I believe it was Finland that solved this problem by banning private schools. With all schools public, elite oligarchs help their kids by investing in public schools. So the whole country benefits.
You didn't pick your parents, your genes, even your natural inclination to work hard. And then we can go into structural problems like the way the education system amplifies inequality or mere intergenerational wealth
Uh... You don't pick your "natural inclination to work hard"...? lol... You lefties have the best excuses for not working hard of anyone out there... Working hard is now genetic... 🤦♂️
@@davruck1 Is that right...? Work (or time/labour) is the earliest resource that man has ever exchanged for other things of value... So no, David, you have not found yet found a legitimate excuse for your laziness. Oh and congrats for somehow twisting a topic that was completely racially neutral into something racist. Lazy and racist doesn't look good on you, man.
American Meritocracy - Bragging about how successful you were at beating everyone else in a race, by not acknowledging that all your competitors had their legs broken before the race started.
@@goprojoe7449 Wow! Talk about a false dichotomy. Only a childlike mind could think in such binary terms. Just because we acknowledge inequalities on how people start in life, and want to correct that uneven playing field, does not mean we are offering a Nazi like solution nor are we descending to a socialist dystopia. In fact, most Nazi literature worships at the altar of meritocracy. You really need to read some history.
I'm definitely for free or affordable college tuition at all schools; however, how does society help disadvantaged students get accepted into prestigious or quasi-prestigious colleges when students from rich families are afforded better educational opportunities (private schools, afterschool clubs, tutors, credentials, etc.) from an early age onward? And, reduce rich parents outright cheating to get their kids into schools like the recent scandal or less insidious ways through name recognition or huge donations to colleges?
@@chuckkoehler9526No easy answers to these questions. Maybe closing the gap in quality between colleges is a good place to start? If it was up to me I'd start by hijacking the NCAA sports revenues and reinvesting it in a way that closes the gap in quality of degree.
Genuine meritocracy is fine in that the merits of an individual are what designates their level of education, employment and lifestyle. The problem arises when education and employment of an individual is influenced by wealth and power from parents or other nearby influences. At that point meritocracy changes to autocracy.
The merits of an individual ARE their educations employments and lifestyles... And those are supposed to inform what society gives them back for their merits. Hence meritocracy. Which is all proof that america is not now nor has ever been a meritocracy. We dont give everyone equal access to education, job opportunity, or lifestyle. Hence in america your "merits" are forced on you in most cases without any ability to change. More like a caste system. And even then, its not a meritocracy. Baseball/football etc. players basically contribute nothing to society. They are entertainment. But they make more than a garbage collector who actually does a lot for society. Even if you are only talking about the government positions themselves, we have republicans making twice as much as democrats while destroying america by letting big faceless corporations rape and pillage it for profit to send back overseas. Republicans are responsible for more american deaths in last decade than any other 3 groups combined, including al quida. America is in no way shape or form a meritocracy.
Meritocracy works in a vacuum it's good on paper but in reality it can never be achieved under capitalism. If you want a system of true meritocracy you can have technocracy or socialization of society and the total equality of opportunity and playing field.
Dear Mr Pakman and Mr Markovitz, Thank you Mr Pakman for one your best interviews and some of the most pertinent questions that arrow in on getting the best out of your guest. Thank you Mr Markovitz for your brilliant analysis of one of the most contentious points of the American experience in the present day: The inexplicable reason why inequality seems to perpetuate itself. I won’t go on much further other than to say I’m watching this from the country I live in half a world away from you. If I’m interested in this subject is because I believe I know what is ailing the American experiment and the global community in general in social justice: the economic system. Capitalism. What I gather from Mr Markovitz’s eye-opening disclosures about the elite is that the system, the capitalist system was never designed to do anything but bolster the top of the pyramid. It’s not people or the rich or the elite who are to blame. It is why I believe there can only be a leveling off of undeserved privilege in America and the world by replacing the aging capitalist juggernaut with a system that speaks equality from the get go. And yes; I have invented such a system albeit utopic and if things go as planned, my system will be published soon by a leading publisher and it would be great to have your feedback. Be well.
For me the real tragedy is when you have someone who is genuinely good at something, but could not exceed due to financial limitations (I’m not even talking about school necessarily). Then naturally it gets blamed on them.
It’s sad that the title and comments seem to lament over the fact the US is not a meritocracy. The deeper point here is we probably don’t want to be one. Logically, in a meritocracy people would just die of burn out I their twenties or people would be selected on their IQ in their childhood. There are so many problems with meritocracy we are probably better off forgetting about it. Ironically, the word itself had been coined by Young in a novel to describe a dystopian society and it was considered an absolutely terrible idea. Progressives must think of a political proposal that puts humanity in the center of reflection and stop praising meritocracy (if possible ignore it, otherwise reject it).
I am sympathetic to his argument but I find him evasive when it came to determining what level of disparity in outcome is acceptable and how do you determine the hindrances and correct them. I believe in an egalitarian society but I am aware that even in such a society there is not total equality of outcomes.
It always makes me proud I graduated from Quinipiac School of Law in Connecticut, when I see a Yale law professor speak. Unfortunately, the man in the White House destroys his premise of "the elite today invest so much" to educate their children etc that's created an aristocracy .... Short answer to this, Trump didn't get where he is by virtue of his education, but by a privilege system based solely on wealth. Meritocracy was a flickering flame at the beginning of the republic. John Adams family in particular. But really other than Lincoln? $ talks. $ alone has created this aristocracy. Also is he saying only rich kids go to Yale? No students are there based on their talents? I think it can be argued that if one aspect of American ideal of a meritocracy is in respect to education and the long practice of scholarships based upon need and/or merit. But perhaps I'm wrong. After all I was just a kid from a middle class family who, thankfully didn't go to Yale.
While meritocracy is ideally about succeeding by hard work, it would really be about how many favors and connections you or your family can buy you into.
Also if you grow up with money you can avoid a lot of dysfunctional people and situations. Those toxic situations caused by low income can really get a person off track
Another force in play here is that students in our public system see that bobbing for the apple of success in academics is a low probability undertaking and don't put in the effort to excel, with all that results from that.
Meritocracy is not a scam, the US pretending it is - is. For the US to be a meritocracy, you have to give all people the same fundamental access to education and tutoring. You also have to have a society that is not as corrupt as the US system of government is now -- as well as fundamental equality rights observed. There is a lot of work that would be necessary to turn the US into some sort of meritocracy.
The United States has never been a meritocracy. The civil rights movement is a prime example. We are a pseudo-meritocracy, however nepotism is the base of success in the U.S.
