5101

But those are anecdotes. If means nothing that a really small group of people achieve this. We need data, and we have it (loads of it) to see whether statistically this is true for a big enough percentage of the population. I mean, we have numerous examples of people coming from nothing and becoming rich or powerful in pretty much any society, including those that we can all agree are not very meritocratic at all. Even if it’s extremely unlikely, they tend to get noted (precisely for their unlikeness).

I know you support meritocracy as the best way a society can structure it’s inequality (for there will be always be some). This is pretty much a core American value that I wholeheartedly support, and that I think should be exported. Why then this rejection of pretty much every set of data that says this is in danger? What is more important, to maintain the illusion or to actually fight for the ideals you believe in?

5102

But he wasn’t one of the richest people in the world.

His success was not somehow bought. Many people were born into wealthier families than he.

His success stemmed directly from his own actions.

5103

Why does it mean nothing?

I mean, obviously not everyone is going to succeed to the same extent. That’s inherent in the notion of a meritocracy. A meritocracy will, by definition, result in inequality.

Much of the data presented to try and argue against the idea of a meritocratic society in America focuses on things like social mobility, but that alone is not actually an indicator of a lack of meritocratic aspects.

For instance, a society could actually have features which hampered the development of certain members. Poverty will often hamper the cognitive and social development of children. This will result in contributing to those children developing into less competitive adults. As a result, they would compete less effectively in a meritocratic society. But the lack of social mobility would not actually be indicative of a lack of meritocracy.

5104

Nobody is arguing those points.

It means nothing because people who rise from poverty to riches are also present in non-meritocratic societies. So it’s not an indication of meritocracy. It’s merely a statistical truism (given a big enough data set you can always find exceptions) . To see whether meritocracy exists or not you need to look at statistical significant aspects of a society. Like the distribution of income inequality, for example. Or many other data driven approaches. Most, if not all of the data if seen points towards a diminishing of meritocracy in the Western world to almost 19th century levels (even a bigger descent in the US, because the 19th century was actually pretty meritocratic there compared to other Western countries).

Did you take a look at the Picketty’s data? Or are we ignoring the most comprehensive data set on income ever analysed?

Or, alternatively, if you can provide alternative peer reviewed data, I would love to see it (it’s an interesting discussion). But without data to support your beliefs, it’s all wishful thinking.

5105

It means nothing because people who rise from poverty to riches are also present in non-meritocratic societies.

So you believe that those cases are merely luck?

But that doesn’t make any sense. Zuckerberg didn’t became a billionaire through luck. He became a billionaire because he invented something, something which was basically a purely intellectual invention (and required no large investment of capital to start, by the way) which over a billion people wanted to use.

Did you take a look at the Picketty’s data? Or are we ignoring the most comprehensive data set on income ever analysed?

Thomas Picketty? Which study do you mean? He’s done a number over the years, mainly focused on wealth inequality. Did he do one specifically regarding meritocratic aspects of society?

Or, alternatively, if you can provide alternative peer reviewed data, I would love to see it (it’s an interesting discussion). But without data to support your beliefs, it’s all wishful thinking.

I’m sorry? Peer reviewed data to support what?

5106

Actually there’s been contention as to whether or not he invented it, or someone else did and he ran with it ala Gates and Jobs. Zuckerberg became a billionaire through really shady internal business decisions based on the personal information of the people using his service, whether it was of his devising or not, and the same sort of speculation that has afflicted the valuation of everything since the inception of the first dotcom boom.

You could not have picked a worse example.

SO yeah, here’s kinda the missing link in this discussion: the middle class. Remember that thing that allowed people to do the things some of you are claiming is possible? And has been shrinking? The middle class was literally the middle point in which people could, through hard work and ingenuity, carve out a decent bit of prosperity if not wealth. Zuckerberg, at best (worst? dunno) was born into an upper middle class family.

5107

But corgi, you are basically just discounting the achievements of others, basically because you don’t believe that they somehow deserve their success.

