[anatari]

These things aren't binary. I believe the USA is more meritocratic than it's not. Also depends on what you define as merit. Is having capital a merit? In the eyes of the economy anything that has utility has merit, and capital certainly has very high utility.

B) Yes, meritocracies are not equal by definition, but again, I think it is more fair than not. Fair does not mean equal, it means being "thought to be right" so it will depend on each person's morality. I for one, certainly do not want to live in a world where good health has no advantages over bad health, even if I was unhealthy.

[FLUX-YOU]

There was a blog post here recently that I can't find. It spoke about how someone starting from the bottom of the labor pool and getting promotions to middle management. The blog made the analogy that he'd climbed a mountain from the base to a certain height.

In another example, there's another person born with access to wealth, connections, and high-quality education. This one can reach the peak much more easily because he started higher on the mountain, but in both examples, the same amount of 'distance' was covered.

The second example could easily find a job as middle management and just coast through life. That's not really impressive given his starting conditions. He hasn't really moved much on the mountain if he decides to do this (maybe even going backwards).

In a meritocracy, the praise for this absolute progress is lost because the goal posts on the mountain are more-or-less sticky, slowly pushed higher as technology and social advances moves us towards bigger accomplishments. Also, the slope of the mountain is steeper when it's closer to the earth, which is often shaped by the powerful.

No one will likely give you a higher salary despite that you struggled through awful jobs, tight budgets, and many other inconveniences of not having wealth. They don't care how you acquired the 'skills' you have, as long as you have them.

This is fairly obvious stuff, but a meritocracy that ignores this other dimension of merit really irks me. America in particular (only because I live here) is a society that really doesn't reward this other dimension of effort but continues to use the feel-good narrative of hard work and long hours for whatever purposes.

Of course I'd have a completely different view on American meritocracy if we were in a real post-scarcity world.

[loup-vaillant]

> * In the eyes of the economy anything that has utility has merit, and capital certainly has very high utility.*

Depends on your utility function. Capital can certainly prove very useful for whoever is wilding it, but the near-edge of this sword can easily cut us when the wielder happens to be a sadistic psychopath. Or when the power of money corrupts the wielder. Or when the costs of building that capital (externalities such as pollution, rip-offs, lay-offs…) outweigh any later benefit…

> Fair […] [depends] on each person's morality.

Luckily, we humans appear to have a fairly stable morality across individuals. (There are psychological experiments on moral dilemmas, and as far as I know, they indicate we agree on most of the important things. Though there are some "off-switches" in our moral systems —religion, "following orders"…)

> * I for one, certainly do not want to live in a world where good health has no advantages over bad health, even if I was unhealthy.*

There are two aspects you need to keep track of. On the one hand, the absolute advantage, and on the other, the comparative advantage.

Height for instance is a comparative advantage. We tend to look up to taller people, merely because they are taller. So they're more followed, they "get all the girls", better jobs, and so on. But if everyone was taller, it wouldn't change a thing. That's a purely comparative advantage.

Health on the other hand has an absolute component. If we were suddenly immune to all diseases, the world would be a significantly better place.

In other words, you wouldn't care if everyone was taller, but you would like everyone to be healthy.

[CJefferson]

Look at many articles, including this one: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america...

I'm afraid the USA is much less meritocratic than Europe. In the USA, the class into which you are born is a more important factor in where you will end up than it is in Europe (which I realise is the opposite to most people's belief).

[yummyfajitas]

Unless you have evidence that merit is uncorrelated with class, your data does not support your conclusion.

[nhaehnle]

Yeah, CJefferson probably expressed her/himself badly in what s/he was trying to say, but there are better ways to express that - your response comes across as snarky and trolling (and yes, I know who you are).

For certain definitions of "merit", it is obvious and plain for everybody to see that class has a great impact on "merit". From conception, the children of upper class parents have an advantage that ends up being visible in fairly objective measures of e.g. intelligence.

This is not what the debate is about, though. Actually, anatari already pointed this out; I quote: " Also depends on what you define as merit. [...]"

[barry-cotter]

Intergenerational social mobility is basically invariant across human societies. See The Son Also Rises, Gregory Clark.

Sweden, Britain, China, almost identical. Note, China, communism, cultural revolution and all didn't have any lasting effect on social mobility.

[quasque]

I guess you're thinking of an unlikely "Harrison Bergeron" type of scenario. But if such a world was instead achieved instead via highly advanced medicine and universal access to health care, then why not? I would consider that a best case scenario for humanity's future.