We may not be a true meritocracy but pursuing equality of outcome instead of opportunity makes absolutely no sense to me. It will just lead to racism and inequality. We should strive for equality of opportunity to do away with racism, etc. I get that richer people get into better schools, jobs etc because of their better access, but there are many immigrants (myself included) whose parents literally came to the US with nothing and worked their butts off to get us ahead. I ended up, as did many of my immigrant friends, in very prestigious programs because of the culture that was instilled into us. Overall nice discussion bw David and Daniel. Interesting take on the issue but I respectfully disagree.
The real question is wether the US is more meritocratic than other nations. Perfection is the enemy of the good, but the good can always be improved. #CouldaHadYang
This was a really great interview. It lead to a great morning discussion with my English wife about the difference she had seen in the countries she has visit.
I think the fallacy in the argument lies in that parents investing money into education will make their kids better students. That really would only apply to a certain point like high school. After that no amount of money can make up a for a lack of motivation or attention. You can get the best tutors for someone but unless they are interested they won't absorb any knowledge. I'd say there is a real inequality after education in the job market. The fact that referrals will guarantee anyone an interview is awful. It is basically the definition of inequality of opportunity, you have people who have access to opportunities solely based on who they know
@@goprojoe7449 sooo. the GOP is REALLY poor is what you are saying? they have a lot of hate, but no happiness. Maybe schadenfreude, but thats not happiness. They are also very materialistic. Judging everything by wealth. Valuing someone cuz they falsely claim to be a billionaire. Liberals on the other hand are pretty happy. Hippies, flower children, people tying to help the poor and needy. People trying to save the animals. Seems like pretty fulfilling stuff, unlike ranting and raving about 'libtards" all day but never actually saying anything. Just a lot of name calling and unbacked accusations while they protect an orange pedophile criminal at the expense of the US constitution,and in contradiction to everything they claimed to stand for over the last several decades. All of which proves america is not a meritocracy. A pervert who walked in on underage girls in the dressing room would never be president if it were. And moscow mitch wouldnt be on basically a life term of destroying america and killing americans for profit.
The concept of Meritocracy should be seen through Macro and Micro level. At the isolated micro-Meritocracy level, on mini task is the person better at a task. At the Macro-Meritocracy level, is the person great at maximizing their skill and situation. In other words, can they combine all available skills; soft skills, likeability, raw technical skills, intelligence, manners, self awareness, adaptability, improvisation, presentation, judgement, etc...and utilize it. That's complete well rounded Meritocracy. And closer to Real World meritocracy. Notice how this view of Meritocracy allows you to mold yourself to fit into any particular circumstances. It's never 1 or 2 or 10 skills, it's how to mix the right ingredients. It's a Meritocracy because you get to choose what areas you want to pursue that best fits You. There's infinite meritocracy boxes that You can choose to pursue. Don't have a narrow definition of Meritocracy.
David, are you old enough to remember these lyrics? Seventy-six trombones led the big parade. A hundred and ten cornets close at hand. I loved Robert Preston in a movie he made with Mary Tyler Moore, too. After both had gone thru their separate crises in their later years, Robert profoundly proclaimed to Mary, "Everything turns to sh*t". Love that line. So true for most of us. Just thought you might need a diversion. You work very hard. Appreciate it, bro.
There is a really book called “Against Equality of Opportunity” which lays out why it doesn’t work. I don’t really agree with most of his solutions but he makes a great case for how people pretend there is meritocracy.
Meritocracy was what drew me to the programming and open source community. There its all about your skill and what cool shit you build. I still remember that story about one open source project being contributed to by a talented kid. The American market and society i agree is not a meritocracy at all.
I think one of the things we need to focus on equality of concern before equality of opportunity/outcome. Everyone should be given different amounts of concern depending on what they need so everyone can live a good life
I also really love excellence over superiority. It's a great way to distinguish between a toxic/unsustainable hierarchy with a flourishing/sustainable hierarchy
Hmmm. None of my parents or ancestors ever graduated high school. They were poor southern farmers, up until that stopped being a thing share croppers. While my 2 older brothers graduated high school neither graduated high school. both have always worked blue collar jobs. I excelled academically in a public school system that was as thoroughly average as there could be. I scored in the 99th percentile of the SAT and ACT. I easily got into every University I applied to except the Ivy's. I graduated from the University of Chicago magna cum laude. Since graduation I worked a series of software development, project management and IT management jobs fitting my interests until I became sick and had to retire while awaiting a transplant. Now that I have received a transplant I am not working again primarily because of Covid-19. So I'm struggling with the statement that the US is not a meritocracy. Is the deck stacked against some people more than others? Sure. But is it impossible to rise above the place where you're born based purely on your ability and willingness to work hard? No.
The moment he mentioned caste, I knew where he got his inspiration i. E. Affirmative action in India. While I actually agree with it to a fair degree, a lot of what he mentions doesn't account for the social cost of eroding cohesion. Whether we like it or not, meritocracy is like democracy, it's not perfect but it is the best we have. You can give equal outcomes a shot and see how resentment grows from perceived unfair reward to the less qualified. Like David Pakman's favorite ideology ie. Democratic socialism, you will learn how bad it is only after experiencing it. The pursuit of social justice is a path which will lead to conflict. Rather, a welfare state with basic minimums should be the goal, food, housing, education, Healthcare. You should be on your own for the rest. Equal opportunity legislations are a given and regular democracy will handle the rest. However, democratic socialism is not a path with an end goal and slowly extends the ineffective bureaucracy into various things with even worse outcomes. The US absolutely can't look at mono-ethnic, small sized Nordic nations for inspiration - its complexity is far greater.
Equality of opportunity at this point in our history is unachievable, you can't reset all the people who inherited wealth. And statistically if there were actual equality of opportunity, that would result in equality of outcome when averaged by whichever group you're measuring, as long as you're defining opportunity correctly. To claim that one group had equal opportunity and ended up with unequal outcome is to claim there is an immutable characteristic of lower achievement in that group.
Equality of outcome is a shitty term, I think equity or fairness is much better. We want people to be rewarded proportionally to their merit. If we measure people by strength, intelligence, or hard work, I think people understand that people are not all the same, but they are not THAT different either. One person is not 1000 times stronger, more intelligent than another, and nobody works 1000 hours a day (supposing a lazy person works “only” an hour a day).
