Well, first thing... I disagree with his initial description of meritocracy as impugning the abilities or qualities of those who do not achieve the pinnacles of success. It seems to me that his entire argument is made of straw, as it's predicated upon his personal, expansive, overreaching interpretation of merit.
Seemed more about humility than meritocracy. Also, clearly no one does it “alone” but the lack of acknowledgment that perhaps one’s effort/skill may impact results seems an over correction. Also, the choice of what to pursue occurs within a context where people know what has value. As such, folks pursue things that matter to them at the time. Although I agree that we are seeing the limitations of self determination and the pursuit of liberty, it’s the blend with the collective good that needs a rethink not whether the best at that blend merit its rewards.
Opening up "democratic debate" to who should get what salary would be disastrous. This culture is too immature to take a plague seriously. Imagine the toxic resentments unleashed by such a program. Forget animosity towards the rich. This would set low income worker against low income worker. There's a great cultural benefit in the cold-blooded impersonality of the market. It keeps this resentment in check. Much that can be done, however, and easily. Two quick examples: increase the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Who merits a position in government? A person with a broad sense of responsibility to those who will be affected by laws and policies, not just a person who can balance a budget (remember that idea?). Meritocracy merits a broader definition of meritocracy.
Excellent interview. I agreed with much more of what he said than I'd expected to. It also depends on the definition of merit (which is muddied by the unequal playing fields for different groups). Also on the issue of esteem and societal values. Where my parents came from, for example, teachers weren't paid particularly well, but they enjoyed enormous esteem in the community.
Thanks for bringing Michael Sandel on the show, he's one of my favorite public intellectuals.
I disagree with his idea that it would make the elites more humble if we voted to give pay subsidies to people with jobs that a democratic majority perceived to be more meritorious. Wouldn't that mean that the "winners" would have even more confidence that they deserved the rewards attributed to them? I agree that the concept of moral desert has serious issues, but this just doesn't seem like the way to fix it.
If we really wanted to assuage the anxieties that meritocracy generates, I think Alain de Botton has a more convincing(and also disturbing) argument-
"Tocqueville's point—and it was a very salient one—is that you have a society that's constantly telling people, We're all the same, we're all Americans, we're all equal. When actually there's a lot of inequality around, which fosters feelings of envy. If society said The rich are their own species, they have been made into Gods, don't ever aspire to be one of them, well, in one sense that would be unfair and stupid and untrue. But it would have a relaxing effect; if they're creatures from outer space, well then what's the point of comparing our condition with theirs?"
Yasha I love your work but please invest in some proper audio equipment :D
Well, first thing... I disagree with his initial description of meritocracy as impugning the abilities or qualities of those who do not achieve the pinnacles of success. It seems to me that his entire argument is made of straw, as it's predicated upon his personal, expansive, overreaching interpretation of merit.
Needs a transcript.
Seemed more about humility than meritocracy. Also, clearly no one does it “alone” but the lack of acknowledgment that perhaps one’s effort/skill may impact results seems an over correction. Also, the choice of what to pursue occurs within a context where people know what has value. As such, folks pursue things that matter to them at the time. Although I agree that we are seeing the limitations of self determination and the pursuit of liberty, it’s the blend with the collective good that needs a rethink not whether the best at that blend merit its rewards.
Opening up "democratic debate" to who should get what salary would be disastrous. This culture is too immature to take a plague seriously. Imagine the toxic resentments unleashed by such a program. Forget animosity towards the rich. This would set low income worker against low income worker. There's a great cultural benefit in the cold-blooded impersonality of the market. It keeps this resentment in check. Much that can be done, however, and easily. Two quick examples: increase the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Who merits a position in government? A person with a broad sense of responsibility to those who will be affected by laws and policies, not just a person who can balance a budget (remember that idea?). Meritocracy merits a broader definition of meritocracy.
Excellent interview. I agreed with much more of what he said than I'd expected to. It also depends on the definition of merit (which is muddied by the unequal playing fields for different groups). Also on the issue of esteem and societal values. Where my parents came from, for example, teachers weren't paid particularly well, but they enjoyed enormous esteem in the community.
Thanks for bringing Michael Sandel on the show, he's one of my favorite public intellectuals.
I disagree with his idea that it would make the elites more humble if we voted to give pay subsidies to people with jobs that a democratic majority perceived to be more meritorious. Wouldn't that mean that the "winners" would have even more confidence that they deserved the rewards attributed to them? I agree that the concept of moral desert has serious issues, but this just doesn't seem like the way to fix it.
If we really wanted to assuage the anxieties that meritocracy generates, I think Alain de Botton has a more convincing(and also disturbing) argument-
"Tocqueville's point—and it was a very salient one—is that you have a society that's constantly telling people, We're all the same, we're all Americans, we're all equal. When actually there's a lot of inequality around, which fosters feelings of envy. If society said The rich are their own species, they have been made into Gods, don't ever aspire to be one of them, well, in one sense that would be unfair and stupid and untrue. But it would have a relaxing effect; if they're creatures from outer space, well then what's the point of comparing our condition with theirs?"