Showing posts with label talent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label talent. Show all posts

Saturday, 16 March 2019

The myth of meritocracy

Meritocracy represents a vision in which power and privilege would be allocated by individual merit, not by social origins. According to the meritocratic ideal, jobs should go not to people who have connections or pedigree, but to those best qualified for them, regardless of their background. Reservations allows for exceptions – for positive discrimination, to help undo the effects of previous discrimination. In moving toward the meritocratic ideal, we have imagined that we have retired the old encrustations of inherited hierarchies. But that is not the real story.
  • Meritocracy is an ideal in which riches and rule were earned, not inherited. Democracy would give way to rule by the cleverest - not an aristocracy of birth, not a plutocracy of wealth, but a true meritocracy of talent.
  • Education mattered as a means of mobility, but also as a way to make people more forceful as citizens. Wealth reflects the innate distribution of natural talent, and the wealthy increasingly marry one another, society sorts into two main classes, in which everyone accepts that they have more or less what they deserve. 
  • The eminent know that success is a just reward for their own capacity and their own efforts. Nearly all parents try to gain unfair advantages for their offspring. When you have inequalities of income, people with extra money pursues that goal. If the financial status of your parents helped determine your economic rewards, you would no longer be living by merit.
  • Higher education in the US and Britain was seen as a great equaliser. But higher education is a great stratifier. Elite US universities – including Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Princeton, and Yale – take more students from the top 1% of the income distribution than from the bottom 60%. Yale law professor Daniel Markovits argues - American meritocracy become precisely what it was invented to combat: a mechanism for the dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations.
  • Emerging cohort of mercantile meritocrats who had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody’s son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers believes they have morality on their side and there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The carapace of merit had only inoculated the winners from shame and reproach.
  • In US, liberal elites look down on ordinary Americans, ignore their concerns and use their power to their own advantage. Working-class men often think that middle-class and upper-class men are unmanly or undeserving. American white working class has been persuaded that they do not deserve the opportunities that have been denied to them.
  • Talent is capitalised efficiently only in high tax brackets and that we have simply failed to achieve the meritocratic ideal. If you were upholding meritocracy, then your equation was sponsoring a larger inequality.
  • The central task of ethics is to ask what it is for a human life to go well. A plausible answer is that living well means meeting the challenge set by three things: your capacities, the circumstances into which you were born, and the projects that you yourself decide are important. Because each of us comes equipped with different talents and is born into different circumstances, and because people choose their own projects, each of us faces his or her own challenge. There is no comparative measure that would enable an assessment of whether your life or my life is better. What matters in the end is simply that we do our best.
  • The capacity for hard work is the result of natural endowments and upbringing. So neither talent nor effort would determine rewards in the world of the meritocracy. People who have been repeatedly labelled ‘dunce’ still have capacities and the challenge of making a meaningful life. The lives of the less successful are not less worthy than those of others. There is simply no sensible way of comparing the worth of human lives.
  • Money and status are rewards that can encourage people to do the things that need doing. A well-designed society will elicit and deploy developed talent efficiently. The social rewards of wealth and honor are inevitably going to be unequally shared, because that is the only way they can serve their function as incentives for human behavior. But we go wrong when we deny not only the merit but the dignity of those who were unlucky.
  • People will inevitably want to share both money and status with those they love, seeking to get their children financial and social rewards. But we should not secure our children’s advantages in a way that denies a decent life to the children of others. Each child should have access to a decent education, suitable to her talents and her choices; each should be able to regard him- or herself with self-respect. We need to apply ourselves to something we do not yet quite know how to eradicate contempt for those who are disfavored by the ethic of effortful competition.
  • Most CEOs of big corporations, Wall Street mavens, and high-priced lawyers got where they are because they knew the right people. A prestigious college packed with the children of wealthy and well-connected parents is now the launching pad into the stratosphere of big money. Elite colleges are doing their parts to accelerate the trend.
  • Jared Kushner (Ivanka Trump's husband)'s father reportedly pledged $2.5 million to Harvard just as young Jared was applying, in 1998. The young man gained admission, despite rather mediocre grades.
  • The monstrous concentration of wealth in America has created an education system in which the rich can effectively buy college admission for their children. It has created a justice system in which the rich can buy their way out of prison. It has spawned a political system in which the rich can buy their way into Congress and even into the Presidency. (Donald Trump, perhaps Starbuck’s Howard Schultz). And a health care system in which the super-rich can buy care unavailable to others (concierge medicine). Ditto in India also - even more blatant. It seems, everything is for sale. 
We live in a plenitude of incommensurable hierarchies, and the circulation of social esteem will always benefit the better novelist, the more important mathematician, the savvier businessman, the faster runner, the more effective social entrepreneur. We cannot fully control the distribution of economic, social and human capital, or eradicate the intricate patterns that emerge from these overlaid grids. But class identities do not have to internalize those injuries of class. It remains an urgent collective endeavor to revise the ways we think about human worth in the service of moral equality. 

We live in a system that espouses merit equality and a level playing field 
but exalts those with wealth power and celebrity however gained. - Derrick A. Bell


In India, a typical entrance test for medical admissions is competed by over 200,000 students for 2,000 seats i.e. 1:100. Almost all successful students belongs to wealthy, well-connected and attended very expensive & unethical coaching classes. Any system that ignores level playing field for poorer sections must be disbanded. The present entrance exam could be used as a qualifier test to select 20,000 merit students i.e. top 10%. And the final 2,000 students (among the qualified 20,000) should be selected purely on lottery basis, with no weightage for skewed merit. This would enable elimination of non-merit candidates and disbanding of all kinds of reservations. Women reservations (among merit qualified only) may continue for some more time. Aspiring poor candidates need not go through expensive coaching classes route to get into merit list of 20,000 because a real merit student could easily get qualified with self preparation. Thus coaching classes would lose their sheen and exploitation of aspiring students will come to an end.


