MERITOCRACY AND THE SIZE OF THE PIE
The arguments that 1) America should be an unrestricted
meritocracy and 2) America should be unconcerned about how equally the
pie is sliced cannot exist side by side. If my competitor has twice the
resources that I do, then I am going to lose the competition. Indeed, in
the final stages of the competition, I should actually start losing my
share -- precisely the phenomenon depicted by these two pie charts of the
80s.
But what if the pie grows so fast that, even with shrinking shares,
the poor still advance? Surely, this would not be objectionable? The problem
with this argument is that the poor did not advance in absolute terms,
but lost ground in the 80s, as the statistics for personal and family income
show. Later we'll review poverty figures that will show that poverty in
the 80s was generally higher than poverty in the 70s. So the factual
premise of this counter-argument is invalid right from the start.
But is the counter-argument sound in principle? In a moderated meritocracy,
yes; in an unrestricted meritocracy, no. Perhaps an analogy might best
highlight this principle. In a friendly training session, two boxers sparring
with each other can both improve their skills; in an unregulated fight,
however, one gets knocked out while the other remains standing. U.S. economic
history confirms this analogy. We have already reviewed figures that show
the incomes of the rich and poor grew together at roughly the same pace
during the postwar years. In the late 70s and 80s, as our meritocracy became
more and more unrestricted, the incomes of the rich grew while those of
the poor shrank in real terms. Ultimately, the argument that unrestricted
meritocracies are beneficial to all parts of society is hopelessly invalid.
Return to Overview