Is the United States a Meritocracy?

[Cooky]

There was a ballot in the 2020 California election called Proposition 16, that would have legalized the selection of employees based on race rather than merit. Of course this initiative was rejected by the California electorate, but I would like to discuss with fellow RF members their views on this. Would you support ending the prohibition of government institutions considering race, sex and ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education..? Would some actually like to see public employers choosing staff based on race, sex, and ethnicity..? Is the United States a meritocracy..? Just curious.

 

[Secret Chief]

Depends on the job. Father Christmas for instance...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We aren't a meritocracy. As evidence: the 1%, who didn't increase production but have continued to have wealth assigned to them from the production of others, which have decreased in earnings or stayed the same in earnings.
You don't need to be skilled to get a position in the majority of the US, just have resources other people don't. That's part of the problem, and why social justice to correct for imbalances in distribution that exist.

 

[McBell]

Is the United States a Meritocracy

Spoiler

No, it isn't.

 

[exchemist]

There was a ballot in the 2020 California election called Proposition 16, that would have legalized the selection of employees based on race rather than merit. Of course this initiative was rejected by the California electorate, but I would like to discuss with fellow RF members their views on this. Would you support ending the prohibition of government institutions considering race, sex and ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education..? Would some actually like to see public employers choosing staff based on race, sex, and ethnicity..? Is the United States a meritocracy..? Just curious.

Well it's obviously not a meritocracy. Those with money and influential connections are able to open doors for themselves and those they favour, including their families, that can't easily be opened by those without money and influence. Even your politicians need a lot of money just to get elected.

I'll leave the debate about positive discrimination, which is obviously where you are going with this thread, for others. But do not kid yourself you live in a meritocracy at the outset, that's all.

 

[epronovost]

Like all places in the world, there is a degree of merit-based selection in the US. Then there is a lot of other stuff like nepotism, cryonism and the like. Plus "merit" itself is often a very subjective notion that will be influenced by a person's bias and values. Why I consider highly meritious and what you consider highly meritious might be different.

Would I mind sex, ethnicity or other traits of the sort being used, amongst other characteristics, to select public employments? I would hate the idea unless it has relevence for the post being occupied. If you have a bureau in charge of affairs with First Nation members living in your jurisdiction. It make sense to have a member of the said First Nation at that post. Being a member of a relevent First Nation is an advantage over being just some shmuck for such a job. For, let say, a school teacher, race, gender, ethnicity should have no special consideration.

On another note, I would not mind having such trait employed as a "tie breaker" to advantage oppressed groups.

 

[sun rise]

What others have written: the US is far from a meritocracy. Gender, race, wealth are determining factors for many if not most jobs although that is getting weaker especially for gender.

Would you support ending the prohibition of government institutions considering race, sex and ethnicity in the areas of public employment,

President-elect Biden has stated that his cabinet should reflect America. There is true merit in having diverse voices from different perspectives involved with decision making. So I 100% support his aim because I see the merit in his effort.

As far as other careers and jobs go, it depends. I want my surgeon chosen based solely on merit. In other cases, diversity is important. My wife considers gender in our doctor important because women have traditionally had trouble with male doctors.

So tell me the job and I'll tell you if I consider race, sex and ethnicity important for that job but I refuse to be drawn into an incorrect "one size fits all" choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it's a meritocracy, but think of it as a general
tendency because of the exceptions. Also, what
"constitutes" merit is a tricky thing. Politicians
are judged primarily on their ability to run for
office, more so than ability to do the job.
And this varies with election vs re-election.
Complicated, eh.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, it's a meritocracy, but think of it as a general
tendency because of the exceptions. Also, what
"constitutes" merit is a tricky thing. Politicians
are judged primarily on their ability to run for
office, more so than ability to do the job.
And this varies with election vs re-election.
Complicated, eh.

Not in complete agreement (so of course I voted beats me).

In many ways, it can be. Good employees doing good work often enough seem to earn the rewards that go along -- and to that extent, yes it can be a meritocracy.

