The Meritocracy Myth = The American Dream?

[flashl]

According to the ideology of the American Dream, America is the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it. Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit, which is generally viewed as a combination of factors including innate abilities, working hard, having the right attitude, and having high moral character and integrity. Americans not only tend to think that is how the system should work, but most Americans also think that is how the system does work (Huber and Form 1973, Kluegel and Smith 1986, Ladd 1994).

In our book The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), <http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/isbn/0742510565>, we challenge the validity of these commonly held assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how people think the system works and how the system actually does work. We refer to this gap as “the meritocracy myth,” or the myth that the system distributes resources—especially wealth and income—according to the merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility. We summarize these arguments below. First, however, we take a brief look at what is at stake. That is, what is up for grabs in the race to get ahead?

There are a variety of ways to depict America’s unequal distributions of income and wealth. Income refers to how much one earns and wealth refers to how much one owns. Although Americans tend to think of income as coming from wages and salaries, there are actually two sources of income. In addition to income from wages and salaries, income also includes sources of revenue that are unrelated to jobs, such as income from capital gains, dividends, interest payments, and some forms of government aid (“welfare” including food stamps and the like). In some cases, these sources of income are related to prior but not current employment (e.g. social security payments, pensions). Wealth does not refer to a revenue stream, but to assets that one owns such as houses, cars, personal belongings, businesses, nonresidential real estate, stocks and bonds, trusts, and other financial assets. These assets can further be distinguished between those that tend to depreciate in value (e.g. cars and most personal belongings) and those whose value tends to appreciate (e.g. business, real estate, stocks, etc.). In general, the more wealth one has, the more likely that wealth derives from sources of ownership that tend to appreciate in value. Net worth refers to the difference between assets (what one owns) and liabilities (what one owes). Net worth is an accurate measure of what one is really “worth.”


Read Entire Article

[Hoof Hearted]

1. That looks like an exellent book. If I were continuing sociology I would

definately buy it. I didn't see a publishing date, wonder if I can get it for cheap on Amazon.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who believe with all of their cold, cold hearts that if people are poor it's because there's something wrong with them.

[flashl]

2. The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)

The current financial mess should be proof, but its not.

[Evergreen2U]

3. Hits the nail on the head

The ideas elaborated here hit the nail on the head.

We do not have a meritocracy, never have, never will.

Thus when I received an email from a Republican friend, who I thought was a caring individual, about grasshoppers & ants and how the Democrats give all the hard working ants' money away to the irresponsible grasshoppers...I had a strong gag reflex.

This email non humor overwhelmingly tries to reinforce the belief that we get what we deserve and we shouldn't help the poor and needy: that only ants have personal responibility and integrity becasue...they have wealth. It is sort of like the old Calvinist thinking about Wealthy=the Elect.

[flashl]

4. Somehow equality never enters into the equation.

[bryant69]

17. What kinf of equality are you talking about?

Equality of outcome? or equality of opportunity?

If one guy is a lazy bum and never does shit, should he succeed as much as someone who works hard and contributes to society?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[flashl]

19. Where is the equity in a system that is OK with a

private equity parasite earning $57K per hour while 7M are unemployed?

[bryant69]

21. where is the equity in a system that rewards sloth and hard work the same n/t

[flashl]

22. How is the equity in the U.S. economy working for you?

[bryant69]

24. Ooo good comeback.

Well I make $38,000 a year and have a certain amount of savings - presumably that disqualifies me from having an opinion on this issue?

Hey, how did communism end up working out for the Russian Serfs?

Bryant

[flashl]

25. The point that I trying to make, the plain meaning of meritocracy

is noble, its practice in the U.S. supports the fleecing of Americans.

[Tyler Durden]

26. Red Herring, bryant.

Nobody used the "C" word.

My Late Father, a "Rockefeller Republican" used to BRAG that during the high tax rate years of the 50's and 60's he bought 2 houses, paid cash for a new car every two years (owning two of them) and still could afford to save money and take his family on a nice vacation.

If you're talking about the rich in this country, frankly you don't qualify, and if you don't see that YOU are one of those getting SOAKED by the CEO making Megabucks, then you need glasses.

The money is being soaked up by billionaires, NOT by welfare queens: that's REAGANITE thinking.

[bryant69]

27. Looking for Equality as a societal goal is akin to communism

I probably did jump the gun there, though.

I believe in equality of opportunity; and it's clear that in America we don't have that. But even if we did have equality of opportunity, some people would fail, because of bad luck or mistakes or other reasons. Other people would succeed.

Bryant

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. Yeah okay, why don't we cross that bridge when we have equality of opportunity?

Because right now we don't and the "bootstraps" myth still prevails.

[Tyler Durden]

29. Equality of base opportunity should be the goal....

As in equal schools, single payer healthcare, and a working wage. Beyond that, under the current system the playing field cannot be level.

