Is the American Meritocracy Dead?

Uh, are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet not shining examples of the American Meritocracy?
Both of them earned their money [mostly] honestly and through [somewhat] hard work.

I would think the opposite of the meritocracy is wealth passed down through the gnerations to annoying progeny like the Kennedys, Bushes and Paris Hiltons of the world.

Buffet himself has said that he disagrees with handing over all his wealth to his kids, and your characterization that the B&M Gates' money is going to "foreign" hands is untrue, as part of their mission is to help American secondary education as well as other efforts that will benefit the United States.

When I said move towards socialism I did not mean a full blown communist state. A move towards socialism does not REQUIRE a sacrifice of individual rights or freedoms. It would bring about more income equality along with many other benefits such as health care and so on. It’s very possible, look at countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands. There they have a very low income inequality and they maintain their freedoms while being fairly socialist in nature.

Class envy here, pure and simple.

I'm a career government employee having served 12 years on active duty in the Army and then the past 14 as an Army analyst on the civilian side of the equation. Yes, you can say that bureacracies are indeed bloated and inefficient, but that hardly addresses the effect that's in question here.

I too believe that a CEO pulling in 1000 times what the average Joe makes is on the obscene side, but it's not been changed by the company stockholders who put up the bucks to finance the company.

As to the "sweetheart deals" from government, only the big companies out there have the capability to perform to standard. Take into consideration "set aside" contracts for small, minority, and female owned businesses. It's not as bad as you might think.

If you want to be beaten down by this "news" by all means, go right ahead and sing, "Nobody pays me, everybody hates, I think I'll go eat worms." It might make you feel better, but it won't change a bloody thing!

MajorDad1984

The real affect that is creating this is immigration. The lower echelons of workers and now more middle levels are in wage competition with the flow of illegal workers flooding over our borders. The wealthy continue to benefit by capitalizing on either those illegal workers or the beneficial affect of the competative wage invironment. Congress, being well lubricated by "businesses" who claim they would be non competative without illegal workers, keep the enforcement of the American laws cripled so that both groups can continue to benefit.

It is not so much that the upper ranks are making so much more, it is that the lower ranks have been stagnant or dropping over the same mentioned period.

"Because the people who amass these great fortunes do no give them back to the population which gave them their fortunes."

If I gave you 2 dollars for your apple, and it cost you 75 cents, I would not expect you to give me a buck 25 plus interest 10 years from now. That's what you're expecting the wealthy to do, when you've already traded and derived value from their "labor".

A trade benefits both parties, or else it wouldn't happen. I got the pleasure/nourishment from the apple at a price I thought was reasonable. Appling that principle to the workforce, the poor work menial jobs for wealthy owners because it's better than not working at all - labor is traded for money. The educated, no matter what class, who have more skills, are able to trade their labor for more money because their supply is limited. The more money you have, the better schools you can afford, and the more educated you offspring. And so on.

The only way you could interfere with this natural system is if you instituted communism, and history continues to demonstrate the shortfalls of state-run economies. Where ever it's tried, it fails. Socialism is what most countries have adopted (even the US to some extent), and that's only because demogogues get elected to rescue those who have been "left behind". And when elected officials fail to lift the poor out of poverty, who holds them accountable?

Meritocracy works especially well in a market economy because you can reward those who you trade with and punish those by not trading. Incentives and penalties are naturally built into the system. If the company managing my 401-K fails to make money with my otherwise idle retirement funds, I'll take my business elsewhere. If my company is unethical, I can take my skills elsewhere.

American Meritocracy is alive and well as long as we hold true to our founding principles: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness- not "equal votes, equal importance, equal opportunity", as noble as those ideas may sound. Merit isn't evenly distributed, so why should everything else be?

I would say the real way to go about examining the problem is to see the cause- many people in the thread have said socialism is the way to go, but I would contend that this would acctually make the problem worse.

If you start at the federal level and say corperations have too much power to influance politicians, then lets think about why- because you need $$ to advertise, and the more you get the more likely you are to win... why? Because the common man dosn't want to pay attention to all the actual issues; politics on the whole are too far removed from his daily life, so if he DOES vote, he probably does it on name recognition (hence, whoever has more adds saying "this is what's wrong with the other guy, I'll make everything better if you vote for me)

So, what's the cause of that problem? Politics are too far removed from the common person's day to day life. Why? Life in America is too easy- argue if you want, but I would also contend that you would really have to work at starving to death in America- sure, you can loose everything, but you can still find food, can still go to soup kitchens or food pantrys etc etc. If the social safety nets are removed, sure we may have more people having harder lives for a while, but it will force those who want to survive to take a more active role. To put it a different way, imagine playing a game; if you know that you'll always have a way to get back on your feet and have a chance to win, regardless of how little attention you pay, you probably will not really try that hard. If, instead, you're playing for your life in a more perminent way, you damn well better watch everything that's happening.

Basic economics class (at least the one I took) taught that the freer the market, the better it is for the consumer and fo growth. Moving closer toward socialism is quite the oposite of freeing up the economy by definition. If instead of using taxes to create more assistance programs, companies are forced to compete with peer companies, they won't be ABLE to pay incredible sums of money to a select few- they'll need every penny they can get to keep innovating and progressing so that they don't get taken down by some young upstart with a good idea and a wealthy backer. More $$ into R&D = more jobs, = more demand for workers, = higher pay scales for everyone. The problem for things like that is the pains to Joe Shmoe are direct and felt immediatly, but the gains, though much greater, are felt over a much longer period of time and are much harder to identify with the social policy.


