Some Qualifications About "Competition" And "Merit"

I think I've done a poor job describing what I am talking about when I mention how unearned advantages greatly influence, if not outright determine, life outcomes.

There is no doubt that there is competition in this country and that, with qualifications, those who work harder, either in school or in the workforce, will enjoy the fruits of their labor, which most would call fair.

The problem I have with this simplistic understanding of merit is that it does not take into consideration where people begin; it only focuses on where people end up.

To give you an example, two upper-middle class students attending Westlake High School who receive great support from their parents, a good upbringing, and a quality education are competing with one another. Some will get into lower tier colleges, some middle tier, and a few will attend elite institutions. Many of these differences will be determined by individual wok ethic, though those whose parents are exceptionally wealthy will probably do well no matter what happens.

It is also important to point out that those students who perform poorly within their own class will undoubtedly have massive advantages over those who do not have the benefits of an upper-middle class upbringing.

So, to the extent that I certainly acknowledge competition within classes, I don't think it is accurate to talk about competition or meritocracy between classes.

Furthermore, the non-monetary advantages associated with being in the middle class, or beyond, are of crucial importance when we talk about the differences between life outcomes. I'm talking about things like having two decent parents, safe environments with little crime, good education, etc.

Many of you will rightly point out that some of this is due to differences in intellectual ability or IQ, which I certainly concede. However, it is important to note that the correlation between income and IQ is quite weak when we talk about IQ's over 100. When you include people of below average ability, innate intelligence looks a lot more important and influential than it really is. For example, the average IQ for those in the top 10% of income is only 110, which I'm sure most of you will admit isn't very high. We also have studies showing that a person with high income parents, tested in eight grade, will do better later in life than someone of superior ability who has poor parents.

I think people are products of their genetics and environment more than they are agents actively influencing their environments; therefore, I think it is impossible to focus on individual decision-making as the primary factor. This is because the decision-making ability itself is determined by events outside of individual self-control. For instance, it is difficult to talk about a person making better decisions in life when they haven't been exposed to any exceptionally difficult circumstances to begin with.

While I do not support massive redistribution schemes to alleviate these discrepancies, I think it is prudent and honest to admit that talking about individual merit, without taking these factors into account, makes very little sense. I also think doing things to ensure a more even playing field should be taken. Smart people should be able to go to college, get good housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities while they are trying to take the next step in life.

How can you talk about your merit when your parents eliminated virtually every variable that could have thrown your life eschew, from the very beginning? If the only thing you ever had to do was get decent grades and show up for work, how can you believe you are so superior to others who didn't have any of these advantages?

Many of you will point out that a parent has the right to pass on inherited wealth, or anything else, without any interference. While I agree to a certain extent, I reject the belief that the success of one generation should determine the success of future generations into perpetuity. This is the foundation upon which I base my justification for progressive taxation, along with other philosophical beliefs I've made quite clear in other threads.

Thoughts?

 

There is much more to genetics than just I.Q. Personality traits, such as sense of humor, tendency to depression and criminality have genetic components. I have no doubt that I didn't have the same opportunity that George W. Bush did. I also have no doubt that most of the problems Black experience are self inflicted.

My dad's father who was a house painter, died at the beginning of the great depression when my father was 13. My father eventually dropped out of school to help support his mother and sister. He ended up in the Army in WWII and was selected to be a pilot and sent to cadet college because of I.Q. tests. He worked his butt off his entire life.

I kinda followed in his foot steps, dropping out of school and joining the Army. The Army found out I had an I.Q. of 145. This turned out to be a mixed blessing.

I'm in favor of a meritocracy, no advantages for the rich or the poor. I would even go for the utopian idea of a 100% death tax so everyone starts off even.

I like the European model where even a poor, White kid can go to university based on a test that everyone takes.

 

I completely agree. There are many other genetically mediated traits that determine success in life, but nearly all of them are significantly influenced by environmental factors. Whatever problems a person might have, a bad environment will only make them much worse. In many cases, there is a pretty small margin that determines the differences between success and failure--this is where society should start.

I don't think blacks will ever catch up, due to genetic reasons, but I don't think they are at their ceiling, either.

The military is probably one of the most meritocratic institutions in the world. Society at large is no where near this ideal.

 

You did a good job explaining why success can be predicted based upon a favorable environment (two responsible parents, good education, resources/money etc.), but then you reject this idea in your last paragraph.

