[mikemike]

you ignore the fact that there are plenty of non-American self made millionaires all over the world, by focusing only on the richest. And surely non-Americans also have access to non-monetary axes of social power, the asme as Americans. The point there is this: no matter what the starting circumstances, a certain few will make it big in each generation. This is always so, and really has little to do with social or tax policy etc.

In other parts of the world, the determinants of success for who are those certain few in the generation are not as equally distributed as they are in America (at least by american moral norms), you go to China and being a member of the communist party in good standing is a prerequisite for business success. In Russia for this generation, becoming an oligarch was based on smuggling, corruption, and basically organized criminal behavior. In many parts of the developing world, being powerful is based on military might. Like you said in another thread, there are no "self-made millionaires" its timing, a little luck, vision, hard work, talent, discipline, and it takes help.

But I would much rather see someone succeed because they invented something incredibly useful and then hired help to bring it to market than to see that person's innovation co-opted and handed over to someone else because they are more politically connected as happens elsewhere.

You can't legistlate against the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, but you sure can send them to live in a tax haven. However, your policies can (and perhaps ought to) try to equalize income differences between the Hermans Hermits, say, and that unknown skiffle band that never made it big.

It would be hard to argue that any other society does a better job at nurturing and developing talent to a level worthy of the world stage than the united states. Look at they olympics, the US is either the top team or a contender in virtually every sport because our very informal system allows the talent to develop at the grass roots level and not only are our athletes talented athletically, they have a well balanced education. China and the Soviets before them had a system where talent was identified early and separated them from the rest to sports academies where they are trained for years starting at an early age.

While I don't agree with every band the market chooses as talented, I couldn't imagine transferring the income from seriously talented bands or even middling bands to trashy bands that have marginal musical talent. Like I said its a meritocracy, if your good you succeed and if you suck you fail. The market even weeds out the fakers who are picked by record companies to break through the meritocracy system as "pop stars" they get their 15 minutes of fame and they recede into obscurity. Actual talent has staying power and is able to succeed wildly for extended periods of time.

[GeneV]

Mike, I don't see an answer to any question I asked. If this is a meritocracy, then the best make the most money? Do you have any evidence that really shows that? Did Bill Gates make the "best" OS? Are these CEOs and fund managers really so superhuman that the "merit" the bizarre spread in compensation, or is something other than "merit" at work here.

You can list inherited wealth pretty much endlessly for Europe and the U.S. I'd say Cavendish and his Grosvenor company did a lot more with what he inherited than a few U.S. heirs I could name. (By the way, it could be argued Britain is the more like the U.S. in its economic policies than most countries on the continent, and the earnings disparity is higher than on the continent)

It is futile to try to prove that the U.S. is more of a meritocracy than Europe, and a focus on the rich is a very small piece of life and not very representative. IMO, there is a huge degree of luck involved in striking it really rich, in addition to talent. You would have to go class by class or job by job to make that claim with any credibility.

For example, let's say a bright young man wants to be an engineer. In most northern European countries, he passes a test, and he is in college prep courses. He passes another test, and he goes to engineering school--completely free. He studies for years and passes another test and he is an engineer. During the entire time, he may concentrate only on excelling in his studies. In the U.S. and he is rich, his path is similar to that in Europe. If he is not, there are many more obstacles to his getting through college. He must find and borrow money for tuition or he must work and delay or dilute his studies, and he must find a way to live, he may also need to find a way to care for children, and on and on. Which system is an engineering meritocracy?

[Nesster]

... there is a useful distinction to be drawn here... I used the rock music example just for fun, but if you read Bill Gates for the Beatles, and his top 20 architects as Hermans Hermits...

It goes something like this: Gates benefitted from drive, luck, circumstance, commitment, good advice, good partners, ruthlesness... etc etc etc. Some inherent in him, some not. He isn't the best programmer at Microsoft, nor necessarily the greatest visionary.

His top 20 are the creative meritocracy in code/product terms... they may be better coders or visionaries in their areas than Gates, and certainly their financial success is still outsize by anyone else's yardstick.

I submit that a similar situation can and does occur in Europe, Japan, China... Nokia or Toyota etc wouldn't be what they are without something like this. (In fact, an institutional failure to nourish this at GM/Ford/Chrysler I believe may be a big part in those companies' problems.)

But corporations cannot and do not wish to live by an army of geniuses. Rather they want systems and processes and organization where interchageable (in theory) people can produce without the need for exceptional ability. (Actually, I see this as roughly equivalent of nationally run sports programs, for several reasons, but leave that aside...)

Look at the early history of a major communications boom: the telegraph. There was a time the telegraph was the equivalent of the early internet boom: everyone was trying it, massive amounts of captial was sunk into infrastructure, buyouts and IPOs and mergers and bankrupcies were constant... and the skilled telegraph operator was like a top computer techie now: in great demand for the SKILL. The companies bid up talent...

