Given the history of the America, how can anyone think this country was built on a meritocracy.
I understand how people who benefit from the system wouldn't want it to change, but how can anyone seriously think that the U.S. is a meritocracy?
Trending Content
Career Resources
Why am I getting downvoted?
I think it depends on who you ask and what their perspective is.
As you know, a country has more than just "opportunities" going for it - there are the people, cultures, languages, the various industries and areas which are very different from each other.
If you ask an immigrant from a developing nation why they wanted to emigrate to the US - you will almost always hear the story that "their American dream" consists of certain financial, life and personal goals which are based on a hard work ethic, a mindset and opportunities they were given - compared to where they are from initially.
If you ask an expat professional from, say, a developed country in Western Europe - their view might be entirely different. They may believe that there are opportunities in their field of expertise, but they may also think that certain elements of the culture or "how things are done" may limit their goals.
If you look at income equality as an example, the US often score low on a list with many other countries - this may sound like a conflict given how people who live in the US may think of their own situation. But, as always with generic questions, it really depends on the individual situation.
Personally, I truly believe that the US is more equal and based on a meritocracy than other countries. Having lived in many countries before, the US were the only nation where I had...
- a female boss, for the first time ever
- more people of color either as colleagues or as part of my management team
- a feeling of "belonging to something bigger", either from a cultural or identity point of view
- no questions what my family/parents did for a living, how much money my family has or how I grew up.
Maybe this was more obvious through my education, lifestyle and international career; or maybe it matters less in the US? I don't know.
I didn't say that they weren't meritocratic elements, but again look at American history. Look at Tusla riots a group people who were segregated and excommunicated from the larger economy and tried to create their own community and a government-back mob burned it down. Then conservatives complain about these same communities.
I just returned from the US a few months ago (moved back to Europe, but still based in the US by my company).
Completely agree with what you just posted and most of my diverse friends in the US "live in their neighborhoods". None of my LatAm friends live outside of their own racial spectrum, maybe due to language, culture or simply a feel of trust. But they could live anywhere they want if they picked another place.
Almost any country has had a difficult past at some point. Not saying it was right back then (or now), but that is how history went.
The important aspects are what we do with our countries today and going forward.
No place is perfect. Please name which countries you find more meritocratic than the U.S. and then we can get a better idea for what you're talking about? Also, while you're at it, please name the meritocratic countries which also do not have heinious atrocities in their history.
And note that you're absolutely right about things like discrimination. For a long time, the US was only meritocratic for the majority and not for certain minorities which sounds terrible until you realize that most countries are meritocratic for 2% of people while the 98% are screwed. So, even with all of the bad history, the U.S. was still a much more meritocratic place than most. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good in your analysis.
I don't think anyone says it's built on a meritocracy, the principle of the american dream is meritocratic, but the country was built as a colony of the british empire and now we have people who are billionaires because girls like to show edited photos of their asses to strangers on the internet
Most honest comment in the whole thread upvote!
now, I still think america is the best place to go if you want to live in a meritocracy, but that doesn't mean it's 100% meritocratic and that there isn't corruption. but I still firmly believe that it's the best place to start a career and a life and I'll forever be grateful to have been born here, despite the racism and troubles my family's had to deal with, still the best of the lot imo
Bro looks no one can argue in good faith, just downvote.
It’s certainly not true in the political realm as the country gets older. Nearly all politicians are corrupt sociopaths who will ultimately bankrupt this country.
I agree with this as well.
I know this probably isn't going to go anywhere, but is there somewhere you think is more meritocratic than the US?
Because the US is undeniably the most meritocratic country on earth. Is it a pure meritocracy? Of course not, but neither is life in general. People should be treated equally, but not all people are "equal". A billionaire's son is not equal to a homeless immigrant in any way aside from that they are both humans. They are not truly equal under the law because of the difference in representation they can afford, they are not equal in resources from the moment they are born, they are likely not equal in measurable intelligence because one had access to the best schools and tutors money can buy. But the billionaires son can squander and lose the fortune his family built while the immigrant can work hard and start a company that eventually makes them even wealthier than the son. The opportunity is there for people in the US whereas in most other countries on earth it is not. In most countries on earth if you are born poor you will most likely live and die poor as well.
