What meritocracy? It's not about meritocracy at all, the talent flocks to what makes most money because that's the whole incentive of the system. Only a few of the talented ones are not attracted by that and have their own desires to fulfill which they can apply their talents to.
> It's not about meritocracy at all, the talent flocks to what makes most money because that's the whole incentive of the system.
The incentives of the meritocratic system. For instance, in the pre-meritocratic WASP-y system, the intellectual talent couldn't do that, or at least couldn't do it nearly as freely.
The system is both a very narrow intellectual meritocratic system, and a "greed is our one-and-only God" late-stage capitalist system.
Kinda like a patient having two different kinds of cancer - you gotta keep distinguishing if you're trying to talk about details of the case.
there is no meritocracy. there is a moneytocracy. if you have a lot to start with you get extra points towards anything. if you make a lot you get extra points towards anything. this is what billionaires all seem to have figured out. they can do anything they want because they have enough money. there isnt any other metric that is more worth optimizing than money. thats why people go to finance and consulting. it optimizes for making money.
It has always struck me as an issue that the meritocracy poorly distributes the kind of talent it selects for around society, and instead concentrates it in a relatively small number or elite professions in the cities.
Thinking at a society level, especially in a democracy, society really does needs intellectual talent throughout. Having lots of smart farmers, smart factory workers, etc. is a good thing. Some of that has to with the professions themselves (smart farmers coming up with new farming methods and helping their neighbors farm better), but also democracy (smart farmers and factory workers organizing and effectively representing the interests of their peers).