But, you have to admit that the upper 1% ARE NOT paying their way. The majority of tax dollars are paid by you and me at our level, and that is why unregulated Capitalism (or any equivalent system) will always commit suicide: those at the top of the pyramid forget that you have to have a strong and sound BASE or the pyramid will collapse. They game the system, buy out the authorities and then the system slowly crumbles.

You cannot guarantee success; but the system that allows the Mega-Rich to exist virtually untaxed while a child in West Virginia can still go to adulthood illiterate and without seeing a dentist except for extractions is immoral, and the more MORAL a system is, the more STABLE it is.

[blindpig]

30. So, if one guy is a lazy bum...

and 20 others are hard workers that the system is shitting on then we should punish all that the lazy bum be punished? That's collective punishment.

[Deja Q]

7. Ask him to explain Windows Vista and see how far he can get.

:7

(Especially after telling him its 5 year development history...)

There are lots of other examples too; many of which involve offshoring. :(

[Hoof Hearted]

9. Sounds like your friend has been snorting some ants.

Ants and grasshoppers? Seriously. WTF?


Welcome to DU, btw. :hi:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. K&R n/t

[Cerridwen]

6. K & R

And bookmark so I can get the book name and see if it's at the library.

[Selatius]

8. America is the land of limited opportunity.

In a true meritocracy, there would be no such thing as people born into wealth. A meritocracy means a man stands on his own regardless of his father's name. It doesn't exist in the United States. It's possible for a person to become rich through ingenuity and the right opportunities, but largely, most of the people who find themselves in the top 1% as far as wealth were already born into wealth. They used their connections to further increase their wealth. They didn't make it on their own.

It's like the US has already developed an aristocracy in the span of less than 300 years.

[Thothmes]

13. Out of idle curiosity

What country on this planet works any other way? What current nation rates being labled a true meritocracy?

[raccoon]

15. Thank you! I'd say, none of them. In the US we have the myth though.

Don't know if other countries have that myth.

[pitohui]

18. in other countries you aren't judged cruelly because you weren't born into the elite

in the usa, the big lie is told that CEOs are successful because of merit and if you aren't one, then you are a low value person who didn't work hard enough

in other countries everybody knows the score and even where there is class prejudice there is recognition that you were born into your class and it was beyond your control

in america the biggest predictor of your future wealth is the wealth of your father and it has been that way since reagan times, but we still try to make people feel bad for being poor or working class or lower middle class -- hell, even being middle middle class is sneered at now -- if you can't afford to have polished televangelist teeth and botox then you're a loser and ugly too

our emphasis on judging people by their teeth is part of the class warfare, since dental care is an area where costs are out of control, insurance really doesn't help much, and we can cruelly judge someone as old, meth-addicted, or otherwise sub-human when the reality is that teeth over 40 just plain require many thousands of dollars worth of maintenance -- that's one example that doesn't exist in other countries where it's recognized that teeth can be imperfect without it being a reflection on your character

[Thothmes]

20. Would Disagree.

The predictor of your future wealth is the wealth of you father started a long time before Reagan. Rockefeller, Kennedy, Morgan, Roosevelt, Ford, all accumulated large fortunes many decades ago. Their descendants since then have always been viewed in a different class than the majority of Americans. Some in fact some of them today are held in almost religious awe.

[raccoon]

23. Great post, especially about the teeth.

In fact, the condition of a person's teeth, especially after about age 40, is a pretty good indicator of your socio-economic status.

[Selatius]

31. There is no such thing. Nations can attempt to come close, though. Social Democracies come closest.

There, the tax code is basically built upon the premise of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." Our tax code works in the opposite direction where wealth is taxed less than labor.

[Swamp Rat]

10. Idiocracy = America

[flashl]

11. If it is reasonable to say ...

that most would agree that meritocracy is a myth. How should dialog in this country change?

[Smith_3]

12. Simple but definitive disproof of meritocracy:

This man:



Fucked up everything he has ever touched and still gets to be president.

[Angela Shelley]

14. Thanks for the post

[pitohui]

16. anyone with eyes in their head must know that

how removed do you have to be from reality NOT to notice that the people who get the top spots are the people who are related to other rich people? you find that out about ten seconds after college graduation just from a cursory examination of the board of directors where you work

"merit" may mean the different between working at walmart and working in a large corporation with real health insurance benefits, so going for an education is not TOTALLY without value

however those who think their "merit" will be rewarded by a top CEO-ship one of these fine days, who don't have the right college, family, and connections, are those who are destined to be angry and unhappy in their middle and older years because realistically this just doesn't happen

it's similar to the ghetto kids who figure sports is their way to millions, sure, for some tiny percentage that's true, but for most people, no matter how hard you work, it just ain't gonna happen, there aren't enough slots in this world for "stars" compared to a world population of billions

if you think your net worth is a reflection of how hard you have worked or your intrinsic value, i feel very sorry for you because you will never be happy unless you chose your parents very, very, very carefully