It seems to me this "foundation" for your justification of progressive taxation has yet to be made. Is it in the unequal competition between the classes? It's certainly there, but that's something to embrace, just as moving to a nice neighborhood is something to embrace. A progressive tax makes it harder to make that move, and the more you try, the harder it gets.

I don't think you want everybody to be poor, but that is the ultimate goal of a progressive tax. The more somebody earns, the more you take.

 

I'm not sure how I rejected it.

Why would I embrace it? Knowing what I know about child development, why would I be happy with a system where relatively minor adjustments in how we do things, things we aren't currently doing, could greatly improve one's formative years?

On the issue of taxation, I think it depends on where the brackets are and how high they are. Ideally, you move the brackets up a little and keep taxation pretty close to where it currently is, though I'd suggest more of it being spent at the state level, for the sake of efficiency and innovation.

Many worthwhile liberal goals, that really aren't very hard to achieve, are impossible or unjustified due to how incompetent our government is.

If our culture wasn't so weak things would be on a more even playing field, but there isn't much we can do about that.

We have one now, and there are plenty of people doing quite well.

Again, doing some basic things to make poorer people more competitive wouldn't actually be that expensive. The only reason these things cost so much is because we have a corrupt and incompetent government.

 

One of the most prosperous times in America the marginal rate was something like 90%. Without a progressive tax America will end up like the game of Monopoly with one person having all the money. We are rapidly moving in that direction.

 

I am old fashioned. I think tax policy should be about finding an optimal combination of taxing and borrowing to finance the government operations and not used to reward some and punish others. To the extent that we have the money to do it, air drop it in $100 bills over the projects for all I care. We shouldn't be spending more than we can afford to and we shouldn't be undertaking open-ended programs and benefits that we have no way of paying for. It is a pretty sad state of affairs that the US Post Office is about the only part of the government not completely over extended.

 

I talked to an older guy the other day, retired UT grad, who told me that when he was young, he was able to buy a house and car with an entry level income.

If this is true, then all the gadgetry we've developed since then is meaningless compared to what we have lost.

I can agree with this. The first thing we need to do is clean the government up. Cut federal spending and regulations dramatically, then rebuild from the ground up and determine two things:

1. The objective
2. How to achieve it cheaply

As I've said in many threads, I have no problems with government spending or progressive taxation, in principle, but nothing can justify how incompetent our government is.

 

When you wrote

Why shouldn't it? It seems to me that success is something to admire. If there is a system that can determine success, then why not embrace it?

Okay, well let's take this system that you admit is a recipe for success and replicate it. We already know how to raise children, and how not to raise children. The successes and the failures are there for all to see. Those kids going to private schools who are coming home to a mother who is a stay at home mom, a father that comes home from work and pays his bills on time, three generational households, no crime in the hood, extracurricular academic activities, no kids unless married... These are all things that can be done by anybody.

This is where we definitely disagree. Taxation at the state level for efficiency and innovation? It's more efficient than the federal government, but even more efficient at the municipal level. Is the state more efficient than the family? It must be because you are advocating taking money from the family in order to give to the state for efficiencies sake.

lol! Maybe you can see why I am confused. On one hand, you are advocating that the government should take money from families for efficiency, and the next you are talking about how the government is incompetent.

I agree with this. I am shocked every time I come out of my protective bubble wrap and take a gander at what people are up to.

There are some people doing quite well, but I'm thinking of the people who aren't doing quite well. If your idea is to use the state to lift them up out of poverty, I can only ask where this has ever been accomplished?

So we're back to an incompetent government? Yes, it is incompetent, corrupt, and altogether the most wasteful and useless entity to ever come down the pike. Why, then, are you arguing to take money from successful people in order for this incompetent government to lift people out of poverty and make them successful?

I think you need to reassess the tool you are intending to use. Hasn't the government already been given ample time, opportunities and resources to do exactly what you desire?

 

Was it prosperous because of this high tax rate? If so, then I can only assume that 100% would be even better. However, that was a marginal tax rate, and only applied to people making over 3.5 million (adjusted for inflation) a year. What people actually paid was quite a bit different.

No, there were a lot of reasons why the 1950s saw so much prosperity, but people paying 90% in taxes is not one of them.

 

We'll just have to move on from this.

Of course we should admire it, but I see no reason why a person should get to be in great shape forever based on something a dead person did however many years before. More importantly, I don't see how asking those people to pay a little more, and not really give up much, to help others is such a bad thing.

