The irony of the redistribution of wealth is that the unpaid labor of the enslaved built the white wealth. This was repeated when Reagan used the welfare queen example of fraud by an individual as an excuse to cut taxes for businesses, break unions and raid pension funds. IMHO, GOP manifest destiny that the powerful accumulate wealth by…
The irony of the redistribution of wealth is that the unpaid labor of the enslaved built the white wealth. This was repeated when Reagan used the welfare queen example of fraud by an individual as an excuse to cut taxes for businesses, break unions and raid pension funds. IMHO, GOP manifest destiny that the powerful accumulate wealth by corruption and inequality. Meritocracy built a powerful Federal Government. Reagan used an example of wealth fraud to paint all beneficiaries as unworthy.
I've been stuck on the word "Meritocracy" and what it means in this country for quite some time. I think that we've built kind of a false idea of Meritocracy here - not the concept that those who work hardest and earn their rewards will receive them, but the inside-out notion that you can tell the level of a person's worth or "merit" by how much they already have. Basically, if a person has been successful or had reward bestowed on them, that's proof that they deserved the reward and we should continue to reward them. And if someone has had everything taken away from them, it's a vivid sign if their lack of merit, and they should continue to be taken from.
Only under a system like that could we so consistently press the harmful fiction that an entire group, class or demographic of people who were actively robbed from and cheated in order to build this country (and there are many) are really the greedy ones. As you point out, it worked elegantly.
A very perceptive and important comment, and one that highlights one of the main mechanisms by which privilege seems to be perpetuated in our society. This is particularly important as the grain of truth behind it, carefully dressed up in this moral disguise to enable continued exploitation, is that each economic activity requires a wealth of detailed knowledge, and the persistence to keep developing it, in order to become successful. In Britain today, and I think in the USA, we have lost the respect for expertise (explicitly denigrated by Boris Johnson and his cronies before the last election) while retaining the cloak of meritocracy to bolster privilege. We have a severe problem of explaining this subtle difference, and the fact that expertise in one area does not necessarily extend to others, to a public bombarded by superficial propaganda aiming to maintain the status quo.
We seem to have gone back in Britain with Johnson to pre-thatcherite views of "society" valueing financial acumen and risk-taking over "getting your hands dirty (as a metaphore for making things); the City of London over factories.
The domination of the already wealthier classes of this source of wealth generation has been established for several centuries and they are being joined by the "newly educated elite" wishing to emulate the priviledges of those already established. Shortage of place is driving these new arrivals down the "feeding chain" to work in other parts of the economy bring their "finance-driven short termism" with them. These are the people who are now raking the benefit of being able to work from home much of the time. They are driving up the price of housing even further from their ostensible work-base to the detriment of those not so closely enmired in this "wealth creation and accumulation jungle" and are leaving the suburbs of the cities to the lower paid workers who must be present at the factory to make things happen. Those already priviledged in these terms then have the unhindered and unsullied possession of the best, often historic city quaters that they feel that they alone merit..
Stuart, FWIW, I would add to your thoughts and those of Heather H. and Philip B. that when Michael Young coined the term “meritocracy” it was in a sociological satire predicting the replacement of aristocratic domination with a new elite determined by “IQ + effort = merit.” (Apparently he made his fictional narrator so persuasive that many readers thought he was in favor of such a new regime.) But every system of social ranking sets up a hierarchy of power that takes on a life of its own over time. And formal tests of intelligence, along with being easily gamed and overlooking wide realms of socially important smarts and skills, track to the birth lottery of resources even better than that of name. In the USA and, I believe, the UK intelligence + effort came to be equated with gaining university entry and graduation, solidifying a new income table and class structure. Changes in regulations and tax laws to “free up” capital and those with the smarts to manipulate it (e.g., enhancing “shareholder value”) potentiated greater intergenerational transfers of advantage. So while Melissa is right to complain of the personal costs of good old-fashioned “know a guy” cronyism, I think that the successful public selling of the endless opportunities for “merit” to rise has led to massive, unearned power and influence for a growing international class of cronies who revel in justifying how they deserve what they’ve got—and see the spiraling inequalities of the system as the problems of those who haven’t managed to be winners.