I certainly don't agree that the way the so called American meritocracy works, is the way it is described in this video. The way many of the problems America is facing now and how it is being dealt with by those at the top of the US meritocracy, has brought that to light. I truly agree with equality of outcomes though. I have been saying it for years. I'm sick of this equality of oppurtunity bull to justify the status quo. There is one simple reason why it needs to be equality of outcome... Value. The value of something is not an objective truth, it is assigned and if people don't agree with the value assigned an act or role performed and have a valid, coherent argument then meritocracy is destroyed. Which has more value, a kindergarten teacher, a dealer in financial products, the inventor of the cocktail umbrella, a bus driver, a doctor, a nurse, a professional gambler an executioner, etc.? The discussion right now over police funding is a perfect example.
Aristocracy, why put a hat on a hat, it's not like there's such a vast variation of active governments that practices aristocracy for further pretentiousness.
Before anyone goes crazy trying to correct my statement, know that I always refer to the original concept of a principle, in this case Aristotle's definition which was the first and simply put stated that; The best, educated and intellectuals in a city-state, which by ancient Greece averages a small city or large town of around 50,000 - 200,000 citizens. Aristotle argued that out of the five forms of government at the time Democracy wasn't all that favourable. Even so, he argued for it as "the best out of the five available choices" (paraphrasing). He was worried that the vast amount of uninformed citizens and voters presented a risk of poor judgement in democratically elected leaders and more revolutions, which at the time was quite frequent. Probably even more so than the period between 1700-1930s in Europe and North America. He thought, likely inspired by his teacher Plato (the pupil of the original philosopher of dialectics Socrates), who's metaphysical philosophy he outwardly despised and a big admirer of Sparta's constitution which likely influenced Aristotle and contemporary philosophers that read "The Republic" in where equality between the sexes was very progressive and where merit and talent decided if you were fit to be a guardian (although eugenics played a large role, just like Sparta). "The noble lie"; Claiming that you are either gold or silver, guardian or soldier. Either way you were to live completely devoted to the welfare of the state as a life-less stoic and scholar or even less free as a soldier. The modern interpretation is somewhat diluted and very similar to the concept of plutocracy and monarch. Hope that helps to clarify my previous statement.
College degrees raise society up. Not the other way around. Equality of outcomes means a white man and a black woman have the same bachelors degree. He is hired after graduation and gets a raise every year. She is hired 5 months after graduation. She gets layed off for complaining to her boss about being sexually harassed. Takes 7 months to find another job, Three working years later, not having ever received a raise. Gets sexually assaulted at work. Laid off directly afterwards. Unemployed for 6 more months. Moves in with boyfriend to save $ on rent. Gets pregnant. Skewed outcomes stemming from the same potential. All because of outside events and disturbingly common factors of sexism.
We (the USA) are not a meritocracy. Granted, that is the ideal to which we strive, but we're not that. I'm not sure we ever were, given that the whole point of the Senate and the House was to model the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Those with wealth, land and power designed American to perpetuate their own wealth, land and power. (Black Slavery, Native American Genocide, etc.) But despite the aspirations of being a Democratic Republic, we're now a Geritocratic Plutocracy. (People like AOC are the exception, which I freely admit. And a sign that we still have a hope of shaping our country to be more aligned with our ideals.) Edit: That we, as a country, aspire to be better and teach that dream to our children is the greatest legacy of the USA, not our weath, land or power.
I really appreciate David asking the right questions here but unfortunately Markovits' answers didn't get close to addressing them. David keeps asking how we can empirically establish that the disparity we observe is outside what can be construed as tolerable thresholds. Markovits keeps rattling out more examples of inequality which in themselves do not prove an unjust system without establishing what level of inequality is unnatural. I don't know if his book offers stronger evidence and I might read to find out but this interview was not helpful. There cannot be limits set on how much rich parents are willing to invest in their kids' education. There is also a limit beyond which pumping more money into something doesn't necessarily produce greater outcomes. If there are social conventions that put greater stock in Ivy League college degrees (or just college degrees in general) or elevate certain kinds of education artificially, that is inaccessible to certain groups, then that's the problem to solve. True equality of outcome cannot be achieved without imposing some kind of heavy handed controls that don't let some rise beyond a certain limit despite their best efforts and don't let others fall beyond a certain limit despite their abject inability to expend effort.
Equity of outcome is better than equality of outcome. Of course people have different skills, different level of intelligence maybe, but even that depends on the society in which we live. In a hunter gather society, maybe physical strength would be more important than maths skills. What is clear though, is that these differences follow a normal distribution and are not scalable. People are not 1000 times stronger than average, and their IQ is not 1000 times higher than average, even if you worked much harder. If income and wealth distribution were following the one of any non scalable difference, I think most people would find it fair.
And btw not just natural skills such as strength or intelligence, but hard work as well. Some people may be lazy, some hard working, but people usually don’t work 1000 times more than average. If a lazy person works 2 hours a day and a hardworking one 12 hours, it’s only a 6 times difference.
@@yiwuei This discussion was not about the inequality of individual contribution but more related to the inequality being perpetuated through generations. However, let me engage with your line of thought. I think the premise you offer that I do not agree with, is that the differences between people's capabilities fall on a normal distribution. In most cases, they actually do not. The number of people with various skill levels may fit a normal distribution. But the value of the skill definitely does not. The value attached to someone's skill, its relative rarity in the market and the value attached to the results it produces are so varied that there are sometimes exponential differences in how much someone gets remunerated for the skills they bring. A data scientist gets paid way more than the mail room operator even if both spend the same amount of effort, sometimes by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. This is evaluated by how hard the company perceives it is to replace someone at a given skill level or how much they need to pay them to ensure they are not snared away by the competition. Star football players are paid enormous sums for their skills because those are uncommon. Not because they produce greater value for instance, than a rescue helicopter operator who saves lives but because the skill is rarer. Football coaches get paid more than professors or quantum computing in colleges, not because football is more valuable but because of the perceptible direct value that the football program generates monetarily. There is not a good measure by which you can compare a couple of human beings' physical and mental skills directly and aver what order of magnitude they differ by. For that matter, you cannot ascertain the value of anything just by an examination of its own properties. The value of most things is endowed by the perception of its qualities by the appraisers in the market in which those qualities are useful. This appraisal may sometimes be 10 times, a hundred times, a 1000 times or even a million times larger between specimens. If this perception is incorrect, we will need to establish rigorous methods by which we prove it isn't and establish corrective actions through which it can be remedied. Just pointing to inequality and saying it is unjust doesn't pass muster. This is precisely what David was angling to get out of Markovits in the interview but failed to.
alltradejack well this is true in a free market economy. The value a society assigns to a skills is random and unfair. Certain societies value some skills over others; a hunter gather society would require very différents skills and assign different value to individuals based than modern America. This is why a free market economy (which I agree allocate resources for production pretty well) and social Darwinism is fundamentally unfair and cruel, and we have an opportunity to start a conversation on a post market society, unless we fundamentally believe markets are part of a natural system (Darwinism) as some so called “libertarians” do (I put quotes because from a philosophical perspective libertarianism is so much richer than the current political usage of the word).