Thursday, 8 February 2018

Do you deserve to be rich?

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. Intelligence? Talent? No, the ultra-rich got to where they are through luck and brutality. The wealth creators of neoliberal mythology are some of the most effective wealth destroyers the world has ever seen ... George Monbiot

If you believe that you deserve to be rich, take a moment and define why you should be wealthy. Most entrepreneurs and professionals believe they deserve to be wealthy, which is a minimum net worth of Rs.10 crores or more. Majority of the wealthiest people feel they deserve to be rich. They may have inherited it and therefore have an inborn sense of deserving or they may have earned it and therefore feel proud of their accomplishments. There are rich people who cheated and stole to be rich, and there are also rich people who worked hard to be rich.

Do you deserve to be rich? Do you deserve everything you desire? No matter how badly you want to be wealthy; no matter what you’ve done with your life to date and what you plan on doing; no matter if you’re absolutely brilliant; no matter who you know or who knows you; no matter anything, you unquestionably, categorically, unequivocally definitely do not deserve to be rich. Simply put, no one deserves wealth. Being rich is not a right. At best, it’s a possibility.

The path to move on in the right direction to become a self-made millionaire is:
  • How committed are you to becoming wealthy?
  • What are you willing to sacrifice in order to become rich?
  • How can you translate your values and ideals into personal wealth?
  • How do your capabilities place you squarely in the line of money?
  • How are you offsetting your weaknesses in other areas?
  • How are you going to leverage your network to make money?
  • How do your better relationships make you money today?

Becoming wealthy is not an entitlement. It’s not a privilege nor is it a right. If you’re healthy and motivated, the advantage you have is that you very likely have the opportunity to pursue wealth, or happiness for that matter. It’s taking advantage of this opportunity by actively, forcefully, and smartly pursuing wealth that can potentially become rich. 

If you grow up poor, you’ll most likely end up poor. If you grow up rich,  you’ll likely end up rich. It’s all based on the way you view the world and money. Change your spending habits and you will change your attitude. You will begin to respect money and strangely you will gain more money in your life. 

Since you don’t deserve to be rich, but you want to be rich, what are you going to do about it?


Rich doesn't deserve to be rich; poor doesn't deserve to be poor.
Life is not fair, ergo no one deserves anything.
Amassing wealth is incompatible with morality ... Gandhi


Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. Between 1979 and 2009, productivity rose by 80% , while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%. This is to suggest that the economy has been rewarding the wrong skills. CEO's are no more deserving of the share of wealth they’ve captured than oil sheikhs. Without resorting to cheating or labour exploitation or tax evasion or over exploitation of natural resources or destruction of ecology, it is not easy become rich.


Friday, 26 January 2018

Luck is more important to success


“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get that on your own,” President Obama declared years ago at a campaign rally. “If you’re successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” In America, the belief that hard work and a touch of grit is all one needs to succeed. Talent and drive can take you a long way, but it’s often not enough. Luck is as important.
  • Most Americans underestimate the role of luck in economic success.
  • The current American tendency is to overlook the role of luck as a cultural bias and Americans are less likely than Europeans to favor high taxes on the rich and generous benefits for the poor.
  • Conservatives have a narrative about success, which prioritizes hard work and skill. Liberals have an alternative narrative about success, which prioritizes structural constraints and privilege. Neither one is entirely right, but it does seem that liberals are closer to the truth.
  • People who amass great fortunes are almost always talented and hardworking. But it is also true that countless others have those same qualities yet never earn much. 
  • Chance plays a much larger role in important life outcomes than most people imagine.
  • The rich underestimate the importance of luck in success and why that hurts everyone, even the wealthy.
  • In this world dominated by winner-take-all markets, chance opportunities and trivial initial advantages often translate into much larger ones and enormous income differences over time. 
  • Luck is as important as hard work in becoming successful.
  • Fortune favors the fortunate. And not acknowledging that can have unlucky consequences.
  • People who succeed on a grand scale tend to believe they did it all by themselves. They think that whatever dollars came their way are theirs to keep. If the government tries to tax it, they regard it as theft. 
  • Believing that all the good fortune that came your way was earned in the traditional sense is a very difficult claim to sustain once you look at how the competitions unfold and the role chance events play in all our lives.
  • Ethically speaking, we have no control over the most important determinants of our lives. Even if you think you succeeded purely on the basis of talent and effort, where do you think you got your talent? Where do you think that inclination to work hard comes from? These are things determined by genes and upbringing and it's quite ludicrous to claim moral credit for them.
  • Privilege has a way of blinding the privileged. People born into good fortune can’t appreciate how much of their success stems from the care and attention and resources they received at every stage of their development.
  • You're probably not going to succeed if you don't get really good at work and effort. You shouldn't expect and wait with hope that lightning strikes. Tell people to try to deserve whatever it is that they want. That doesn't mean you'll get it, but you're certainly not going to get it if you don't deserve it.
  • We really need to make the investments where the environment is conducive for talented and hard-working chances of succeeding. In America it was always true that if you work hard and are good, you may not be a spectacular success, but you'd most likely prosper to a reasonable degree.
  • Rich people could pay more taxes and scarcely feel it, but nobody thinks about it that way.
Markets are not perfectly meritocratic. They're more meritocratic now than ever before in the past. Privilege always matters. Most of the people who emerge as big winners today do tend to be talented and hard-working, so there's at least a semblance of meritocracy. What's also true is that being hard-working and talented are by no means sufficient to get you into the winner's circle. Luck matters a great deal.


Luck is far more important to success in this life than we imagine.
 Things we're not entitled to claim moral credit for are the driving forces 
behind success ... Robert H. Frank