Level playing field? Just world?

[feuervogel]

Horsecrap. And there's a study that shows the far greater prevalence of the belief that people get what they deserve, that the poor are poor because they're lazy, that the rich are rich because they're so virtuous and hard-working, that luck doesn't play into it at all, in America than in the rest of the world.

Data from the World Values Survey [Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote 2001; Keely 2002] show that ... Americans are about twice as likely as Europeans to think that the poor “are lazy or lack willpower” (60 percent versus 26 percent) and that “in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life” (59 percent versus 34–43 percent [Ladd and Bowman 1998]).

Dear neo-liberals, neo-cons, libertarians, and anyone else who believes the world we live in is really actually a meritocracy: IT ISN'T. You're deluding yourselves if you think it is.

Comments

[smarriveurr]

I remember a quote from an online post to the effect of "Democrats want to live in a world where merit is rewarded; Republicans want to pretend we already do." Obviously more complicated, but it's part of the reason that I settle for voting Democrat.

[feuervogel]

Indeed. I know exactly the post you're talking about, but I can't remember the name of the blog. Boo.

I think I have a post brewing about how the Calvinist doctrine of the fucking Puritans royally screwed our collective conscience.

[smarriveurr]

Prosperity theology has pretty much fucked over the USA from its foundation, yeah.

That reminds me, through a few intermediary steps to a brilliant tangent - you're one of the people I thought might be interested in this essay on The Beers of Martin Luther. Apparently, he liked the ancestor of modern Bock.

[feuervogel]

I'm not sure Calvinism is exactly the same as prosperity theology, but I can certainly see how the latter is an outgrowth of the former. You're poor/sick/unemployed/etc because you deserve it, because you're somehow a bad person, or because you don't love God enough.

Vile.

Of course Martin Luther liked beer. He was a good German, after all ;)

[av3rnus.livejournal.com]

Serious question, as I'm genuinely curious: with regards to income, how would you define 'merit'?

[feuervogel]

The two things are tangentially correlated, and hence one can't be defined with regard to the other.

Why do you assume that higher income implies higher merit? Is income seriously the only factor libertarians can consider?

[av3rnus.livejournal.com]

How can you say that something is or is not meritocratic unless you have a means by which to judge merit? You have to be able to define it.

And, no, I don't believe that income is the only means by which one can reward merit. I think that merit can be judged in different ways, but that not all of them lend themselves towards the use of income as a reward - respect, accolades, etc. are other ways to reward merit. So what I'm asking is: what criteria would you use to judge whether or not a person (or organization) merited higher income as their reward?

(I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just curious as to how you think about this)

[feuervogel]

And I'm saying that I don't view income as linked to merit.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[av3rnus.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I thought that your statement that the world wasn't a meritocracy implied that you believed it ought to be, according to some set of criteria for "merit".

[feuervogel]

What smarri said.

Additionally, you specifically asked me to define merit with regard to income. As I do not believe these things are intrinsically correlated, that is an inherently nonsensical question, like asking me to define apples with regard to birds.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

I think her statement that the world isn't a meritocracy is not meant to imply that she believes it ought to be. Rather, her statement is a refutation of the premise that many people hold that the world is a meritocracy. akiko is saying that the notion that many people have that there is a level playing field and all you need to do to get ahead is work hard is simply untrue.

Does that make more sense?

[av3rnus.livejournal.com]

Okay, that makes sense.

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

I believe the point is that, no matter how you choose to define merit, if you don't include things like "child of privilege" and "connections to privilege" as a distinct part of your definition--that is to say, unless you arbitrarily choose factors not intrinsic to the individual being considered, nor a result of their character and choices--you'll find that "merit" and financial success don't correlate that strongly. Regardless of what degree of dedication, creativity, etc you choose to use in your formula for merit, you will find people born into poverty who hit the upper end of the bell curve, but who will also die in poverty, and you will find people born into wealth at the lowest end of the curve, but who will live in comfort all their lives.

The argument doesn't really revolve around how exactly one defines merit, so much as whether one includes "white-collar parents who can afford computers and college" and "being in the right place to take advantage of a random occurrence" in that definition. The only way to include those sorts of things as "merit" on an individual's part is if one subscribes to a sort of prosperity theology where "good people" are rewarded by the universe.

[feuervogel]

Privilege. That's part of that "social justice" crap those liberals blather on about, isn't it? And social justice is about punishing people for being white men rich, and I can't get behind that.

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

*nod* It's a code word for trying to make white men suffer. Every time it comes up, it's to make a white guy's life worse.

Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[feuervogel]

But social justice, while it attempts to equalize outcomes, often violates the principle of equality under the law. Just because it tramples upon it in a way that you approve doesn't make it right.

You're saying that because biases and privileges exist it means that a wealthy executive should be legally obligated to pay for a poor janitor's cancer treatments? That makes no sense.

(Man, I forgot how much that fb exchange pissed me off. And how condescending it was at the end. Damn.)

edited: to make it not a strict C&P from facebook

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

"Just because someone has received unearned advantages that provide undreamed of wealth, that person should use their incredible wealth to some small degree to help those who did not have the same unearned advantages? Preposterous!"

Yeah. Raaaage.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[feuervogel]

Somebody who has $275,000,000 annual income may have to pay $20,000 to the government in THEFT!!! taxes that go to funding Medicare and Medicaid. I don't know *how* he'll survive.

One would hope that a truly principled person of a libertarian persuasion will refuse to receive Medicare after retirement or Medicaid, should they find themselves in dire straits. Or welfare, food stamps, or those other horrible government programs that shouldn't exist because 1% of the people who use them abuse it.

And, like I said. Irreconcilable philosophical differences.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

I remember, I think it was on Scalzi's post about how people who complain about taxes generally don't understand tax law, someone talking about a mother who, if she took a $75,000 job, and put her child into a $24,000/yr daycare program, after taxes, would ONLY net an additional $10,000 in extra income after expenses, on top of her husband's income, and who the hell would work for $10k/yr.

All I could think was how many people would kill to have a job that left them with ten grand a year after expenses - and that this is yet another person who is totally unqualified to talk about what's "fair" in this world.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[feuervogel]

Yep, that's where it was. And they got the thumping they deserved in comments.

IT'S SO UNFAIR, PEOPLE EXPECT ME TO SHARE. Go back to preschool.

(You got listening with beer back!)

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

I have always loved that listening with beer icon.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

It was pretty much the final straw on my Dreamwidth migration... until a random gift of paid time returned it. It's my most valued and versatile icon, and I can't imagine commenting regularly without it.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I will never understand that "It's unfair, people expect me to give up 1% of my income so that 50 other people don't have to give up 10% of theirs!" mindset. Seriously, when you can cause 10% of the population a minor inconvenience and thereby save 50% of the population from disaster... duh. Could happen to anyone, people.

(I did. Someone gave me an anonymous donation of 12 months paid. It is simultaneously awesome and touching, and yet... I was totally going to switch to DW and not give LJ money anymore...)

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[feuervogel]

IT'S FORCE FORCE IS BAD TAXATION IS THEFT IT'S MINE I WORKED FOR IT FUCK YOU YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

Why can't libertarians see how much like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum it makes them sound?

From the fb thread again (paraphrased): Sure, not everyone who goes on unemployment/welfare will become dependent; it depends on their priorities. But a lot of people are lazy, so they will become dependent, and therefore social safety nets are bad.

I don't see how they completely overlook the inherent classism, Calvinism, and general selfishness of this outlook. (Welfare encourages dependency; poor people are poor because they're lazy [see study referenced in original post]; welfare should be abolished to Teach Those Lazy Fucking Poor People a Lesson.)

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

What I love is the conception that other people will live comfortably on these "safety nets", enough so that they aren't motivated to find jobs that pay money. That's the part I don't get. Once again, it's people not understanding what's going on in the real world.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[feuervogel]

People are totally living high on the hog, with their $300/week (before taxes). And the numbers given are max benefits -- probably not what a single person with no dependents would get.

I can't find good data through google on what AFDC pays, because the top pages of hits are all CATO jackholes and "welfare pays better than work, so why work?" But I found a single article on the difficulty AFDC recipients have in supporting themselves.

Note to CATO-types: have you ever considered that welfare benefits (as well as Medicaid) are pulled when you make over a certain VERY LOW threshold, and that making, for example, 9,500 a year to support two children and getting AFDC and food stamps is OK, but making 10,000 a year and getting your aid pulled means your kids go hungry?

Reality is a lot more complicated than the black and white you make it out to be.

ETA: Not that I expect av3rnus is still reading this thread.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

Speaking as someone who makes $350/wk after taxes... yeah. Not going to try to live on less, thanks much. And it's funny that people will say that if your taxes go up at $200k you've no incentive to earn more near there... but taking away benefits at or below the poverty line is all hunky-dory.

Re: Do you know how far I had to scroll back in facebook to find this?

[feuervogel]

That's how you can tell their principles boil down to "fuck the poor people."