The parents who are dysfunctional need to be given IUD's and housed in dormitories until they can be made productive. Their children should be helped. Pretty quickly, you can get rid of the dysfunctional, and the people smart enough to learn will.

I agree with everything else you said in this post. All of those are objectively good things, and almost all of them are despised by our dysfunctional left.

Yes, taking care of the poor should be done at the local level (making sure they aren't hungry and have a cot). More complex things like higher ed can be done at the state level.

The family is the most efficient "unit" of government, but not all families operate this way. I think we should encourage people to live more conservatively and help the kids who come from the cycle, instead of just writing them off.

Just because our government is currently incompetent does not mean that it has to remain this way.

This is one of the problems. The elites used to live among the other classes and provided leadership roles to keep them from falling into degeneracy; now they barricade themselves in communities and go their entire lives without ever seeing a poor person. Too much classism and not enough community. You should read Charles Murray's book Coming Apart.

I want to give them a chance to compete, at least on a slightly more level playing field. Let people actually compete in a fairer setting, and those who can't, over a period of time, can live in dormitories with a cot and three meals a day. They'd also need to have IUD's.

The government has to be fixed before we can talk about how much money we are going to tax people. I would be fine with a moratorium on spending, or even a massive reduction, until we can rein in this monstrosity.

Not all governments are incompetent. The German government in WW2 was highly efficient and accomplished great things, if you don't include the Holocaust (I know, I know). The South Korean government, as well as Japan, also have excellent governments. China is well on its way to being the most accomplished government in history. All four of them are/were fascist governments, essentially.

Am I describing a hypothetical situation in which the government is made more efficient? Of course, but my fantasy is no more un-grounded than yours, which assumes we can have a libertarian society. That is a far more fanciful scenario, in my opinion.

 

To touch on one of your latter points, I do not believe in monetary inheritance. Not a penny, with the exception of life insurance. That means, say when Donald Trump dies, Ivanka would not receive a penny of her fathers money. Same for Mark Cuban, or Will Smith, or Mark Zuckerberg. No one is entitled to, or should just be handed obscene amounts of money, just because of their bloodline. The money should go toward the funeral, charities, and vanish in the blink of an eye. The idea of monetary inheritance has always been wrong, and is probably one of the earliest forms of entitlement in the history of man. Even if the child comes close to nothing, falls to a level near poverty, in the long run, it will be more beneficial than being a heir ever would. The value of wealth is truly enjoyed when it is EARNED, but inherited. Simply put, money should ALWAYS be left out of wills. Sorry, daddy may have made a nice fortune, but the kiddies won't get a penny of the wealth. The "right" to inherited wealth should not exist.

In terms of qualifications, I think what comes with that double standard (and it could be argued that it is a double standard) is where people get their education. Society deems it as if the only way you can properly be educated nowadays is through institutionalized education, whether its a university or college. It's a horrible standard, in comparison to someone who educates themselves through books, or through trial-and-error. Society only cares where people end up, so it can continue to function. Thus, is what creates why being middle class is nothing to work, or look forward to.

I have always been told that we're not supposed to know our exact IQ's, like we're supposed to go along in life not knowing whether we are complete geniuses, or complete morons.

I think it can also tend to do with demographics as well. Most notably, Asian's tend to be the most educated, and disciplined.

 

I can't agree with that, but I agree that you shouldn't be able to ensure your bloodline for 300 years or more--that's just ridiculous. They should get taxed up the wazoo when they die. I don't think this should apply to people who aren't wealthy, though. I also think a distinction should be made between inheriting companies and other forms of wealth, at least in the second generation. People still living off what their ancestors did in 1820 need to give it up and go compete like everyone else.

Like I said, I think they should be able to keep something, but it shouldn't be anything like it is now. If you take everything, people will have less incentive to build and create.

This is a problem with runaway credentialism, which both parties in this country support. The Dems get to pay a bunch of worthless professors to indoctrinate kids, and others get to "pay" for credentials and get great jobs with less competition.

Asians have a superior culture.

 

Many have squandered family fortunes, so it's not something that lasts forever. However, the problem I have with your idea is that you are looking at the wealth that people have created and thinking of it as communal property. As somebody who has really sacrificed to raise my children and make sure they have all the benefits that I can give them, you can probably understand why I think the way I do about progressive taxes and forcing me to help kids that aren't mine.

