Have we considered “work ethic” or “laziness” as an important part of the equation, and resentment by those very ambitious and hard-working people for the lazy ones?
At my last job before I retired, I earned well over 100K per annum, but I was extremely lazy, at least compared to some of my peers, who got offered promotions, salary increases, etc. more often than i did. I did an ok job, but I was content earning my base salary, enjoyed whatever leisure time I could find, but it was as if my peers and I were on two different pages of two different books where promotion and salary bumps were concerned. I just thought the extra money wasn’t worth all the bother and grief that came with the added responsibilities. Some of them, I’m sure, thought of me as lazy and unambitious, and they weren’t wrong. For my part, I saw them as greedy and obsessive about money and power. I simply enjoyed my job.
In some of the ideal meritocracies being discussed here, I sense that people are saying that it would have been just if I had been punished more than I was (i.e., paid less money) because I lacked ambition, and my hardworking peers deserved much more than the 10K or 30K they earned above my salary.
At that point we’re getting more into the realm of whether or not you want to call a lower pay a punishment or a lack of reward. I think it also depends on what “lazy” means. To go back to the baker, are we talking about Baker A spending 8 hours a day on the job, and Baker B only 6 hours, but with the same effort during those six hours, while making 75% of the pay? Or are they both spending 8 hours, but Baker B is skipping steps or taking shortcuts that result in putting in less effort but also resulting in an inferior product? The latter is, IMHO, problematic, where the former isn’t.
Or are we talking about Bakers C through F spending 10 or 12 hours a day, while the company’s only paying them for 8?
Or Baker G working 6 hours and either goofing off, though at work, for two, or going home early/getting there late/taking a three hour lunch – but getting as much done in 6 hours, and of the same quality, as Baker A does in 8?
I think such people should be helped by job counselors to find placement in some kind of low skill job where they will get paid enough to be rewarded for doing that job. If we’re talking about jobs like housekeeping, janitorial, and such, those things still need to be done, and the people doing them should get paid enough to make it worth their while. I don’t pretend to know what that exact number should be, but it should be more than those not working at all who get by on the social safety net.
This raises an interesting question. Most public works projects are awarded on the basis of some form of competitive bidding. The entity who awarded the contract presumably defined the “merit” of the bid on the basis of of the specifications they required, and Flatiron Dragados met or exceeded those requirements. Who was responsible for that failure to evaluate merit, the government for coming up with the wrong standards for awarding a contract, the builder who had bridge-building experience, but less than excellent skill, or perhaps some legal or illegal way of gaming the system so contracts can end up with unqualified suppliers?
At that point, we’re now evaluating the merit of the manager, not the bakers . The exact differences in how much each of those people should be making gets tricky once we’re taking about real people. But I don’t think the correct answer is “everyone gets paid the same, no matter how good or bad the job they do is.”
An actual meritocracy (which I assume by which mean mean “outcome or results based”) is never bad. You want the best possible doctor operating on you. The best possible lawyer representing you. So on and so forth.
I think people here are focusing on institutional hierarchies that present themselves as “meritocracies” but often simply perpetuate their own hierarchies. For example, graduating from Harvard is often presented as proof of “merit” (which it can be). But quite often the selection criteria for elite schools often is a result of already being part of the elite classes, rather than having accomplished anything.
A true meritocracy wouldn’t allow nepotism, legacies, demographics-based quotas, favors, bribes, handshake deals, or really any other selection criteria not based on objective achievement.
I suppose one of the downsides to meritocracy is that it may tend to standardized things too much and not leave much room for otherwise talented people who may not respond to traditional or standardized approaches.
There is also the concept of “equity” vs “equality”. Equality means we all get treated the same, which isn’t really practical or useful IMHO. Equity takes into account individual circumstances so that everyone can contribute to the best of their abilities. The example I’ve seen is if you are organizing a long distance bike ride, do you make sure everyone has the same bike (equality) or do you find bikes that are appropriate for the height, weight, skill level, etc of each participant (equity)?
I like to think of it in terms of equality of opportunity vs. outcome. We should all be given an equal opportunity to succeed (AKA free and good public education). What we do with that opportunity is up to each individual, and we shouldn’t be in the business of determining equality of outcome.
Honestly given that those things do indeed need to be done, I don’t really understand why they are so low on the ‘merit’ scale. Sure, a cardiologist needs to go through years of expensive training to reach the appropriate level of competence, but if the toilets and sewers are not mainitained, we (including the cardiologist) start dying of cholera and dysentery.
I tend to lean towards meritocracy - tho with significant support for those less able, ostensibly supported through taxes on the most capable. To a large extent, I believe a hard work ethic ought to be rewarded highly, rather than simply innate mental/emotional/physical attributes. I favor restrictions on passing family wealth between generations, and efforts to reduce income/wealth disparity. Finally, I favor affirmative action to benefit capable members of historically disadvantaged populations.
For those supporting meritocracy, what level of resources do you direct towards individuals of all ages who are unlikely to ever succeed based primarily on merit. What special education programs and workplace accommodations should be offered, and with what goals? And to what extent should elder care reflect one’s “merit” during their working years?