Thank you for your insights on the origins of the term. I first heard the term circa 2004 from a colleague without the benefit of context. On the 'know a guy' comment, I have actually measured that in my previous consulting work with a cost containment company. I would send out RFPs on indirect expense categories and try to find the client better pricing. The firm didn't charge for the analysis, but the client agreed in the engagement letter, to 'share' the savings with us over a period of time ( a year or so) if they accepted the recommendation. Time after time, the firm found savings based on the independent RFP analysis. I once found a 46% savings on their $225k annual spend
on packaging costs. The 'I know a guy ' factor at the highest. Typical savings depending on the catagory not that high. That was the extreme example.
Kentucky where GOP Senator MM campaigned for re-election is that his influence allowed Kentucky to "punch above its weight". This translates to more Federal dollars flow into the state than Kentucky citizens pay in taxes. How this plays out in one example Federal benefit programs for individuals. A minimum wage worker, working full time will qualify for Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and food stamps. The profits from the sale "low costs" goods sold by a big box retailer subsidized by exploiting their underpaid work force and the Federal government - by not paying a living wage. Kentucky does have people who educate themselves and then move out of the state for opportunity. The opportunities that remain in the state are then distributed via "connections". No one in their right mind would move here. I failed to do enough leg work before I did 20+ years ago.
Strongly agree, I would like to add two things: 1) that 'wealth creation' maybe a particularly apt term in an era of monetary expansion by virtue of both the ability to create loans and charge for them, and the overall rise in asset values as the result of falling interest rates. I think there would be a strong argument for 'capital gains tax' being levied every year whether or not the capital is sold to capture some of this, and to make 'death duties'/ inheritance tax both more rigorous by outlawing 'trusts' and more progressive to reduce the inheritance of wealth. It might also make the UK less attractive as a place in which to 'invest' in second homes by those from abroad whose money often comes from very dubious sources.
The "Capital Gains Tax" thus defined is effectively a marginal wealth tax. The only country in Europe with anything like a Wealth Tax was France (since eviscerated by Macron). It was much liked by the left and as nobody else did it and capital flows freely it cost the French a great deal and made their wealthiest citizens set up residence for tax purposes in tax havens and/or neighbouring countries...who were delighted to ease their path. It produced very little money for the exchequer at the end of the day but managed to penalize those whose house in Paris had massively increased in price but not their often meagre revenues. Beware of what you ask for...people will always try to get round it if they can. This is of course expensive and favours again only the very rich!
True in many ways....if considerably more intelligent....but her biggest contribution was to change the prevailing attitude in the UK. Pre-Thatcher the government was "managing the decline into relative poverty" . She championed the view that Britain had a place in the new world and by "working hard and getting your hands dirty" you could get a lot more out of life. Otherwise, she largely neutered the unions as "political" organizations of course but they were largely dominated by the Trotsky-ite part of the Communist party; strrikes were massive, constant and violent incited and agreed in small committee by the militant few. I worked in the City of London 1984-1986.
My understanding of the term meritocracy is different than yours. Merit is the notion that one person is competent and and trained. My perspective comes after I moved from metro Atlanta. I had worked for large companies traded on the NYSE in accounting and audit roles. I was able to find professional employment because I had the training and professional certifications to do the work. Once I moved to Kentucky, it was a complete shift. Cronyism, "who" you know versus "what" you know gets you your next job/promotion. In pure competition, economic "rents" are created by those who truly innovate. In oligarchies, there is not a level playing field and the economic "rents", are gained by cronyism (knowing someone who gives your firm the contract).
Thanks! It sounds like your understanding of the term meritocracy is the same as mine. What I aim to point out is how at least in the US we've perverted the idea into basically the opposite of what it ought to mean - very similar to how Dr. Richardson often points out "Movement Conservatives" have corrupted the term "conservative." This has been on my mind lately because I've heard people say verbatim that "we live in a meritocracy" as a shorthand for dismissing complaints of inequity, and yet what they are pointing to is definitely a system where those who already have wealth or resources are seen as the natural candidates for more, and less of it 'trickles down' every day. A cronyist oligarchy, or there may be better words that aren't coming to me.
Your firsthand experience is a great and terrible example, and it really goes all the way up to national government. There, I feel like we are seeing a very old war between those who are trying to "earn" their elected office by actually doing the work and representing their constituents, and those who see their office as post hoc proof that whatever they say or do is a mandate.