Only if you are a complete dumbass or lazy do you get screwed in America because of our lack of safety nets relative to the rest of the world.
If you have two brain cells to rub together and/or are hardworking then you can have a good life with a house, white picket fence, a/c, any meal you want at your finger tips, large TV, etc. Literally go be a fireman, a teacher, a plumber, whatever - doesnt take much.
Sure the barista with 70k in student debt or the 45 year old mcdonalds worker gets screwed, but at least they have Reddit to complain on with their fellow losers
Because it was a meritocracy, if you were a white, Protestant man. Which was frankly more than could be said for almost any other place on the planet, at the time (I don't know enough about global social conditions to make that a more definite statement).
The problem is that isn't the case anymore. You can easily argue that there is more social mobility in many other post-industrial countries, more of a social safety net, etc. I'd even go so far as to say that the reason this occurred is because of how unequal European (mainly) societies were in the 19th century. The culture of deference to title exploded violently in a lot of places, and as a result, those systems ended up with a lot more built in equality because the folks at the tippy top of the pyramid lost their say. They tried to hold on to everything they had, instead of accommodating incremental change to the system - the one good exception to this, which should be illuminating, is Great Britain/the UK.
By contract, the United States has always had the veneer of equality for certain groups, and had social mobility in times when that didn't exist elsewhere (or not meaningfully), and thus has been able to say with a straight face that the country is a meritocracy, even though it's probably arguable that any kind of meritocratic system, even for WASPs, went out the door a century ago.
It was a lot higher to rise high on your own merits than it is now. Some of that may be because the field of competition has been opened to more people (women, ethnic and religious minorities, etc). I didn't think I had to explain that it was never a pure meritocracy - nothing ever has been or will be. But comparatively it was.
When you seriously parrot an argument that South Park lampoons, you know you've missed something. The fact that two black people in this country have managed to overcome odds to rise to high positions in politics doesn't eliminate general discrimination. It's like arguing that because Frederick Douglass rose to a position of wealth and prominence, all antebellum blacks could have. Just obviously untrue.
I mean, books existed that explained those things, and one of the truly revolutionary things about the United States was that by the time of Independence, something like 90% of white men were literate (again, real advancement was restricted to white, Christian men).
5 out of 500 Fortune 500 CEOs are black. 74 are women, and that's a major increase from a year ago (41). So... 15%. Black people make up 13.4% of the US population, and we'll just say 50% are women because I'm too lazy to look it up. You're looking at a real meritocracy there! I don't dispute that we're closer to true meritocracy than any point in our history - but Jim Crow is within living memory, so that isn't exactly a high bar to clear. Technically there are people alive who remember when women couldn't vote, either, but that's a slightly more absurd claim.
OK? Your point? I'd argue that you can point to lots of place that "keep those with merit down" in the United States. Half the conservative states in this country make it difficult for the poor (who tend to be minorities) to vote, and deliberately so. Any municipality that demands a mother be enslaved to a collection of cells that her rapist deposited in her, is keeping someone down by denying them the agency of their own body. Etc etc.
Great, all your examples are anecdotal. How tiresome. It's like me saying that the UK has more social mobility because Lewis Hamilton is extremely wealthy. Back to square 1.
The question isn't whether the United States is more meritocratic than somewhere else. It's how anyone can consider it to be objectively meritocratic. And I don't think one can anymore, or less so than you could have 100 or 200 years ago. My thesis was that social mobility for a rather limited group was far more present earlier in the history of this country, which created and helps perpetuate the idea of the American Dream. It wasn't hurt by the insanely cheap availability of "unsettled" land, so having a self sufficient farm essentially for free was a real possibility until the early part of the 20th century.
Cupiditate sit voluptas eligendi est ipsa eius. Commodi libero a sed quasi mollitia rerum. Aut mollitia vitae tenetur velit quos error numquam in.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...