So, yeah, probably most people did NOT read that, but if you did I'd love to have an intelligent discourse with someone who disagrees.

The real problem is our politicians. Republican, Democrat or otherwise, they all seem to work for special interest groups now a days. That needs to be adressed.

Socialism? Please move to a socialist country if you want socialism and leave me my capitalistic, crooked political system country.

Tom and Brian were both a good read. And I really like Tom's idea.

If you ask those who have made it what their secret is to success they will tell you this one simple truth. "The only limits you face are the limits you put on yourself." Ask yourself if you have done everything you could do or if you reached a point where you said "I won't do that" I have asked myself that question and have reached the conclusion that I have not done eveything that I could have done to be a success in terms of money, But this said I am happy in my life. Success has is its own terms for everyone.

You could be wealthy beyond means but miserable.
Who ever said "Money isn't everthing." was right.

Yeah, I really do agree with Tom on this one. More restrictions of corporations will release the vice grip that they have on the government, and allow more equal opportunity for "American Joe". Very good article.

You wrote: "It isn’t what we wanted because this help shouldn’t be coming from private citizens with enourmous power. "

If you think private citizens like Oprah and Bill Gates have power, just remember the power of the federal government.

Every era has its Rockefellers and Carnegies, Gates and Buffet are no different. Creation of wealth is essential to the prosperity of the country, and gifts from the Gates foundation will provide help for people far more efficiently and effectively than a bureaucracy ever could.

Working hard and being good are not guarantees of success, but they are essential ingredients.

Funny. I don't require anyone giving Warren Buffet anything.

Good god not socialism!. That might take away my millions. That would give money to people lesser than me. Oh hang on, I don't have any millions. Ok. But I could have , I will have. I've been told I could have. what? By people that have millions, thats who! And who should know better. Of course they want me to have millions too. Why shouldn't they? Me and them, and everyone else. Well maybe not everyone else. But me and them. You'll see. You'll see. God bless America. And f**k you who says otherwise.

Socialism does not require to be millionaire to achieve happiness.
Socialism does not remove individual rights, it effectively protects the rights of people not to be harmed by others.

OK, In the US there are more than 2 million Millionaires, name one Socialist society that has come close to producing the opportunity for so many to achieve such levels of success!

Name one Socialist society that has produced as large a middle class as this country has!

and I have a solution to your jealosy issues, if you are mad that the rich is not giving you your money back, do not give it to them by purchasing there products or services to begin with and you will not have anything to worry about anymore!

This is one of the only free countries on earth, both socially and economically, there are plenty of Socialist nations out there. Do me a favor, let us continue to live free of Government control over our economy and society and move to one of those great Socialist nations you so deeply admire!

Thanks
Brian

Socialism is NOT the way to go - it REQUIRES the sacrifice of individual rights. We do, however, need to reconsider our perception of the role of corporations in our society. Corporations are NOT individuals and the Supreme Court has already held that they do not enjoy the same rights as individuals (otherwise you would find cigarette advertisements on broadcast media).

For-profit corporations should be barred from engaging in lobbying efforts of any sort. They should be barred from political activity of any kind. They should only be able to contribute to non-profits that are directly engaged in the distribution of charity, not advocacy. Note that this does not infringe on individual rights in any way - those who are employees or shareholders of for-profit corps will still be free to engage in these activities on their own time using their own money. However, they would be denied the incredibly vast resources of the modern corporation.

I believe in merit and hard work and personal effort, but a thousand-to-one ratio of CEO-to-worker pay is disgraceful. I do not think a society with inequities like that can be stable in the long term.

I agree with Dan, socialism would be the way to go. But we could never do that because we would be "communists".

Not to push it too much but Sean Fanning (Napster), Craig Newmark (Craig's List) and Kevin Rose (Digg,com) changed the world by simply implementing their ideas and getting them out to the masses through the world wide web. Just like this idea is being spread. the challenge is for more individuals to develop their ideas into viable business plans. Netscape, Yahoo, and Google were started in similar ways by individuals who startedout to solve a simple problem or share an idea. Currently the web is still a level playing field where an indivdual with a good idea can still make it. Just think what a few individuals can do. I'm not talking about the second dot com boom, I'm talking about the real one, based on sound business plans and not over zealous VC's.

Just a thought, I thought I'd share.

Social media, enabled by net neutrality, allows just about anyone to create information value and command an audience.

That's why corporate interests are lobbying to kill net neutrality.

We need to follow our European counter parts and move closer to socialism.

Ellen,

I agree with you 100%. I don't know whether it's rational or not, but I also believe that we can only look to ourselves and our enourmous potential to make lasting change. Great site, by the way.

Nick,

I think campaign finance reform would be a big help. But only if it was a real bill, and not another one loaded with private interests.

Thanks for asking the questions -- in a way that show there may still be a solution. I am not sure meritocracy ever played out in the way it was intended.... What do you think?

If meritocracy was flawed it was based on the notion that some can earn more by hard work or good grades or both. We know a great deal more about intelligence now.. and I believe what we are learning about the extravagance of the human brain is revolutionary enough to help more people rise with the rising tides. In the meantime... change starts with each of us and is motivated by refreshing posts like this one -- thanks!

Brain Based Business

"
What do you think is the solution?
"

In a word: Libertarianism. Big government is the root of the problem. We the People would fund the needy of America if we had the cash that we earned instead of it going to the bloated beaucrats,.