In other words, Santa has a lump of coal for your christmas stocking.

That's a good point. Communities are disappearing. But why is that? Communities existed because they were places where people knew their neighbors. Neighborhood kids would be told "go outside and play!". Try that now and the cops are going to be knocking on your door with the child protective services people saying "we found your child playing unattended in the park".

Now if you really truly want to help the uneducated useless rabble, take a serious look at what is happening, and compare it to what should be happening. Those communities that are disappearing helped children in so many ways, from forming relationships, conflict resolution, and just plain exploring the world around us. Now look at what is happening and you don't see that. kids play video games online, and they don't spend time outside with their friends.

How do you get from single parent households supported by welfare to where it should be? By taxing me and giving it to the government so they can shlep it around to more welfare mothers? I don't think so.

The Nazi party was a very efficient government, but that's because it was a new government that rose out of the ashes of the wehrmacht economy. The south korean government was formed in 1953 after the signing of the armistice with north korea. The Japanese government is equally young, being established during the occupation around 1946. China is another great example as they went from being a communist hell hole, to an economic juggernaut thanks to the implementation of free market policies. hell, I grew up listening to my mom tell me to eat my vegetables because there was some hungry chinese kid that would love to have them.

All of these governments you mention are very new compared to the relatively ancient U.S. government. Governments are like microsoft software. The longer they stick around, the more bloated they become.

I'm describing a situation where mothers stay home, fathers go to work to pay the bills, and kids can be told "go outside and play!" and there are actually other kids out there to play with. A place where kids actually do their homework, learn how to read, learn the value of a hard earned dollar, and can become valuable members of a civil society when they grow up.

If this is a fantasy, then why was it possible for me, my parents, my grandparents, and untold generations going back to great great great grandpa belch when he first showed up with nothing to his name but a determination to succeed and an unfortunate name? Suddenly this is some crazy fantasy that couldn't possibly happen?

 

Why would Donald stick around for that? What is his incentive to be part of this system where everything he works for gets taken when he dies? Why would anybody put up with that?

I understand your basic idea, but you have a real problem when it comes to providing an incentive to go along with this idea. It works great if you're poor, but a bunch of poor people waiting for each other to die so they can call dibs on it doesn't seem like a place even poor people would want to live.

 

What I'm saying is people need to be responsible for building their own wealth, their own empire, not take the wealth their daddy made, or the empire their grandpa built, and live comfortably off of that. Then, when the day comes you can go to a auction at Sotheby's, or buy something out of Dupont Registry in cash, you'll feel good about it. People who are born with a silver spoon in their mouths is some of the people I have the least amount of respect for.

 

Disadvantaged people are always going to want people that seem more advantaged to help them out. They will usually just look up to the next social level, because those people will be the most visible to them. A closer look will reveal many of these so-called "advantaged" to have stressful obligations that led to cancer, heart problems, and outrageous medical bills. Others will be trying desperately to put older children through massively expensive college programs.

Society continues to benefit from high level specialization and creative risk takers. Those people are already burdened enough by their responsibilities and higher self expectations for themselves and their own children, and society wantsthem to be that way, because the results of their travails benefit society as a whole.

It is people at the very top of the financial ladder that are the most problematic. Where their actual wealth is in reality the worth of a family business the personal tax level is not an issue. Society wqants businesses that produce tangible goods or services to continue and does not wish to tax them away.

The real issue is with those in our society who are decision makers, but who are being paid such a high personal income that they are incapable of gauging correctly or caring about the effects and true costs of their decisions on society as a whole. It is these people, who essentially are externalizing the costs of their decisions and placing the burdens of of them on their own and other societies as a whole through pollution, economic disruption, career destruction,and other negative effects that are the true concern. Many of these individuals are not themselves members of the very top elite, but are their facilitators, and often the very most affluent have no idea just what unsavory and socially costly practices their servants are following, as the bottom line financial results are all they care to ascertain.

 

I have a friend who thought he was going to inherit a lot of money when his dad died, but his dad decided that it would be better to sell everything and spend the rest of his years being pampered on cruise ships. So yeah, some parents go that route when it comes to raising their children.

What about parents who would rather leave it to their children? What incentive do they have to go along with this idea of yours? Aside from losing your respect, I'm not seeing this as a viable alternative. I'd rather cash it all in and be cremated with it. Who says you can't take it with you?

 

It does if you aren't exceptionally incompetent. As long as you aren't retarded, you can stay rich forever, in this system.