Having read this article, I can see your objection to the term. I disagree with the author's suggestions to remedy the toxic effects. I believe that there needs to be a paradigm shift in measurement only in monetary terms. If there was a framework where our decision making process was driven by environmental impact, bargain hunting and other capitalist activities would shift.
WOW! Thank you for this Diane. And Thank you Heather H. for your take on a false meritocracy. I may have to go out and sit on my deck all afternoon, watching the waves, while all those conflicting notions settle in...
I had no idea the term "meritocracy" was a hot button term. In labor economics terms, workers move up to the next level of employment by qualifications. In my parents day, education was the great equalizer.
It was--and is--but Black Americans were not eligible for the GI Bill; neither were women who had served in the armed forces. In addition, quotas and outright apartheid in state university systems often denied access to education not only to Black folks but also Indigenous, Latinx, Jews, and--especially in graduate programs--women. So the path toward the middle class was barricaded for all but working class white men who had served in the military and were rewarded for their service. My father was a beneficiary of this system. If he had been Jewish (my mother was Jewish but he was not) he would have had a much harder time of it.
These days, unequal access to education for generations has resulted in an enormous disparity between savings and property of white people and that of Black people. Black people seeking higher education pay more, owe more, and default more frequently on their loans because the employment situation is also rigged against them.
This is why meritocracy doesn't work: it is considered merited only for white men. This is also why reparations and equity-based solutions are the best means to level the playing field. But most white people find those ideas objectionable because it might mean they they are no longer privileged. And they usually are in denial about the actual people who built America: an enormous number of them were not white.
GI bill benefits on the VA website says for 'qualifying personnel'. Since my dad was Korea era veteran and my mom a scholarship student, I never put 2 and 2 together. The discrimination details keep on coming. Thank you for setting me straight.
My parents were Holocaust victims. When my dad was admitted to this country in the 30’s, he didn’t speak a word of English. In 1941, he saw that “ “Uncle Sam Wants You” poster, he joined the Army. He wanted to go back to Europe but they sent him to the pacific Theater for 4 years. I am positive he was never aware of VA benefits for his children or himself.
The irony of the redistribution of wealth is that the unpaid labor of the enslaved built the white wealth. This was repeated when Reagan used the welfare queen example of fraud by an individual as an excuse to cut taxes for businesses, break unions and raid pension funds. IMHO, GOP manifest destiny that the powerful accumulate wealth by corruption and inequality. Meritocracy built a powerful Federal Government. Reagan used an example of wealth fraud to paint all beneficiaries as unworthy.
I've been stuck on the word "Meritocracy" and what it means in this country for quite some time. I think that we've built kind of a false idea of Meritocracy here - not the concept that those who work hardest and earn their rewards will receive them, but the inside-out notion that you can tell the level of a person's worth or "merit" by how much they already have. Basically, if a person has been successful or had reward bestowed on them, that's proof that they deserved the reward and we should continue to reward them. And if someone has had everything taken away from them, it's a vivid sign if their lack of merit, and they should continue to be taken from.
Only under a system like that could we so consistently press the harmful fiction that an entire group, class or demographic of people who were actively robbed from and cheated in order to build this country (and there are many) are really the greedy ones. As you point out, it worked elegantly.
A very perceptive and important comment, and one that highlights one of the main mechanisms by which privilege seems to be perpetuated in our society. This is particularly important as the grain of truth behind it, carefully dressed up in this moral disguise to enable continued exploitation, is that each economic activity requires a wealth of detailed knowledge, and the persistence to keep developing it, in order to become successful. In Britain today, and I think in the USA, we have lost the respect for expertise (explicitly denigrated by Boris Johnson and his cronies before the last election) while retaining the cloak of meritocracy to bolster privilege. We have a severe problem of explaining this subtle difference, and the fact that expertise in one area does not necessarily extend to others, to a public bombarded by superficial propaganda aiming to maintain the status quo.
We seem to have gone back in Britain with Johnson to pre-thatcherite views of "society" valueing financial acumen and risk-taking over "getting your hands dirty (as a metaphore for making things); the City of London over factories.