But the OP also talks about demographics that often do not get a fair chance to prove their merit. I mean, if you can't get the job, you can't prove your worth. If you're female and can't break through the ceiling, you can't show your real stuff. If you're gay, you're already better than the rest -- you just won't be believed. (Okay, I made that last bit up. )

I do agree that something more than 100% that politicians need to excel at getting elected, but have zero need to demonstrate their job-related skills once they get in. And they very often don't, which doesn't seem to hurt much. (For example, I would never be alone in a dark space with Mitch McConnell -- even though I'm no threat to him, he'd probably shiv me anyway. )

 

[osgart]

It takes skill to survive. Other then that there are people who have wealth advantages without earning any of it. So yes, and no!

My impression is that the average American is poor, or financially burdened.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But on balance, I do not believe in the kind of affirmative action that will select a candidate from a disadvantaged demographic over superior ability.

Where differences in ability are indistinguishable, I think that it can be a reasonable thing to select the candidate from the disadvantaged demographic.

I also think that if you get too carried away doing that, you may find yourself getting into difficulty, primarily because you are going to be, eventually, asked to "prove" that differences in ability actually were indistinguishable -- and you'll have a lot of trouble with that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are not as cutthroat as a meritocracy. We're more like a mixture of a meritocracy and a tribal system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not in complete agreement (so of course I voted beats me).

In many ways, it can be. Good employees doing good work often enough seem to earn the rewards that go along -- and to that extent, yes it can be a meritocracy.

But the OP also talks about demographics that often do not get a fair chance to prove their merit. I mean, if you can't get the job, you can't prove your worth. If you're female and can't break through the ceiling, you can't show your real stuff. If you're gay, you're already better than the rest -- you just won't be believed. (Okay, I made that last bit up. )

I do agree that something more than 100% that politicians need to excel at getting elected, but have zero need to demonstrate their job-related skills once they get in. And they very often don't, which doesn't seem to hurt much. (For example, I would never be alone in a dark space with Mitch McConnell -- even though I'm no threat to him, he'd probably shiv me anyway. )

The Ideal Gas Law doesn't predict exactly.
But the trend is there nonetheless.
BTW, I've known disadvantaged people who
did well because of merit.

 

[Sunstone]

No, it isn't.

Darn it! It's too soon for spoilers! The suspense was just beginning to mount, and then you gave it away.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Ideal Gas Law doesn't predict exactly.
But the trend is there nonetheless.
BTW, I've known disadvantaged people who
did well because of merit.

I am, in fact, an example! Gay, orphan, wrecked childhood, VP of IT. Not bad...

I once visited a bookstore in LA (on Santa Monica) where a gay guy was giving a talk on his book. I was at the UCLA guest house on a conference for senior IT execs. He was going on about how unfair business was to gays -- and when I asked why he had to be gay at work, instead of a professional employee, I was escorted out of the store.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am, in fact, an example! Gay, orphan, wrecked childhood, VP of IT. Not bad...

I once visited a bookstore in LA (on Santa Monica) where a gay guy was giving a talk on his book. I was at the UCLA guest house on a conference for senior IT execs. He was going on about how unfair business was to gays -- and when I asked why he had to be gay at work, instead of a professional employee, I was escorted out of the store.

So you're a troublemaker, eh.
One penniless orphan I know became worth several
hundred million dollars. Picked the right business,
& worked like a dog for decades.

 

[Valjean]

Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, Aristocracy, Old boy's network.

 

[Father Heathen]

You can work hard, even taking on extra shifts or a second job, and still find yourself spinning your wheels or even sliding into debt (don't get hurt or sick!). It's a lot more about starting out with connections and affluence rather than honest effort from the ground up.

 

[McBell]

Darn it! It's too soon for spoilers! The suspense was just beginning to mount, and then you gave it away.

I fixed it for you

 

[Sunstone]

I fixed it for you

ROFLMAO!