I don't get it. If people succeed because of training they could afford, why is their "merit" the issue? Isn't the issue the "lack of training"? That being identified then isn't the solution is to design a system wherein equal access to training is provided? How can we grow/progress if the benchmark is a moving target on the side of regression? To me, he's saying that we should call everything regardless if they are outstanding, mediocre, or downright below par. I don't get why equality of outcome is ok. If the outcome were always the same, how can we grow? If the opportunity is equalized it would not boil down to motivation/determination. This brings out the best in us. If the issue is rich kids inheriting enormous amounts they didn't work for, why shouldn't there a stratified inheritance tax? I think the problem is access, not merits. Qualification/Merit is not the problem. If someone gets something they don't deserve, perhaps the problem is corruption. If someone can't get access to something they deserve, the problem is distribution. I think it is "false meritocracy" if it is founded on corruption or distribution.
"Equality of outcome" is a shitty term. What we really mean is a basic sustainable minimum for all people. Basically, no one starves to death or dies from exposure or the inability to pay for medical treatment. Then maybe they can get some education or training to become a helpful member of society and earn a decent living, and start paying local and federal taxes. It's really not complicated
It sounds like they are hinting at restructuring society toward Egalitarianism where there is more balanced equality of opportunity and outcome. Economic progressive policies that ensure people in the race of life not only have a more equal starting point but also a level of assistance in running the race to compete with the most "talented" to provide a higher level of equity in the development of the individual and society as a whole.
It's very tempting for people who are successful to attribute their success to their own worth and moral virtue. This has the flip side of then attributing the failure of others to their worthlessness and moral failings. This attribution of moral deserts has strong roots in religion, especially Christianity. Once you can get over the idea that poor people are just getting what they deserve, you can start to realise that our lives are far more accidental than we would like to admit. And also admit that we didn't make ourselves. We owe our success to the luck of our circumstances, not something that we can take credit for.
I have a question: How do scholarships figure in to this discussion? I always thought that the purpose of scholarships WAS to address the earnings disparity between the 1% and the rest, IF a low-income student demonstrated the ability and wherewithal to earn & keep it?
I guess it depends on what types of scholarships you're talking about. Merit-based scholarships (most common) allot money based on high school GPA and standardized test scores. Again, other scholarships offered by a University might target low-income students (or the factors that affect their low-income status. Grants are another incentive to address the earnings disparity.
When you have people who worry about the cost of everything and the value of nothing deciding what has merit and what doesn't, it's just a cruel dog and pony show to fool the disenfranchised.
This guy doesn't even appear to understand what an actual meritocracy would look like. For start in an actual meritocracy you wouldn't be allowed to pass wealth or property on to your children/family. This is just one of the many reasons it won't ever happen.
If you're Born poor in the vast majority of cases you will die poor. If you're born rich you will most likely die rich and live a longer, healthier life than poorer folk. The American Dream is a lie, a scam. It's just too many want to believe in it, its like winning the lottery.
Any thoughts on the tariffs trump is putting on Canada. I am from Canada and concerned that trump is wanting USA to go it alone , no trading at all , love you show ,
The only .merits / attributes. that all billionaires have ? Is being mentally I'll enough to chase money do ruthlessly and being willing to step on and shit on any one that u cam make a buck on
how would you know? nobody has ever actually tried it. Unless you mean calling america a meritocracy. That is definately a scam. But thats not meritocracy, thats claiming america is a meritocracy. Not really the same thing.
Markovits ignores some of the possible solutions to the problems he poses. For example: making all schools public and equally funded takes out the angle of education from all of this (not saying that would be something that the elite in the USA would be open to discussing of course). That would completely equalize the education aspect of meritocracy, at least in theory. If you'd want the country to be a true meritocracy you'd also have to prevent inheritable wealth in some way.
Somehow a “true” meritocracy sounds like a nightmare to me. Sounds like a race to death competition were people would die of burnout in their twenties. Competition is fine, if it is not “winner takes all” as it is today.
@@yiwuei Yeah, the last part of the video actually convinced me that a true meritocracy isn't the way to go either. I think when it comes to ideologies, all extremes are kind of bad and many middle roads are just stable and acceptable.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I believe it was Finland that solved this problem by banning private schools. With all schools public, elite oligarchs help their kids by investing in public schools. So the whole country benefits.
By making education worse.
Of course America is a meritocracy. How else could Ivanka get her job in the White House?
...I don't think you know what a meritocracy is.
@@oosn0b0ardroo I don't think you know what sarcasm is.
@@marccolten9801 hah! One can never be too sure on the internet! Comment retracted... 🤣
You didn't pick your parents, your genes, even your natural inclination to work hard. And then we can go into structural problems like the way the education system amplifies inequality or mere intergenerational wealth
@@goprojoe7449 This runs deeper than skin color lol, but I'm guessing your comment wasn't serious of course..
@@danerely9425 GoProJoe is a right-wing troll.
Uh... You don't pick your "natural inclination to work hard"...? lol... You lefties have the best excuses for not working hard of anyone out there... Working hard is now genetic... 🤦♂️
@@oosn0b0ardroo working hard has no intrinsic value. Only whites think running on a treadmill your entire life is admirable.
@@davruck1 Is that right...? Work (or time/labour) is the earliest resource that man has ever exchanged for other things of value... So no, David, you have not found yet found a legitimate excuse for your laziness. Oh and congrats for somehow twisting a topic that was completely racially neutral into something racist. Lazy and racist doesn't look good on you, man.
American Meritocracy - Bragging about how successful you were at beating everyone else in a race, by not acknowledging that all your competitors had their legs broken before the race started.
GoProJoe stop fear mongering. Life isnt that scary.
@@goprojoe7449 Wow! Talk about a false dichotomy. Only a childlike mind could think in such binary terms. Just because we acknowledge inequalities on how people start in life, and want to correct that uneven playing field, does not mean we are offering a Nazi like solution nor are we descending to a socialist dystopia. In fact, most Nazi literature worships at the altar of meritocracy. You really need to read some history.
yes!
Its more a Mediocracy when it comes to governing the country.
Sounds like a good argument for free college.