The domination of the already wealthier classes of this source of wealth generation has been established for several centuries and they are being joined by the "newly educated elite" wishing to emulate the priviledges of those already established. Shortage of place is driving these new arrivals down the "feeding chain" to work in other parts of the economy bring their "finance-driven short termism" with them. These are the people who are now raking the benefit of being able to work from home much of the time. They are driving up the price of housing even further from their ostensible work-base to the detriment of those not so closely enmired in this "wealth creation and accumulation jungle" and are leaving the suburbs of the cities to the lower paid workers who must be present at the factory to make things happen. Those already priviledged in these terms then have the unhindered and unsullied possession of the best, often historic city quaters that they feel that they alone merit..
Stuart, FWIW, I would add to your thoughts and those of Heather H. and Philip B. that when Michael Young coined the term “meritocracy” it was in a sociological satire predicting the replacement of aristocratic domination with a new elite determined by “IQ + effort = merit.” (Apparently he made his fictional narrator so persuasive that many readers thought he was in favor of such a new regime.) But every system of social ranking sets up a hierarchy of power that takes on a life of its own over time. And formal tests of intelligence, along with being easily gamed and overlooking wide realms of socially important smarts and skills, track to the birth lottery of resources even better than that of name. In the USA and, I believe, the UK intelligence + effort came to be equated with gaining university entry and graduation, solidifying a new income table and class structure. Changes in regulations and tax laws to “free up” capital and those with the smarts to manipulate it (e.g., enhancing “shareholder value”) potentiated greater intergenerational transfers of advantage. So while Melissa is right to complain of the personal costs of good old-fashioned “know a guy” cronyism, I think that the successful public selling of the endless opportunities for “merit” to rise has led to massive, unearned power and influence for a growing international class of cronies who revel in justifying how they deserve what they’ve got—and see the spiraling inequalities of the system as the problems of those who haven’t managed to be winners.
Thank you for your insights on the origins of the term. I first heard the term circa 2004 from a colleague without the benefit of context. On the 'know a guy' comment, I have actually measured that in my previous consulting work with a cost containment company. I would send out RFPs on indirect expense categories and try to find the client better pricing. The firm didn't charge for the analysis, but the client agreed in the engagement letter, to 'share' the savings with us over a period of time ( a year or so) if they accepted the recommendation. Time after time, the firm found savings based on the independent RFP analysis. I once found a 46% savings on their $225k annual spend
on packaging costs. The 'I know a guy ' factor at the highest. Typical savings depending on the catagory not that high. That was the extreme example.
Kentucky where GOP Senator MM campaigned for re-election is that his influence allowed Kentucky to "punch above its weight". This translates to more Federal dollars flow into the state than Kentucky citizens pay in taxes. How this plays out in one example Federal benefit programs for individuals. A minimum wage worker, working full time will qualify for Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and food stamps. The profits from the sale "low costs" goods sold by a big box retailer subsidized by exploiting their underpaid work force and the Federal government - by not paying a living wage. Kentucky does have people who educate themselves and then move out of the state for opportunity. The opportunities that remain in the state are then distributed via "connections". No one in their right mind would move here. I failed to do enough leg work before I did 20+ years ago.
Strongly agree, I would like to add two things: 1) that 'wealth creation' maybe a particularly apt term in an era of monetary expansion by virtue of both the ability to create loans and charge for them, and the overall rise in asset values as the result of falling interest rates. I think there would be a strong argument for 'capital gains tax' being levied every year whether or not the capital is sold to capture some of this, and to make 'death duties'/ inheritance tax both more rigorous by outlawing 'trusts' and more progressive to reduce the inheritance of wealth. It might also make the UK less attractive as a place in which to 'invest' in second homes by those from abroad whose money often comes from very dubious sources.
The "Capital Gains Tax" thus defined is effectively a marginal wealth tax. The only country in Europe with anything like a Wealth Tax was France (since eviscerated by Macron). It was much liked by the left and as nobody else did it and capital flows freely it cost the French a great deal and made their wealthiest citizens set up residence for tax purposes in tax havens and/or neighbouring countries...who were delighted to ease their path. It produced very little money for the exchequer at the end of the day but managed to penalize those whose house in Paris had massively increased in price but not their often meagre revenues. Beware of what you ask for...people will always try to get round it if they can. This is of course expensive and favours again only the very rich!
I always felt Thatcher was just a female Reagan.