But it all came to an end, as mechanized telegraphy was perfected. They engineered the human skill out, and telegraph operator pay crashed, and the booming field became a minor aspect...

So, to what degree does a meritocracy clash with the need for thousands of mundane corporate drones? For whatever reason, a good majority of people find their levels and stick there... The existence of this level does help provide both a source of potential stars, and the necessary insitutional support of the existing stars.

To the degree a Brit can't be in this big grey middle due to class, yes, the US would be 'ahead'. But I don't see that in practice, leaving aside a minority in both cases. For every Peer there are thousands of historically discriminated minorities in the US that - theory aside - are not represented proportinately in the big middle of corporate life.

Of course, there's a meritocracy in a meritocracy, i.e. at each level. So among us corporate drones there's one in operation... I would argue, and us who are old timers at large companies often do, that the outsourcing of operations, programming, customer service, research, etc etc etc. saves money in the short term... but where is the next generation of middle manager leaders coming from - the ones that used to rise through the ranks?

It is true that when I look at my European colleagues, often it seems their lives are more regular, the steps more defined, than with the wilder, wide open American style. Yet, I see merit rising there as well as here... perhaps I don't see the fear that may drive some Americans, as those who are content where they are tend to feel more secure about their jobs etc.

[Ira]

Are you saying Starbucks serves decent coffee in a quick and courteous way?

Laughable.

Jason

So millions of customers worldwide are wrong? And only Americans love McDonalds?

People bitch about these companies because they're American symbols, not because of the quality of the product. It isn't based on anything but xenophobia and a perverted sense of nationalism and perceived "American Imperialism."

And they bitch about it between gobbling down those fries.

To argue with the success of these companies and products in foreign lands...success as judged by the average person...now THAT'S laughable!

[causey]

So millions of customers worldwide are wrong? And only Americans love McDonalds?

People bitch about these companies because they're American symbols, not because of the quality of the product.

The quality of McDonalds' products? Not from a health perspective, I guess. And even otherwise: it seems more like well marketed and packed lack of quality, the kind that makes people forget about quality.

To argue with the success of these companies and products in foreign lands...success as judged by the average person...now THAT'S laughable!

Sure--it's only that market success does not necessarily mean quality, nor merit.

[GeneV]

So millions of customers worldwide are wrong? And only Americans love McDonalds?

People bitch about these companies because they're American symbols, not because of the quality of the product. It isn't based on anything but xenophobia and a perverted sense of nationalism and perceived "American Imperialism."

And they bitch about it between gobbling down those fries.

To argue with the success of these companies and products in foreign lands...success as judged by the average person...now THAT'S laughable!

Millions of people use cocaine, too.

No, McDonald's food isn't as bad for you as cocaine, but quality and sales are two distinct issues. Again, I think a better comparison would be if a French company came here and tried to sell a knock-off of McDonalds food. Even if it were pretty good, we'd probably resent it.

[Nesster]

It is only partly the food or coffee. One of our major exports is culture: movies, music, advertising, multinational brands. There's resentment over this. To an outsider, the USA sometimes seems self-concerned and lacking cultural understanding, i.e. we don't accept what we expect other countries to accept from us.

[Wheatfield]

Why are Europeans and Canadians so pissed off about Starbucks? And can't write an article critical of the U.S. without mentioning it?

Is it our fault that you guys can't make a decent cup of coffee, nor serve it quickly and courteously to the customer?

I'm pissed off at Starbucks because they can't serve a decent cup of coffee, period.
OTOH, my locally owned coffee shop does a very good job of it, both serving a quality product and doing it in a timely fashion.

The resilient human spirit is a unique thing, but only some countries have it, and some just don't.

And that is a pile of crap.

God forbid we lived in a meritocracy! Then someone would have to be in charge with applying some criteria of merit. Capitalism, well managed or not, is better. (In capitalism, merit = what sells.)

So what did paris Hilton do that is meritorious? Does supporting the cocaine trade count?

It is only partly the food or coffee. One of our major exports is culture: movies, music, advertising, multinational brands. There's resentment over this. To an outsider, the USA sometimes seems self-concerned and lacking cultural understanding, i.e. we don't accept what we expect other countries to accept from us.

To an outsider, the USA more often seems like a gang of hypocritical thugs than a civilized country.

[GeneV]

It is only partly the food or coffee. One of our major exports is culture: movies, music, advertising, multinational brands. There's resentment over this. To an outsider, the USA sometimes seems self-concerned and lacking cultural understanding, i.e. we don't accept what we expect other countries to accept from us.

There is also a concern about the sheer ubiquity of those U.S. exports. Heck, it is a fear of mine. I remember the last time I was in the Greenwich Village area of NYC, and stood on a corner in eyeshot of two Starbucks where local coffee shops were once in abundance. It will be even sadder if I see the same thing on a corner in Paris.