Certainly
I'm definitely for free or affordable college tuition at all schools; however, how does society help disadvantaged students get accepted into prestigious or quasi-prestigious colleges when students from rich families are afforded better educational opportunities (private schools, afterschool clubs, tutors, credentials, etc.) from an early age onward? And, reduce rich parents outright cheating to get their kids into schools like the recent scandal or less insidious ways through name recognition or huge donations to colleges?
Indeed
@@chuckkoehler9526No easy answers to these questions. Maybe closing the gap in quality between colleges is a good place to start?
If it was up to me I'd start by hijacking the NCAA sports revenues and reinvesting it in a way that closes the gap in quality of degree.
Genuine meritocracy is fine in that the merits of an individual are what designates their level of education, employment and lifestyle. The problem arises when education and employment of an individual is influenced by wealth and power from parents or other nearby influences. At that point meritocracy changes to autocracy.
The merits of an individual ARE their educations employments and lifestyles... And those are supposed to inform what society gives them back for their merits. Hence meritocracy. Which is all proof that america is not now nor has ever been a meritocracy. We dont give everyone equal access to education, job opportunity, or lifestyle. Hence in america your "merits" are forced on you in most cases without any ability to change. More like a caste system. And even then, its not a meritocracy. Baseball/football etc. players basically contribute nothing to society. They are entertainment. But they make more than a garbage collector who actually does a lot for society. Even if you are only talking about the government positions themselves, we have republicans making twice as much as democrats while destroying america by letting big faceless corporations rape and pillage it for profit to send back overseas. Republicans are responsible for more american deaths in last decade than any other 3 groups combined, including al quida. America is in no way shape or form a meritocracy.
Meritocracy works in a vacuum it's good on paper but in reality it can never be achieved under capitalism.
If you want a system of true meritocracy you can have technocracy or socialization of society and the total equality of opportunity and playing field.
Dear Mr Pakman and Mr Markovitz, Thank you Mr Pakman for one your best interviews and some of the most pertinent questions that arrow in on getting the best out of your guest. Thank you Mr Markovitz for your brilliant analysis of one of the most contentious points of the American experience in the present day: The inexplicable reason why inequality seems to perpetuate itself. I won’t go on much further other than to say I’m watching this from the country I live in half a world away from you. If I’m interested in this subject is because I believe I know what is ailing the American experiment and the global community in general in social justice: the economic system. Capitalism. What I gather from Mr Markovitz’s eye-opening disclosures about the elite is that the system, the capitalist system was never designed to do anything but bolster the top of the pyramid. It’s not people or the rich or the elite who are to blame. It is why I believe there can only be a leveling off of undeserved privilege in America and the world by replacing the aging capitalist juggernaut with a system that speaks equality from the get go. And yes; I have invented such a system albeit utopic and if things go as planned, my system will be published soon by a leading publisher and it would be great to have your feedback. Be well.
Meritocracys don't exist, people with means always find a way to game the system.
Imagine having a nuanced conversation about a topic with an obvious answer.
For me the real tragedy is when you have someone who is genuinely good at something, but could not exceed due to financial limitations (I’m not even talking about school necessarily). Then naturally it gets blamed on them.
It’s sad that the title and comments seem to lament over the fact the US is not a meritocracy. The deeper point here is we probably don’t want to be one. Logically, in a meritocracy people would just die of burn out I their twenties or people would be selected on their IQ in their childhood. There are so many problems with meritocracy we are probably better off forgetting about it. Ironically, the word itself had been coined by Young in a novel to describe a dystopian society and it was considered an absolutely terrible idea. Progressives must think of a political proposal that puts humanity in the center of reflection and stop praising meritocracy (if possible ignore it, otherwise reject it).
I am sympathetic to his argument but I find him evasive when it came to determining what level of disparity in outcome is acceptable and how do you determine the hindrances and correct them. I believe in an egalitarian society but I am aware that even in such a society there is not total equality of outcomes.
It always makes me proud I graduated from Quinipiac School of Law in Connecticut, when I see a Yale law professor speak. Unfortunately, the man in the White House destroys his premise of "the elite today invest so much" to educate their children etc that's created an aristocracy .... Short answer to this, Trump didn't get where he is by virtue of his education, but by a privilege system based solely on wealth. Meritocracy was a flickering flame at the beginning of the republic. John Adams family in particular. But really other than Lincoln? $ talks. $ alone has created this aristocracy. Also is he saying only rich kids go to Yale? No students are there based on their talents? I think it can be argued that if one aspect of American ideal of a meritocracy is in respect to education and the long practice of scholarships based upon need and/or merit. But perhaps I'm wrong. After all I was just a kid from a middle class family who, thankfully didn't go to Yale.
What about BUYING degrees for CASH? The recent mini-scandal is exactly that, the tip of an huge iceberg..
While meritocracy is ideally about succeeding by hard work, it would really be about how many favors and connections you or your family can buy you into.
Also if you grow up with money you can avoid a lot of dysfunctional people and situations. Those toxic situations caused by low income can really get a person off track
Another force in play here is that students in our public system see that bobbing for the apple of success in academics is a low probability undertaking and don't put in the effort to excel, with all that results from that.
Meritocracy? Only if your uncle owns the business my friend.
Thats nepotism. Not meritocracy.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 whoosh.
Oooh someone explain 😄
I think an argument can be made that we are an idiocracy, as shown by our current administration.
One thing is certain: most of those in the Ivory Tower do not know it is such.
Meritocracy is an absolute myth
Meritocracy is not a scam, the US pretending it is - is. For the US to be a meritocracy, you have to give all people the same fundamental access to education and tutoring. You also have to have a society that is not as corrupt as the US system of government is now -- as well as fundamental equality rights observed. There is a lot of work that would be necessary to turn the US into some sort of meritocracy.
The United States has never been a meritocracy. The civil rights movement is a prime example. We are a pseudo-meritocracy, however nepotism is the base of success in the U.S.
We may not be a true meritocracy but pursuing equality of outcome instead of opportunity makes absolutely no sense to me. It will just lead to racism and inequality. We should strive for equality of opportunity to do away with racism, etc. I get that richer people get into better schools, jobs etc because of their better access, but there are many immigrants (myself included) whose parents literally came to the US with nothing and worked their butts off to get us ahead. I ended up, as did many of my immigrant friends, in very prestigious programs because of the culture that was instilled into us. Overall nice discussion bw David and Daniel. Interesting take on the issue but I respectfully disagree.
The real question is wether the US is more meritocratic than other nations. Perfection is the enemy of the good, but the good can always be improved. #CouldaHadYang
Preach 🙏🏿
Here's a stat from the UK only 7% of the UK population goes to private school yet 65% of high court judges are privately educated.
Meritocracy -> Aristocracy -> Mediocracy -> Idiocracy. We suffer from late-stage Idiocracy today.