So Gates and Jobs also didn’t earn their success? It seems as though you are failing to attribute value to things like vision. Jobs achieved his success, and revolutionized the tech industry, through his vision of what could be.

I mean, sure, you can listen to conspiracy theories about how zuckerberg sole the idea for Facebook, but there is no evidence to support that notion… Because if there was, folks would be fighting tooth and nail for that giant mountain of money.

And no man, Facebook’s success didn’t come from shady practices. It came, ultimately, from the fact that he made something that over a BILLION people wanted to use. I’m sorry, but it’s silly to try and minimize that kind of thing.

But he’s only one example. The debate doesn’t hinge on him alone.

Who is the equivalent of zuckerberg, or gates, or Jobs in Spain? Who achieved that kind of world renown and success?

Or someone like Serge Brin, born in Moscow, who came to the US and founded Google with Page, again, just be simply making something which was way better than anything anyone else had.

Who is the European Google? Or Microsoft? Or apple?

5108

No, I’m saying that very few cases of meritocratic ascent say nothing of a society as a whole. The middle ages had significant cases of meritocratic ascent too, but those societies where all but meritocratic. I’m saying that providing a example does not prove a point. You need a body of data to defend that a society is meritocratic (well, to the extent it is meritocratic, since it’s a sliding scale). The data I’ve seen tends to indicate we are in a period where meritocracy is in retreat.

He didn’t focused on wealth inequality, but on income inequality, with an added focus on labor income versus inherited and capital income. The relationship between those two is a good indicator of the extent a society is meritocratic (at least an upper limit, given a perfectly meritocratic job market).

5109

Well what about China?

5110

Amancio Ortega? (3rd richest person in the world as of today and the son of a railway worker. Didn’t have money to go to college, so he started working as an office boy for clothing stores. Can’t get much more humble origins than that). I’m very surprised you really think these things only happen in the US… You really should look around more.

BUT: I don’t think Spain is particularly more meritocratic that the US, quite the contrary, actually, this country has huge issues with valuing people according to their merits, partly due to corruption (which hampers meritocracy in the private enterprise - the public enterprise remains pretty meritocratic, when not privatized, but it’s a minor part of the economy). But I also tend to think, given the data I’ve seen, that the US isn’t very meritocratic (which means Spain is probably not at all). This case is, as the cases you present, an exception that says nothing about the subject in question.

5111

Well, the success of Baidu is kind of tainted by the fact that exists in a market where the main competitor, Google, isn’t really allowed to operate freely. So that’s kind of anti-meritocratic.

I mean, do you use Baidu as your search engine?

Juan, I think Ortega is a good example. Although, honestly, I had no idea who he was prior to you mentioning him. I don’t really follow the Spanish fashion industry, which is where he made his money I guess?

5112

What… what… you guys. I thought it was about ethics in games journalism.

5113

Shit, our covers bloom. Everyone scatter, before carlton catches us. We’ll pick up the discussion in another unrelated thread. Heroes of the Storm perhaps?

5114

The by the, Anecdotal is the worst. There is always someone or something that is a counter example. That’s why studies use a 95% confidence interval.

So, how about some examples of the US not being a meritocracy? Paris Hilton comes to mind. There is someone, who in a meritocracy, would quickly lose her wealth, because someone better than her (and lets face it, that’s most of the human race, and many other primates in the world. Possible Whales as well, although it’s tough to judge, since they have no opposable thumbs, and that just seems to be a huge handicap in the world) would have moved in her place.

Also, the merit of someone or something is directly effected by their environment. Nourishment is a necessary to being able to concentrate in school, which someone would think is a prerequisite for having merit in our society (although Gates and Zucky both dropped out, both happened to achieve some academic success before getting to Harvard). Hell, malnurishment directly effects your cognitive ability, so when you starve people, you are pushing them down further. So, in the US, not only do the rich do a great job keeping their wealth, but those in the lost levels of our society are being burden with a poor education system, a lack of opportunity, and levels of malnurishment that I can’t begin to fathom.

