No method is perfect but tending towards meritocracy or towards scoring political points with "minorities" yields different results.

>Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't.

This is something meritless people say. For those of us who have been working hard our entire lives to be REALLY good at something, we know that merit absolutely makes a huge difference to the value we bring to our jobs, and that value is usually recognised.

This isn't to say that society is based entirely on merit. Far from it - though some more than others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for merit; that we shouldn't seek to fill jobs on the basis of merit. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Finally, I would argue against the claim that "every study on it shows increased economic output." There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. A popular topic is women in senior leadership. [There is no clear evidence that this leads to better performance.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804) I think it more likely that economic performance has everything to do with ability and nothing to do with skin colour or genital configuration.

> This is something meritless people say.

No. I am a staff engineer under 30 with a degree from an Ivy League. I say it because it simply is true. Let me break down the points I made.

1) Does not exist

this is easy to prove. In most industries contacts are a better predictor of success than hours, degrees, or awards. In terms of monetary success, being born rich is the highest predictor of being ahead in life more than any other.

The top forbes list is all topped by Americans, born near California between 1950-1990. The statistical chance of the "most worthy" and merit humans being born in such a small time and geographic boundries is 0.

2) has never existed

Historically goverment was hereditary, which only maximises the point I am making. But most famous artists were friends of rich people, not the most talented. Even great thinkers were all well off before they did the stuff we value from them.

3) arguably it is good that it doesn't

If the world was perfectly meritocratic those above would deserve it, and those below would deserve it too. Treating poor people badly would arguably be ethically correct as they deserve their station. But we inherently know the world is not fair and we could be down at some point therefore meritocracy not being true means ethics and success are divorced and we are all better all for it.

> There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions.

Meta and broad studies don't. Single issue ones with insane variables around, low confidence intervals and admitted low samples do. Like for example studies on Women on leadership positions.

Here is a nice write up on meritocracy from someone who has not drank the kool aid

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...

> I am a staff engineer under 30 with a degree from an Ivy League.

So does this make a difference or not? If not, why do it, and why bring it up? If so, merit exists.

I believe its the kind of relatively meaningless achievements someone like him might count as "merit worthy".

Whenever I say we should increase minimum wage or unemployment benefits I hear its because I must be poor and a moocher. Whenever I say meritocracy doesn't exist someone chimes thats because I have never achieved anything. Whenever you want to help others someone comes out and says its because you want to take advantage of him.

I work really hard, always have, always will. But the truth is that, that same amount of work, effort and knowledge would not be rewarded if I was born somewhere not in the first world. That I got extremely lucky both in birth, location, time and chances and while I worked hard I am not entirely responsible for my success.

Do you acknowledge that there are other people who are not capable of performing your job?

Yes. But there are also people capable who are not doing it, or not being compensated like I am. There are people who could have performed it given my opportunities and people who with less chances would have performed even better than me.

Stephen Jay Gould, a great biologist, once said that "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."

I think your comment shows a profund misunderstanding of what meritocracy means. No one is saying everyone is equally capable. Merit, ability, knowledge, are all true and real. A meritocracy is a system where those who posses them triumph over those that do not. We do not live in a system like that, and as I mentioned its probably good we do not as the ethics of such a system are quite awful.

I just used credentials to defend against the personal attack that was implying the only people against meritocracy are those with nothing to offer.

It may be true that meritocracy mostly pays off at extremely high levels of merit. The organizations doing affirmative-action hires are hand-wringing about the fairest way to pick from a huge pool of middling candidates. I don't think that's necessarily bad--not every job needs to be done by a rock-star, as much as companies hate to admit it, and working-to-live is fine. The people who say they've always had a burning passion for customer service are either Spongebob or lying.