We need a true meritocracy, equality of outcome is inherently unfair and will only breed resentment by those who do not receive the same privileges.
Great segment. Would love to see more on the subject.
This was a really great interview. It lead to a great morning discussion with my English wife about the difference she had seen in the countries she has visit.
Best segment and guest to date
I think the fallacy in the argument lies in that parents investing money into education will make their kids better students. That really would only apply to a certain point like high school. After that no amount of money can make up a for a lack of motivation or attention. You can get the best tutors for someone but unless they are interested they won't absorb any knowledge.
I'd say there is a real inequality after education in the job market. The fact that referrals will guarantee anyone an interview is awful. It is basically the definition of inequality of opportunity, you have people who have access to opportunities solely based on who they know
@@goprojoe7449 sooo. the GOP is REALLY poor is what you are saying? they have a lot of hate, but no happiness. Maybe schadenfreude, but thats not happiness. They are also very materialistic. Judging everything by wealth. Valuing someone cuz they falsely claim to be a billionaire. Liberals on the other hand are pretty happy. Hippies, flower children, people tying to help the poor and needy. People trying to save the animals. Seems like pretty fulfilling stuff, unlike ranting and raving about 'libtards" all day but never actually saying anything. Just a lot of name calling and unbacked accusations while they protect an orange pedophile criminal at the expense of the US constitution,and in contradiction to everything they claimed to stand for over the last several decades.
All of which proves america is not a meritocracy. A pervert who walked in on underage girls in the dressing room would never be president if it were. And moscow mitch wouldnt be on basically a life term of destroying america and killing americans for profit.
The concept of Meritocracy should be seen through Macro and Micro level. At the isolated micro-Meritocracy level, on mini task is the person better at a task. At the Macro-Meritocracy level, is the person great at maximizing their skill and situation. In other words, can they combine all available skills; soft skills, likeability, raw technical skills, intelligence, manners, self awareness, adaptability, improvisation, presentation, judgement, etc...and utilize it. That's complete well rounded Meritocracy. And closer to Real World meritocracy. Notice how this view of Meritocracy allows you to mold yourself to fit into any particular circumstances. It's never 1 or 2 or 10 skills, it's how to mix the right ingredients. It's a Meritocracy because you get to choose what areas you want to pursue that best fits You. There's infinite meritocracy boxes that You can choose to pursue. Don't have a narrow definition of Meritocracy.
David, are you old enough to remember these lyrics?
Seventy-six trombones led the big parade. A hundred and ten cornets close at hand.
I loved Robert Preston in a movie he made with Mary Tyler Moore, too. After both had gone thru their separate crises in their later years, Robert profoundly proclaimed to Mary, "Everything turns to sh*t". Love that line. So true for most of us.
Just thought you might need a diversion. You work very hard. Appreciate it, bro.
I love that movie:)The Music Man!!
Ivy-league higher education = luxury brand
So true look at med school admissions
This is a problem of "equality of opportunity" and yes, it should be fixed.
Thank you for this intellectually stimulating interview 🙏
I figured this out 20 years ago.
There is a really book called “Against Equality of Opportunity” which lays out why it doesn’t work. I don’t really agree with most of his solutions but he makes a great case for how people pretend there is meritocracy.
Once again, David with another great interview. He has the best people.
Meritocracy was what drew me to the programming and open source community. There its all about your skill and what cool shit you build. I still remember that story about one open source project being contributed to by a talented kid. The American market and society i agree is not a meritocracy at all.
This interview really highlighted David's excellent interviewing skills.
This was an interesting guest. Thanks Packman.
I think one of the things we need to focus on equality of concern before equality of opportunity/outcome. Everyone should be given different amounts of concern depending on what they need so everyone can live a good life
I also really love excellence over superiority. It's a great way to distinguish between a toxic/unsustainable hierarchy with a flourishing/sustainable hierarchy
This is some good shit!
We need a baseline standard for outcomes that doesn't force people to live in squalor working themselves to death, not equality of outcomes.
Hmmm.
None of my parents or ancestors ever graduated high school. They were poor southern farmers, up until that stopped being a thing share croppers.
While my 2 older brothers graduated high school neither graduated high school. both have always worked blue collar jobs.
I excelled academically in a public school system that was as thoroughly average as there could be. I scored in the 99th percentile of the SAT and ACT. I easily got into every University I applied to except the Ivy's. I graduated from the University of Chicago magna cum laude.
Since graduation I worked a series of software development, project management and IT management jobs fitting my interests until I became sick and had to retire while awaiting a transplant. Now that I have received a transplant I am not working again primarily because of Covid-19.
So I'm struggling with the statement that the US is not a meritocracy. Is the deck stacked against some people more than others? Sure. But is it impossible to rise above the place where you're born based purely on your ability and willingness to work hard? No.
No America was never a Meritocracy.
The moment he mentioned caste, I knew where he got his inspiration i. E. Affirmative action in India. While I actually agree with it to a fair degree, a lot of what he mentions doesn't account for the social cost of eroding cohesion. Whether we like it or not, meritocracy is like democracy, it's not perfect but it is the best we have. You can give equal outcomes a shot and see how resentment grows from perceived unfair reward to the less qualified. Like David Pakman's favorite ideology ie. Democratic socialism, you will learn how bad it is only after experiencing it. The pursuit of social justice is a path which will lead to conflict. Rather, a welfare state with basic minimums should be the goal, food, housing, education, Healthcare. You should be on your own for the rest. Equal opportunity legislations are a given and regular democracy will handle the rest. However, democratic socialism is not a path with an end goal and slowly extends the ineffective bureaucracy into various things with even worse outcomes. The US absolutely can't look at mono-ethnic, small sized Nordic nations for inspiration - its complexity is far greater.
Equality of opportunity at this point in our history is unachievable, you can't reset all the people who inherited wealth. And statistically if there were actual equality of opportunity, that would result in equality of outcome when averaged by whichever group you're measuring, as long as you're defining opportunity correctly. To claim that one group had equal opportunity and ended up with unequal outcome is to claim there is an immutable characteristic of lower achievement in that group.
Equality of outcome is a shitty term, I think equity or fairness is much better. We want people to be rewarded proportionally to their merit. If we measure people by strength, intelligence, or hard work, I think people understand that people are not all the same, but they are not THAT different either. One person is not 1000 times stronger, more intelligent than another, and nobody works 1000 hours a day (supposing a lazy person works “only” an hour a day).