I’m all for a meritocracy, but only if the system wasn’t so obviously rigged that calling it that is a joke.

5115

Some cover blooms, I guess. It kind of depends on how many flowers are growing on your hedgerow.

5116

Not that I’m a fan of Paris Hilton, but I don’t think you explained your point well. Somebody moving into her place wouldn’t do anything to eliminate her wealth. I can’t think of any society in which the government comes in and takes away all of your money and possessions if somebody does something better than you. Maybe you meant that her income would be eliminated in a true meritocracy?

Edit: Also, I think you have to remember in a meritocracy there is no accounting for taste. I agree with you that almost anybody you pick is better than her, but uh… sex sells. There are certain things about her that make money for people (and thus her) because there are certain demographics that, for whatever reason, find something appealing about her look, opinions, etc.

5117

Not only Spain, he created the largest fashion group in the world. It employs 140k people. But the whole point is that it doesn’t matter. He doesn’t make Spain any more or any less meritocratic. It’s a statistical anomaly. Look at the data, not at the exceptions.

5118

Actually, who judges merit? In ancient china, your position required that you take tests. Those of means had the ability to hire tutors and do well on the tests and rise to the top, but in the US, there is no definitive judge of merit outside of being able to produce wealth.

If we were a meritocracy, would Paris Hilton be able to live on the wealth produced for her by the Hilton company?

5119

Perfect meritocracy is only possible by doing horrible things.

What should be strived for is either a universal welfare state where employment isn’t necessary, or at the minimum a system where everyone has legitimate odds of success (that isn’t the case today)

5120

Not at all. I’m specifically calling out Zuckerberg’s success because he’s a fucking insane figurehead for a company that routinely does moronic stuff with their very lifebread. If anything, I’m just not interested in calling that hot mess a personal achievement of his. And I’m too old to be whining about who does or doesn’t deserve their successes; it just doesn’t work that way.

So Gates and Jobs also didn’t earn their success? It seems as though you are failing to attribute value to things like vision. Jobs achieved his success, and revolutionized the tech industry, through his vision of what could be.

I mean, sure, you can listen to conspiracy theories about how zuckerberg sole the idea for Facebook, but there is no evidence to support that notion… Because if there was, folks would be fighting tooth and nail for that giant mountain of money.

I guess that’s the rub, and where it gets a little more complicated. Gates had a trust fund and through it, ultimately, an in via connections to an Ivy League school which means more connections. Jobs had Woz and famously screwed him over in the end. In fact, now that I think of it, Woz is a better example than Jobs ever was. Doesn’t mean that Jobs wasn’t massively prescient in coming up with the concepts that drove pretty much every successful Apple product (and the ad campaigns, which were as much a character as Jobs ever was), but without Woz actually coming up with the product, what launching board did he have? Atari? He had that because of Woz too.

And no man, Facebook’s success didn’t come from shady practices. It came, ultimately, from the fact that he made something that over a BILLION people wanted to use. I’m sorry, but it’s silly to try and minimize that kind of thing.

You can chalk this up to my own personal pet peeve if you want, but Facebook has always had a shit UI, a shit backend, and a shit way of changing the API every time anyone came up with some way of making it useful. He didn’t find a need and fill it, the need found him. Just like with Twitter, which is a similar smoke-and-mirrors act in terms of coming up with a concrete business reason for the worth of the company. And on top of that Facebook has always been about mining the personal data of its users, most of the time in creatively retarded ways that routinely end up pissing off those billion users.

Zuck is absolutely successful. But a successful shyster is still a shyster. If that’s detracting from the success, then I don’t really know what to tell you. I guess my ultimate position is that I don’t like to conflate success (Woz and your later example, Brin) with blatant sociopathy (Jobs and Zuckerberg).