True in many ways....if considerably more intelligent....but her biggest contribution was to change the prevailing attitude in the UK. Pre-Thatcher the government was "managing the decline into relative poverty" . She championed the view that Britain had a place in the new world and by "working hard and getting your hands dirty" you could get a lot more out of life. Otherwise, she largely neutered the unions as "political" organizations of course but they were largely dominated by the Trotsky-ite part of the Communist party; strrikes were massive, constant and violent incited and agreed in small committee by the militant few. I worked in the City of London 1984-1986.
My understanding of the term meritocracy is different than yours. Merit is the notion that one person is competent and and trained. My perspective comes after I moved from metro Atlanta. I had worked for large companies traded on the NYSE in accounting and audit roles. I was able to find professional employment because I had the training and professional certifications to do the work. Once I moved to Kentucky, it was a complete shift. Cronyism, "who" you know versus "what" you know gets you your next job/promotion. In pure competition, economic "rents" are created by those who truly innovate. In oligarchies, there is not a level playing field and the economic "rents", are gained by cronyism (knowing someone who gives your firm the contract).
Thanks! It sounds like your understanding of the term meritocracy is the same as mine. What I aim to point out is how at least in the US we've perverted the idea into basically the opposite of what it ought to mean - very similar to how Dr. Richardson often points out "Movement Conservatives" have corrupted the term "conservative." This has been on my mind lately because I've heard people say verbatim that "we live in a meritocracy" as a shorthand for dismissing complaints of inequity, and yet what they are pointing to is definitely a system where those who already have wealth or resources are seen as the natural candidates for more, and less of it 'trickles down' every day. A cronyist oligarchy, or there may be better words that aren't coming to me.
Your firsthand experience is a great and terrible example, and it really goes all the way up to national government. There, I feel like we are seeing a very old war between those who are trying to "earn" their elected office by actually doing the work and representing their constituents, and those who see their office as post hoc proof that whatever they say or do is a mandate.
Thanks
Wonderful analysis Heather H. The Atlantic did an interesting piece on toxic Meritocracy in the 9/2019 issue:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/meritocracys-miserable-winners/594760/
Having read this article, I can see your objection to the term. I disagree with the author's suggestions to remedy the toxic effects. I believe that there needs to be a paradigm shift in measurement only in monetary terms. If there was a framework where our decision making process was driven by environmental impact, bargain hunting and other capitalist activities would shift.
WOW! Thank you for this Diane. And Thank you Heather H. for your take on a false meritocracy. I may have to go out and sit on my deck all afternoon, watching the waves, while all those conflicting notions settle in...
I had no idea the term "meritocracy" was a hot button term. In labor economics terms, workers move up to the next level of employment by qualifications. In my parents day, education was the great equalizer.
It was--and is--but Black Americans were not eligible for the GI Bill; neither were women who had served in the armed forces. In addition, quotas and outright apartheid in state university systems often denied access to education not only to Black folks but also Indigenous, Latinx, Jews, and--especially in graduate programs--women. So the path toward the middle class was barricaded for all but working class white men who had served in the military and were rewarded for their service. My father was a beneficiary of this system. If he had been Jewish (my mother was Jewish but he was not) he would have had a much harder time of it.
These days, unequal access to education for generations has resulted in an enormous disparity between savings and property of white people and that of Black people. Black people seeking higher education pay more, owe more, and default more frequently on their loans because the employment situation is also rigged against them.
This is why meritocracy doesn't work: it is considered merited only for white men. This is also why reparations and equity-based solutions are the best means to level the playing field. But most white people find those ideas objectionable because it might mean they they are no longer privileged. And they usually are in denial about the actual people who built America: an enormous number of them were not white.
GI bill benefits on the VA website says for 'qualifying personnel'. Since my dad was Korea era veteran and my mom a scholarship student, I never put 2 and 2 together. The discrimination details keep on coming. Thank you for setting me straight.
Join with other veterans/families to file a class action suit.
My parents were Holocaust victims. When my dad was admitted to this country in the 30’s, he didn’t speak a word of English. In 1941, he saw that “ “Uncle Sam Wants You” poster, he joined the Army. He wanted to go back to Europe but they sent him to the pacific Theater for 4 years. I am positive he was never aware of VA benefits for his children or himself.
"The irony of the redistribution of wealth is that the unpaid labor of the enslaved built the white wealth." Full stop, Melissa.
A Black Bostonian carried one of the best signs from 2020's summer protest season:
"We built this country for free, we can burn it down if we want to!"
Well said.