On the other hand, despite what several say about the quality of Starbucks coffee, I also remember how the appearance of a Starbucks in the small Texas town where I grew up improved the coffee in that town immensely. I suppose as with many things, the question about its quality is "compared to what?" Wheatfied's folks did a better job, ours didn't.

[mikemike]

The quality of McDonalds' products? Not from a health perspective, I guess. And even otherwise: it seems more like well marketed and packed lack of quality, the kind that makes people forget about quality.

While I will dog pile on the nutritional value of McDonald's I would say that they do have quality down in one sense of the term, consistency. It might be consistently mediocre, but it is consistent. If I am traveling in the middle of nowhere, Ohio and the only two dining choices in town are Greta's Diner and McDonalds I will pick the McDonalds and deal with the gastrointestinal consequences if I am not feeling adventurous.

One of my favorite things about New Orleans is that we are virtually devoid of national chain restaurants like Applebees, Red Lobster, TGI Fridays, etc. Of course we have the fast food joints but the sit down places just haven't been able to compete and break into the market. Local coffee shops even managed to keep Starbucks out, one opened in the early 2000s but it did not do well and it wasn't until right after Katrina that they were able to open any more; today there are still only 9 of them in the entire metro area. Not having the cookie cutter Americana gives a city a lot more character.

[causey]

So what did paris Hilton do that is meritorious? Does supporting the cocaine trade count?

When I said that in capitalism merit = what sells, of course I wasn't talking of merit in the proper sense. Rather, I was defining the capitalistic notion of merit (different from the proper one). Paris Hilton doesn't have merits I know of--which illustrates the point I was trying to make. That being said, the idea of meritocracy implies the notion of a committee of experts in who deserves what. Meritocracy would be a tyranny, and I tend to think even unmanaged capitalism is better than any tyranny. Which isn't to say I believe capitalism should go unregulated.

---------- Post added 09-24-10 at 11:52 PM ----------

While I will dog pile on the nutritional value of McDonald's I would say that they do have quality down in one sense of the term, consistency. It might be consistently mediocre, but it is consistent. If I am traveling in the middle of nowhere, Ohio and the only two dining choices in town are Greta's Diner and McDonalds I will pick the McDonalds and deal with the gastrointestinal consequences if I am not feeling adventurous.

I have to agree with you on this.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Just to clarify: on discussions like this, I always see people pointing to capitalism as a political model, which ends devoiding it of it's meaning. It's an economical model, so watch out to not mix issues.

Capitalism is an economical model. Meritocracy is an ideology, which can or not be used as guiding rule to a government organization model, like democracy.

And specially, one has nothing to do with the other. Capitalism coexisted with political models other than democracy since it's inception.

The broadly accepted definition of capitalism is as defined by both Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

For more: Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Wheatfield]

I think something a lot of Americans don't realize also is that every society is a meritocracy of some sort, and that the USA isn't a bastion of merit.
The American lack of a meaningful social safety net (including a health care system that works for everyone) does not make your country more of a meritocracy than a country such as Great Britain or Canada which have very strong safety nets.
Nor is the term meritocracy especially meaningful anyway, since it implies that anyone can rise to the top of the economic model, when the actuality is that it doesn't matter how hard you work, the reality is that for one to become wealthy, there will be a lot of people who will be poor (or at least not rich) no matter what they do.
What a meritocratic ideal does is allow the well off to be smug and pious that they are somehow better people than their economic inferiors, IE: they are poor because they are lazy or have some other character flaw which makes them unsuccessful.

[causey]

Just to clarify: on discussions like this, I always see people pointing to capitalism as a political model, which ends devoiding it of it's meaning. It's an economical model, so watch out to not mix issues.

Capitalism is an economical model. Meritocracy is an ideology, which can or not be used as guiding rule to a government organization model, like democracy.

And specially, one has nothing to do with the other. Capitalism coexisted with political models other than democracy since it's inception.

The broadly accepted definition of capitalism is as defined by both Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

For more: Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think as it has been used from the beginning in this discussion, "meritocracy" referred to the distribution of goods: whether wealth is distributed according to merits.
This isn't an uncommon meaning. Hayek discusses meritocracy in this sense in detail in "The Constitution of Liberty".

[GeneV]

.
Nor is the term meritocracy especially meaningful anyway, since it implies that anyone can rise to the top of the economic model, when the actuality is that it doesn't matter how hard you work, the reality is that for one to become wealthy, there will be a lot of people who will be poor (or at least not rich) no matter what they do.
What a meritocratic ideal does is allow the well off to be smug and pious that they are somehow better people than their economic inferiors, IE: they are poor because they are lazy or have some other character flaw which makes them unsuccessful.

That is exactly right. As I pointed out the education example, merit may actually rise to the top better when the social support system allows every bright young person the same opportunity to be educated.

The fact is that for every 1,000 persons who work hard, one will become a millionaire. There is a certain lottery aspect that seems to be missed. Working hard may get you a few more tickets, and it will get you further than not working, but it usually takes some luck to get you rich.