Meritocracy

[tackattack]

@Javaman - I believe we do. As I stated back in post 4 meritocracy is the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability. That ability in our capitalist economics is on the basis of their ability to attain wealth. As was pointed out one of the best descriptors of success is how much money you inherit. That's the 1%.  20 percent of US households held 77 percent of total household wealth in 2016, more than triple what the middle class held (defined as the middle 60 percent of the usual income distribution) but the 1% currently holds, all by it's lonesome, more wealth than the entire middle class. We live in a dominance hierarchy. Currently it's topped by the merit of a fat wallet. I propose there are better standards of merit, and just wanted to discuss those. Systemic racism, classism, sexism, etc. are from the inequality produced by the pareto distribution of wealth. My point was that it's so much worse than, what most would feel is ideal, or even what most think of as the top American earners.
side video on his point-

---

---

I think as the rich get richer, we, socially, should move the goalposts to redefine what rich is. I think some people individually try and do that by valuing loyalty and family above getting bonus at work, etc. I just wanted to verbalize some other merits that are more worthy and discuss how to make for towards a more egalitarian society. Not that I think I have any answers, just that it's good to discuss ideas. If I'm too biased and privileged to participate in the discussion well I guess I'll just stfu, because talking makes things worse.