I certainly don't agree that the way the so called American meritocracy works, is the way it is described in this video. The way many of the problems America is facing now and how it is being dealt with by those at the top of the US meritocracy, has brought that to light. I truly agree with equality of outcomes though. I have been saying it for years. I'm sick of this equality of oppurtunity bull to justify the status quo. There is one simple reason why it needs to be equality of outcome... Value. The value of something is not an objective truth, it is assigned and if people don't agree with the value assigned an act or role performed and have a valid, coherent argument then meritocracy is destroyed. Which has more value, a kindergarten teacher, a dealer in financial products, the inventor of the cocktail umbrella, a bus driver, a doctor, a nurse, a professional gambler an executioner, etc.? The discussion right now over police funding is a perfect example.
Meritocracy only exists in the minds of teenage libertarians
This was, quite surprisingly, very interesting.
Aristocracy, why put a hat on a hat, it's not like there's such a vast variation of active governments that practices aristocracy for further pretentiousness.
Before anyone goes crazy trying to correct my statement, know that I always refer to the original concept of a principle, in this case Aristotle's definition which was the first and simply put stated that; The best, educated and intellectuals in a city-state, which by ancient Greece averages a small city or large town of around 50,000 - 200,000 citizens.
Aristotle argued that out of the five forms of government at the time Democracy wasn't all that favourable.
Even so, he argued for it as "the best out of the five available choices" (paraphrasing). He was worried that the vast amount of uninformed citizens and voters presented a risk of poor judgement in democratically elected leaders and more revolutions, which at the time was quite frequent. Probably even more so than the period between 1700-1930s in Europe and North America.
He thought, likely inspired by his teacher Plato (the pupil of the original philosopher of dialectics Socrates), who's metaphysical philosophy he outwardly despised and a big admirer of Sparta's constitution which likely influenced Aristotle and contemporary philosophers that read "The Republic" in where equality between the sexes was very progressive and where merit and talent decided if you were fit to be a guardian (although eugenics played a large role, just like Sparta).
"The noble lie"; Claiming that you are either gold or silver, guardian or soldier. Either way you were to live completely devoted to the welfare of the state as a life-less stoic and scholar or even less free as a soldier.
The modern interpretation is somewhat diluted and very similar to the concept of plutocracy and monarch.
Hope that helps to clarify my previous statement.
College degrees raise society up. Not the other way around. Equality of outcomes means a white man and a black woman have the same bachelors degree. He is hired after graduation and gets a raise every year. She is hired 5 months after graduation. She gets layed off for complaining to her boss about being sexually harassed. Takes 7 months to find another job, Three working years later, not having ever received a raise. Gets sexually assaulted at work. Laid off directly afterwards. Unemployed for 6 more months. Moves in with boyfriend to save $ on rent. Gets pregnant. Skewed outcomes stemming from the same potential. All because of outside events and disturbingly common factors of sexism.
We (the USA) are not a meritocracy. Granted, that is the ideal to which we strive, but we're not that. I'm not sure we ever were, given that the whole point of the Senate and the House was to model the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Those with wealth, land and power designed American to perpetuate their own wealth, land and power. (Black Slavery, Native American Genocide, etc.) But despite the aspirations of being a Democratic Republic, we're now a Geritocratic Plutocracy. (People like AOC are the exception, which I freely admit. And a sign that we still have a hope of shaping our country to be more aligned with our ideals.) Edit: That we, as a country, aspire to be better and teach that dream to our children is the greatest legacy of the USA, not our weath, land or power.
I really appreciate David asking the right questions here but unfortunately Markovits' answers didn't get close to addressing them. David keeps asking how we can empirically establish that the disparity we observe is outside what can be construed as tolerable thresholds. Markovits keeps rattling out more examples of inequality which in themselves do not prove an unjust system without establishing what level of inequality is unnatural. I don't know if his book offers stronger evidence and I might read to find out but this interview was not helpful.
There cannot be limits set on how much rich parents are willing to invest in their kids' education. There is also a limit beyond which pumping more money into something doesn't necessarily produce greater outcomes. If there are social conventions that put greater stock in Ivy League college degrees (or just college degrees in general) or elevate certain kinds of education artificially, that is inaccessible to certain groups, then that's the problem to solve. True equality of outcome cannot be achieved without imposing some kind of heavy handed controls that don't let some rise beyond a certain limit despite their best efforts and don't let others fall beyond a certain limit despite their abject inability to expend effort.
Equity of outcome is better than equality of outcome. Of course people have different skills, different level of intelligence maybe, but even that depends on the society in which we live. In a hunter gather society, maybe physical strength would be more important than maths skills. What is clear though, is that these differences follow a normal distribution and are not scalable. People are not 1000 times stronger than average, and their IQ is not 1000 times higher than average, even if you worked much harder.
If income and wealth distribution were following the one of any non scalable difference, I think most people would find it fair.
And btw not just natural skills such as strength or intelligence, but hard work as well. Some people may be lazy, some hard working, but people usually don’t work 1000 times more than average. If a lazy person works 2 hours a day and a hardworking one 12 hours, it’s only a 6 times difference.
@@yiwuei This discussion was not about the inequality of individual contribution but more related to the inequality being perpetuated through generations. However, let me engage with your line of thought. I think the premise you offer that I do not agree with, is that the differences between people's capabilities fall on a normal distribution. In most cases, they actually do not. The number of people with various skill levels may fit a normal distribution. But the value of the skill definitely does not.
The value attached to someone's skill, its relative rarity in the market and the value attached to the results it produces are so varied that there are sometimes exponential differences in how much someone gets remunerated for the skills they bring. A data scientist gets paid way more than the mail room operator even if both spend the same amount of effort, sometimes by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. This is evaluated by how hard the company perceives it is to replace someone at a given skill level or how much they need to pay them to ensure they are not snared away by the competition.
Star football players are paid enormous sums for their skills because those are uncommon. Not because they produce greater value for instance, than a rescue helicopter operator who saves lives but because the skill is rarer. Football coaches get paid more than professors or quantum computing in colleges, not because football is more valuable but because of the perceptible direct value that the football program generates monetarily.
There is not a good measure by which you can compare a couple of human beings' physical and mental skills directly and aver what order of magnitude they differ by. For that matter, you cannot ascertain the value of anything just by an examination of its own properties. The value of most things is endowed by the perception of its qualities by the appraisers in the market in which those qualities are useful. This appraisal may sometimes be 10 times, a hundred times, a 1000 times or even a million times larger between specimens.
