Meritocracy is a system in which those who possess coveted talents, abilities, or superior intellectual capabilities attain high level, prestigious executive positions while those lacking these abilities are slated to the lower to middle ranks of society.
See data from the Federal Reserve Board for details. These tables show that the distributions of income and especially wealth are highly skewed.
The top 20 Meritocracy thesis of American households, for instance, receive a large Meritocracy thesis of the total amount of available income The distribution of wealth measured by net worth is even more highly skewed. These distributions are relevant to the myth of meritocracy in several ways.
The highly skewed distribution of economic outcomes, however, appears quite in excess of any reasonable distribution of merit. There has to be more to the story than that.
Since wealth is less tied to achievement than income, the amount of influence of intelligence on wealth is much less. There is no way to determine for certain, for instance, how many potential world-class violinists there are in the general population but who have never once picked up a violin.
Applying talents is also necessary.
Working hard is often seen in this context as part of the merit formula. Heads nod in acknowledgment whenever hard work is mentioned in conjunction with economic success. Rarely is this assumption questioned. But what exactly do we mean by hard work? Does it mean the number of hours expended in the effort to achieve a goal?
Does it mean the amount of energy or sheer physical exertion expended in the completion of tasks? In fact, those who work the most hours and expend the most effort at least physically are often the most poorly paid in society.
By contrast, the really big money in America comes not from working at all but from owning, which requires no expenditure of effort, either physical or mental.
In short, working hard is not in and of itself directly related to the amount of income and wealth that individuals have. Again, the story here is mixed. First, it is not clear which particular mix of attitudes, outlooks, or frames of mind are associated with economic success.
The kind of mental outlook that would be an advantage in one field of endeavor, may be a disadvantage in another field of endeavor. Second, the direction of influence is not always clear.
Recent evidence reported in this journal Wynn, and elsewhere Barnes, Gould ;, Wilson,however, indicates that poor people appear to value work, family, school, and achievement as much as other Americans. If you do not know where your next meal is coming from, you essentially have no choice but to be focused on immediate needs first and foremost.
Similarly, the poor may report more modest ambitions than the affluent, not because they are unmotivated, but because of a realistic assessment of limited life chances.Share Why the myth of a perfect meritocracy is so pernicious Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy.
The thesis of Success and Luck is The idea of a meritocracy is a pleasant abstraction. Meritocracy, Inequality and Elitism in Singapore’s Education System: An Essay.
The following short essay provides an insight into issues of inequality within the nation’s meritocratic. Davis-Moore Thesis The assertion that social stratification exists in every society because it has beneficial consequences for the operation of society. The greater the functional importance of a position the more rewards society attaches to it.
The meritocracy thesis: (1) Assume we make progress toward the equalization of environments--to the degree that occurs, all remaining talent differences between people will . Meritocracy is a system in which those who possess coveted talents, abilities, or superior intellectual capabilities attain high level, prestigious executive positions while those lacking these.
It’s the despotic protection of political power at the expense of innocent Chinese, and further evidence that China’s meritocracy, like U.S.
democracy, is a glorious project but still little.