The Tyranny of Merit

Process

	Status	Items
Highlights	Done	See section below
Claims	None
Questions	None
Output	None

Highlights

Page 23

It is easier to rise from poverty in Canada or Germany, Denmark, and other European countries than it is in the United States.
This is at odds with the long-standing faith that mobility is America’s answer to inequality. The United States, we tell ourselves, can afford to less about inequality than the class-bound societies of Europe because here, it is possible to rise. Seventy percent of Americans believe the poor can make it out of poverty on their own, while only 35 percent of Europeans think so. This faith in mobility may explain why the U.S. has a less-generous welfare state than most major European countries.

✏️ A cultural ideal of making it if you work hard has translated to limited welfare support. The propaganda is strong, but the reality is far from that.
📖 (Page 23)

Page 24

Morally, it is unclear why the talented deserve the outsize rewards that marketdriven societies lavish on the successful. Central to the case for the meritocratic ethic is the idea that we do not deserve to be rewarded, or held back, based on factors beyond our control. But is having (or lacking) certain talents really our own doing? If not, it is hard to see why those who rise thanks to their talents deserve greater rewards than those who may be equally hardworking but less endowed with the gifts a market society happens to prize.

✏️ Digging into the core issue.. Are people only deserving of reward if they’re talented or skillful.. And how do we decide which talents are desired.. And what does that say about talents that are important but not “desired”, and how that’s not rewarded.
📖 (Page 24)

Page 25

Meritocratic hubris reflects the tendency of winners to inhale too deeply of their success, to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way. It is the smug conviction of those who land on top that they deserve their fate, and that those on the bottom deserve theirs, too. This attitude is the moral companion of technocratic politics.

✏️ The side effect of meritocracy.. Hubris and humiliation. Arrogance and resentment.
📖 (Page 25)

Page 28

Our technocratic version of meritocracy severs the link between merit and moral judgment. In the domain of the economy, it simply assumes that the common good is defined by GDP, and that the value of people’s contributions consists in the market value of the goods or services they sell. In the domain of government, it assumes that merit means technocratic expertise.
This can be seen in the growing role of economists as policy advisors, the increasing reliance on market mechanisms to define and achieve the public good, and the failure of public discourse to address the large moral and civic questions that should be at the center of political debate: What should we do about rising inequality? What is the moral significance of national borders? What makes for the dignity of work? What do we owe one another as citizens?

✏️ Supposedly, traditional political meritocracy consider merits as those that help govern, and include moral and civic virtue.
Modern day, merit is not moral-related. It’s about economy, GDP, etc.
Less about cultivating solidarity and bonds of citizenship, more about satisfying consumer preference as measured by GDP.
📖 (Page 28)