If this perception is incorrect, we will need to establish rigorous methods by which we prove it isn't and establish corrective actions through which it can be remedied. Just pointing to inequality and saying it is unjust doesn't pass muster. This is precisely what David was angling to get out of Markovits in the interview but failed to.
alltradejack well this is true in a free market economy. The value a society assigns to a skills is random and unfair. Certain societies value some skills over others; a hunter gather society would require very différents skills and assign different value to individuals based than modern America. This is why a free market economy (which I agree allocate resources for production pretty well) and social Darwinism is fundamentally unfair and cruel, and we have an opportunity to start a conversation on a post market society, unless we fundamentally believe markets are part of a natural system (Darwinism) as some so called “libertarians” do (I put quotes because from a philosophical perspective libertarianism is so much richer than the current political usage of the word).
I don't get it. If people succeed because of training they could afford, why is their "merit" the issue? Isn't the issue the "lack of training"? That being identified then isn't the solution is to design a system wherein equal access to training is provided? How can we grow/progress if the benchmark is a moving target on the side of regression?
To me, he's saying that we should call everything regardless if they are outstanding, mediocre, or downright below par.
I don't get why equality of outcome is ok. If the outcome were always the same, how can we grow?
If the opportunity is equalized it would not boil down to motivation/determination. This brings out the best in us.
If the issue is rich kids inheriting enormous amounts they didn't work for, why shouldn't there a stratified inheritance tax?
I think the problem is access, not merits.
Qualification/Merit is not the problem.
If someone gets something they don't deserve, perhaps the problem is corruption.
If someone can't get access to something they deserve, the problem is distribution.
I think it is "false meritocracy" if it is founded on corruption or distribution.
"Equality of outcome" is a shitty term. What we really mean is a basic sustainable minimum for all people. Basically, no one starves to death or dies from exposure or the inability to pay for medical treatment. Then maybe they can get some education or training to become a helpful member of society and earn a decent living, and start paying local and federal taxes. It's really not complicated
Trumpard: America is not a democracy!
Berner: America is not a democracy!
It sounds like they are hinting at restructuring society toward Egalitarianism where there is more balanced equality of opportunity and outcome. Economic progressive policies that ensure people in the race of life not only have a more equal starting point but also a level of assistance in running the race to compete with the most "talented" to provide a higher level of equity in the development of the individual and society as a whole.
It's very tempting for people who are successful to attribute their success to their own worth and moral virtue. This has the flip side of then attributing the failure of others to their worthlessness and moral failings.
This attribution of moral deserts has strong roots in religion, especially Christianity.
Once you can get over the idea that poor people are just getting what they deserve, you can start to realise that our lives are far more accidental than we would like to admit. And also admit that we didn't make ourselves. We owe our success to the luck of our circumstances, not something that we can take credit for.
Basically we’ve been subsidising the rich 💵💷💶💴
Great conversation
If different families have different abilities to pay for education in a society then it is not a true meritocracy
So, it is basically the problem of the literati class at the end of the imperial Chinese dynasty.
I have a question: How do scholarships figure in to this discussion? I always thought that the purpose of scholarships WAS to address the earnings disparity between the 1% and the rest, IF a low-income student demonstrated the ability and wherewithal to earn & keep it?
I guess it depends on what types of scholarships you're talking about. Merit-based scholarships (most common) allot money based on high school GPA and standardized test scores. Again, other scholarships offered by a University might target low-income students (or the factors that affect their low-income status. Grants are another incentive to address the earnings disparity.
High degrees from fancy universities are the new Titles of Nobility.
A meritocracy can't emerge as long as inequality persists.
Inequality will always exist
Meritocracy is only demanded when a POC is being considered
...you have no clue what meritocracy is do you?
Paying for good / elite education does not always result in good students. For some reason, Trump comes to mind.
More. Of. This. Please.
what a brilliant man
Bored to death, 4am still not in bed. You just introduced me to the concept of Meritocracy. Neat, even managed to learn something. :D
When you have people who worry about the cost of everything and the value of nothing deciding what has merit and what doesn't, it's just a cruel dog and pony show to fool the disenfranchised.
You fix equality of opportunity issues created through education by having universal higher education.
Kleptocratic oligarchy
This guy doesn't even appear to understand what an actual meritocracy would look like. For start in an actual meritocracy you wouldn't be allowed to pass wealth or property on to your children/family. This is just one of the many reasons it won't ever happen.
If you're Born poor in the vast majority of cases you will die poor. If you're born rich you will most likely die rich and live a longer, healthier life than poorer folk. The American Dream is a lie, a scam. It's just too many want to believe in it, its like winning the lottery.
Can we start, educating the masses that there is only one race, the Human race. There are ethnicity's, but only one race. We are all Human.
Any thoughts on the tariffs trump is putting on Canada. I am from Canada and concerned that trump is wanting USA to go it alone , no trading at all , love you show ,
Wonderful insight
We need to spread more on poor schools than others.
That hasn't helped. The problem is priorities not the amount of federal spending
equity of outcome
Basically he summed it up in the first 2 minutes. The rest of the conversation is just details...
The only .merits / attributes. that all billionaires have ? Is being mentally I'll enough to chase money do ruthlessly and being willing to step on and shit on any one that u cam make a buck on
David : is meritocracy a scam ?
Me : yes david
how would you know? nobody has ever actually tried it. Unless you mean calling america a meritocracy. That is definately a scam. But thats not meritocracy, thats claiming america is a meritocracy. Not really the same thing.
U.S.: oligarchy, plutocracy, kakistocracy (:-(
The answer is no guys. No.
It’s a plutocraCy lmao
Let me hear Joe Biden address this.
Please!
Yes it is
Meritocracy? Lol,soon you'll say that USA is a Democracy
Hey, how's your weekend going?
To answer your second question, I refer you to the current occupant of the White House.
GREAT VID!!!;) For example, I want to be an excellent trader, not a superior one!!!;)
Markovits ignores some of the possible solutions to the problems he poses. For example: making all schools public and equally funded takes out the angle of education from all of this (not saying that would be something that the elite in the USA would be open to discussing of course). That would completely equalize the education aspect of meritocracy, at least in theory.
If you'd want the country to be a true meritocracy you'd also have to prevent inheritable wealth in some way.
Somehow a “true” meritocracy sounds like a nightmare to me. Sounds like a race to death competition were people would die of burnout in their twenties. Competition is fine, if it is not “winner takes all” as it is today.
@@yiwuei Yeah, the last part of the video actually convinced me that a true meritocracy isn't the way to go either. I think when it comes to ideologies, all extremes are kind of bad and many middle roads are just stable and acceptable.
Did I hear equality of of otcome?
This guy sounds like Seinfeld.
9:00 He is not answering the question. Just saying
Nothing wrong in saying 'I don't know' .