If the solid but unspectacular baker can make a decent living, and the exceptional baker makes much, much more as a result of the demand for his services, I’d say, yes, that’s how it ought to work.
At my last job before I retired, I earned well over 100K per annum, but I was extremely lazy, at least compared to some of my peers, who got offered promotions, salary increases, etc. more often than i did. I did an ok job [/quote]
Were you working a management/C-suite job? I’ve read that such positions are typically “the more you get paid, the less you have to work”
Considering that I have no idea what that means, I’d say “No.”
Many of my pals from college who graduated at the same time with roughly the same grades and abilities and charm and family money etc. as I had at age 22 have gone on to become vastly wealthy, or powerful, or important figures, certainly as compared to me, and I don’t begrudge them their present advantages over me, because they were willing to work hard to maximize their advantages in ways that I was not. I decided on a line of work that I understood no one got rich or famous at (without a hell of a lot of luck) but if I played my cards right, I’d make a decent living.
If the salaries in my chosen field were double what they are, and the upside ($$$, power, etc) of their chosen fields (law, finance, politics) were half of what they are, they would still have out-earned me by a considerable margin. So the principle still holds: work hard, do well, in challenging fields and you’ll do better than your lazier peers. They would still be on the covers of magazines and I’d still be a nobody, but the system would have still operated on the same exact principles.
(Maybe they’d own one fewer high-end car than they do now, or live in a five-bedroom mansion rather than a seven-bedroom one, I dont know.)
I’ve come to not particularly like Chris Hayes over the last decade but I do think his “Twilight of the Elites” makes reasonable arguments regarding the failures of American meritocracy and would be useful reading for those debating in this thread.
Those are all challenging questions, larger than the question of meritocracy. It comes down to the question of whether or not there is enough wealth (not money) to go around. I think in one sense, the problem of support for those less able to pay for services would self correct in a meritocracy. In a meritocracy we would have more and better paid service providers to provide for the needs of those who are unable to provide for themselves. Where would that money come from? From taxes on those who currently make their money based on their ownership of the means of production rather than their own merit (let’s take sport team owners as a traditional boogie man, but any ownership types who don’t really do anything but sign checks will suffice for this example). So we tax those people, and use that money to hire more farmers, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc. Of course we don’t want just anyone working those jobs, we want people who would do a good job (which would include things like work ethic, not just innate talent). Now we have all these new service providers with money to spend, money which previously was previously being hoarded by the billionaires. Is there going to be enough stuff for them to buy the luxuries and comforts that their newly earned money should buy? I don’t know, but it should be obvious that 100,000 people each making 100K per year are going to consume more than one billionaire making 10 billion per year. I don’t know if there’s enough “stuff” to go around in a new situation like that. But that’s a different question for a different thread.
It’s easy to say that you want the “best doctor” or the “best lawyer”, but the reality is that everyone can’t have the “best” (however it’s measured). So then we’re left to answer who deserves to have access to the “best”.
Ultimately we’ll end up getting back to defining someone’s “deserving” quality which will simply lead back to money and power. So in turn only the “best” people get the “best” stuff because they have to power to control access to it. And we’ll be back to defining “best” or most meritorious as most powerful or wealthy.
I agree that scarcity would become an issue, but I don’t think it would be at this level. I wouldn’t want the “best” doctor, because as you say, that means I’d be waiting for years to get care that I need now because I’m not a multi-billionaire. But from what I’ve seen, a very large majority of my fellow doctors are good enough / competent, and that’s a standard that I’m more than happy to settle for when it comes to medical care. In addition, in a meritocracy we would have more doctors because those who are capable and have the desire to pursue that career path, but lacked the opportunity, would be presented with that opportunity.
That isn’t to say scarcity wouldn’t be a problem in some areas. I just don’t think healthcare providers is it. If we as a society really wanted to spend the money, we could have enough competent healthcare providers to provide quality healthcare for everyone.
That’s another difficulty with evaluating merit; and another example of how it’s often difficult to separate individual merit from circumstances.
Is anybody in this thread claiming that that’s what should happen?
I see people saying that there should be some limit to the difference in pay; and also people saying that even those who can’t do a job well should get enough to live on. I don’t think I’ve seen anybody saying that everyone should be paid exactly the same, or for that matter that everybody should be kept on at a job no matter how badly they’re doing it, but maybe I missed it.
Indeed. The society requires that certain jobs be done, and then sneers at the people who do them. That makes no sense to me.
And many jobs considered “low skill” take more skill to do well than most of those who aren’t doing them realize.
What is “much, much more”?
Twice the amount of the non-exceptional baker? A hundred times as much? A billion dollars a year?
However much more the demand for his exceptional products leads to. I’ll speculate since I know nothing about this industry, but if we’re talking only about baking skills—e.g., nothing like the exceptional guy is so good that his brand leads to franchises—twice as much? Three times as much?
Demand is tough to gauge. But a bakery that gets steady traffic versus one where people are lined up out the door will see a lot less revenue, and the baker will get less dough (< tee hee!)…
. The exact differences in how much each of those people should be making gets tricky once we’re taking about real people. But I don’t think the correct answer is “everyone gets paid the same, no matter how good or bad the job they do is.”