Meritocracy

[BryanS]

I think people are (ideally) entitled to 100% of the fruits of their labor. But no one seems to be able to be figure out how to do things without some exploitation. It's like exploitation is some kind of constant that makes production possible. I think Marx had a pretty good idea of a meritocracy, but all the attempts to realize his vision are worse (in the exploitation department) than capitalism.

To me, elimination of all exploitation is essential if you are aiming for a "meritocracy." I mean, you can't call it a meritocracy if your "merit" can be claimed by those to whom it does not belong.

One thing I think we could do is implement free education (all the way through grad school) to students who demonstrate mastery. Scholarships and such do this to some degree, but they are more like a lottery (much of the time) than a functionary system that rewards merit.

The part I bolded--yes, that is the debate between left and right in the US. Politically, I line up with US conservatives on economics and governance (liberals for those on the other side of the pond). As Reagan liked to say, liberals cannot help thinking when they see a fat man standing next to a thin man that the fat man got that way at the thin man's expense. 

In a meritocracy, we have to accept inequality in outcome so long as we ensure equality of opportunity. And that inequality itself can build in advantages and disadvantages to a child from a family with less economic success. 

The whole reason for free universal education is to level the playing field so that nomatter the background, everyone starts with a fair opportunity to get ahead. But in the US, inner city schools are complete and utter failures. If we actually fix our school system in the US, we'd go a long way towards improving equal opportunities. 

Another problem is that some minorities have experienced real (and perceived) discrimination which leads them to "check out" of the system because they believe there is no opportunity for them. High school dropout rates are obscenely high for African Americans who live in these districts with poor schools. It's not minority status alone that does this--most Asian American minority groups have a much higher than average scholarly success rate despite facing discrimination. 

Poor rural whites often do not much better for one reason that they share with poor urban African Americans--that is generational poverty and reliance on government assistance as a means of subsisting. Both groups are disconnected from the economy in ways those of us more fortunate do not even understand. They don't use or trust banks, so they have no credit. They live paycheck to paycheck if they work at all. Their only methods of payment are cash or barter. Their only means of finance are predatory payday loans and car title loans, which further saps their limited income. The example children learn to emulate from their parents is one of reliance on government assistance to live, which often means limiting one's income to be "poor enough" to qualify for maximal benefits.  These welfare benefits do not in any way confer a high quality of life--I could not imagine living that way--so I'm not making an argument that these people are just "too lazy" to work. 

Whether the impediment is cultural resistance, generational poverty, or poor available education, the basic recipe for how to function in our economy is not taught to many poor people. And that in short is the poverty trap. The US could be more meritocratic than it is today if we could address some of the problems I describe. But of course these aren't easy problems to fix. Until these problems are addressed, I'd say the US is only partially meritocratic.