I agree. It largely depends on your perspective, and I don't blame you for wanting to protect your wealth and give your kids a competitive advantage.

Some people in your position don't mind giving up a little and some do. At the end of the day, a person should support whatever system or set of ideas they think will benefit them and their progeny, and if that means someone else comes up short, so be it, though I'd rather everyone gain. Your system would have ended in my death in childhood, so you can see why I might have reservations about your system.

I actually agree with you, but I have no clue why this is the case. I don't know how things got so out of hand, culturally speaking. My gut instinct tells me it has something to do with the media. Liberalism, combined with immoral advertising and programming, is probably to blame.

Interesting hypothesis, but there is no way to prove that, and I'd argue that they have done better during that period than alternate systems of government have. I think that as long as they control their immigration policy and apply sound eugenics, they will maintain their level of performance. More importantly, it is vital that China resist the Americanization of their culture--nothing will destroy them faster. Free markets? The Chinese use markets as tools, not ends in themselves. Go ask them what they think of libertarianism lol.

I'm really not sure it can happen anymore, without real effort on the part of government AND people. The media is not going anywhere, and the genetic quality of the population continues to decline. There isn't a system in existence that can accommodate the proliferation of stupidity, and if we don't get a eugenics policy in place ASAP, we are in trouble.

Your position, if I understand you correctly, is to let Darwinism work overtime--mine is to accelerate it quickly and to minimize harm.

 

Interesting theory.

Charles Murray kind of alludes to this in Coming Apart, where he talks about how far-removed from reality the elites actually are. It is hard to make good decisions that affect others when you live on a different planet.

I do think American elites are probably even worse than the most impoverished and degenerate people. The truth of the matter is, anytime your society begins to crumble, it is always the ones in power who are responsible, at the end of the day.

 

Then cash it all in, and cremated with it.
By forcing offspring to work, and create their own wealth, it teaches a hard work ethic, and valuing what is earned. That should be the incentive to roll with that alternative, instead of something irresponsible like the 100 million in startup funds Fred Trump gave Donald. Earn that 100 million yourself.

 

That's a parenting decision, and not up to the government. The question of incentive to sit around and let the government decide what to do with their wealth has yet to be explained.

Why would a rich person allow that?

 

Nobody would work very hard if they didn't think they could pass something on to their kids. Damn near everyone I know who is wealthy is OBSESSED with pampering their kids and making sure they are safe. Where do you think "helicopter parenting" comes from?

You might as well get rid of capitalism if you are going to ban all inherited wealth--there is no way it would work.

 

I'll let elizabeth warren explain because she has power point slides and everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

About governments becoming bloated over time? Do we look at tax code? The entire internal revenue code of 1954 was 976 pages long. In 2016, that now takes up 74,608 pages. We can go by legislation or expense if you want, and you'll find the same thing.

It happens where the feminists haven't made many inroads. You can see it quite often in Asia, and I'm sure most muslim countries are the same. If mom can't or isn't off earning money, she's going to be home doing what moms do best. That community of parents and children is what makes a neighborhood. It's not the houses or the street names, but people who know and trust each other.

I see government as an unfortunately somewhat necessary evil. The state is a gun and a prison. That's all it is, and yes there are uses for guns and prisons. So whenever you think of the state as a means to affect change, you have to ask "how can a gun and a prison accomplish what I want to accomplish?"

Can coercion and violence create a civil society? Yes, it can, Do you want to live in that society? Or would you prefer a civil society that is maintained by mutual respect? And yes, it can be done. Maybe not in the states at least for another generation, but it can be done.

 

I am not going to listen to pocahontas wail for an hour.

Give me the summary.

In America.

Also, if you get rid of universal suffrage, you don't have to worry about a political backlash associated with laying off worthless bureaucrats.

It is not IMPOSSIBLE for a government to efficiently achieve objectives.

I agree with that. Unfortunately, between the media and land-use restrictions, I don't see the return of true neighborhoods coming anytime soon. Property is artificially expensive and regulations are too high to allow the kind of population density that would support strong communities.

Generally speaking, I think individuals, particularly in countries like America, are more likely to screw one another than to help one another. I've seen it in my own life, and I have no qualms about forcing people into submission. Frankly, I'm tired of playing games with people, in a political sense. The only thing that kept people from killing themselves in the past was some form of coercion, and now that we don't have religion, what is left?