy is the problem, not me”
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#4This reads as coming from resentment “sure, they are smarter, more prepared, and more experienced than me… but I want to believe I am more ethical. Yeah, meritocracy is the problem, not me”
Matthew Yglesias, the author of this piece, went to Harvard.
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#5This reads as coming from resentment “sure, they are smarter, more prepared, and more experienced than me… but I want to believe I am more ethical. Yeah, meritocracy is the problem, not me”
Matthew Yglesias, the author of this piece, went to Harvard.
That only implies he's well connected.
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#6This reads as coming from resentment “sure, they are smarter, more prepared, and more experienced than me… but I want to believe I am more ethical. Yeah, meritocracy is the problem, not me”
Matthew Yglesias, the author of this piece, went to Harvard.
Yet despite having gone to Harvard, doesn't seem to be able to distinguish credentialism from meritocracy.
But hey! At least he went to Harvard right?...
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#7This reads as coming from resentment “sure, they are smarter, more prepared, and more experienced than me… but I want to believe I am more ethical. Yeah, meritocracy is the problem, not me”
I think that is indeed part of it, but he also missed the bigger picture: PEGs take over nursing homes because they have a legal obligation to do so for their shareholders. This is something that has been baked into American society since inception. Not really sure how to fix something like this. Early in Trump's term, he flirted with the idea of changing these earnings reports from quarterly to biannual. I always wonder how much that would have shaken up corporate culture.
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#8This reads as coming from resentment “sure, they are smarter, more prepared, and more experienced than me… but I want to believe I am more ethical. Yeah, meritocracy is the problem, not me”
I applaud your efficiency in denigrating the author and the piece all without contending with any of the actual arguments he sets out.
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#9This article is really all over the place about the idea of what smart is to the point of incoherence. Trump is smart because of his eye for grift but Biden isn’t because of his academic record? As a comparison it’s not very compelling, what of Trump’s academics or Biden’s work moves?
Ultimately it doesn’t feel like there is any point to the meritocracy angle either other than self congratulatory back patting. It’s a simplistic “if only we had more moral people” argument.
Re: Meritocracy Is Bad
#10> Back in 2019, Rafael Nadal earned $16 million in prize money playing tennis. Gael Monfils, in ninth place, earned $3 million.
> These are the kind of sharp income disparities that lead Elizabeth Warren to say the economy is rigged. But of course pro tennis isn’t “rigged” in any normal sense. Fair, tournament-style competitions just tend to produce this kind of outcome where modest differences in ability lead to wild disparities in earnings.
Interestingly, even pro tennis seems to have realized this. The major tournaments have recently restructured their prize money to be less top-heavy and to distribute more cash to those who exit in the early rounds. The idea being, I suppose, that making being a touring pro easier for more people will ultimately benefit the tour.