Meritocracy starting out as leftist satire doesn't mean the concept doesn't have merit.

Yes, it does. Unless its defenders have shown good reasons as to why the points raised by the satirists are inapplicable. Which they haven't.

The assignation of "quality" in people is a corrupt and folkloric reflection of the preferences of those in power, and that phenomenon is becoming ever more pronounced as industries consolidate.

The fact that a person can just study programming on their free time for a few years and then get a job paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is proof that at least in some cases meritocracy works. All you need is proof that you are great at programming, doesn't have to know anyone or have any kind of prestigious background to do it.

That is what I did. I studied programming for a bit, started getting among the top in online programming competitions, applied to Google and got a really high salary. Anyone who is intelligent enough can do it if they have a computer with internet access.

People sometimes counter with something along the lines of:

> Just because you could do it doesn't mean others can do it, you are just an exception!

Yeah, exactly, other people are dumb so they can't become among the best of the world in these competitions within a year. If they could they would easily get similar jobs as I did though, there was no luck or privilege in what I did just talent. So the problem isn't that meritocracy doesn't work but that merit for these tech jobs is so unevenly distributed.

Remember this post the next time there is a 500 post thread about how hiring is bs or promotions are all politics. That cannot possibly jive with the system being a meritocracy.

I don't think everything is perfect but striving for meritocracy isn't problematic in itself. The ideal should always be "given what we know of each candidate who is expected to deliver the most value in this position?". I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. And in general it seems like companies and countries with more meritocratic systems tend to do better, so as a system it seems to work great.

"Meritocracy" as a word is sometimes used by corrupt people, but that is like North Korea calling itself a democracy, it isn't a problem with meritocracy.

"Meritocracy was meant as a satire" is brought up as a rebuttal frequently but it's somehow never accompanied by an explanation of how the negatives Young brings up are relevant to the topic at hand. Based on a cursory search, a summary of Young's point in his satire seems to be that meritocracy had the undesirable consequences of demeaning/devaluing those who scored poorly on measures of merit and also triggering a societal arms race as people did whatever they could to improve their own and their children's measured merit, neither of which is salient to this discussion. He doesn't seem to say that meritocracy itself was ineffective. (Somebody please correct me if I am in error here.)

It's also worth noting that the same Wikipedia article that the parent poster points to says that the concept of meritocracy predates Young's coining of the word by centuries and also details its history of successful application by many societies in various eras.