In a post about possible corruption in the government and finance sector, Paul Campos points to a news article entitled, “Howard Lutnick gives top Cantor Fitzgerald jobs to his sons Brandon and Kyle,” that features an adorable photo of the three Lutnicks standing next to a fashion model.
Campos labels this as, “The Meritocracy!”, and clearly he’s being ironic: his point is that it seems unlikely that these two twenty-somethings are really the people with the most merit needed to run this zillion-dollar company. All things are possible, but it would be an amazing coincidence if, among all the possible financial executives out there, that these two would happen to be the best.
And, sure, I get that.
But now I want to point to my old post on the topic, Meritocracy won’t happen: The problem’s with the “ocracy.”
The short version is that the news item, “Howard Lutnick gives top Cantor Fitzgerald jobs to his sons Brandon and Kyle,” is a very clean example of meritocracy. Lutnick Sr. had the merit (in whatever sense) that took him to the top of the heap, and he used that merit to get jobs for his kids: that’s the “ocracy” part.
If all that merit did was get you top jobs and lots of money, that’s not meritocracy, that’s just merit-based employment and pay. What makes it “meritocracy” that the people with the merit don’t just get nice jobs, they also get to be in charge of everything (”ocracy”). And one thing you do when you’re in charge is take care of your kids!
As Mark Palko discussed over ten years ago, our society seems to have become more tolerant of nepotism. Or maybe the point is that nepotism has always been a thing, but in recent years there’s been more of an effort by rich people and the news media to portray nepotistic hires as having special merit of their own. This is not to say that children of the successful cannot make great contributions themselves—John Quincy Adams comes to mind, also Julian Lennon had that cool song a few decades ago where he sounded just like his dad, so that’s something too. And then there was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who surpassed his famous father in achievements. And Alexander of Macedon didn’t do so bad either.
Anyway, “meritocracy” implies that the people with merit rule society, and they’ll use their power to help their kids.
Nepo babies aren’t a counterexample to meritocracy, they’re a central part of it.
Meritocracy relies on having unbiased ways of measuring merit. What would those be, exactly?
Perhaps a perfect meritocracy relies on having unbiased ways of measuring merit, but arguing that (imperfect) meritocracy is better than its alternatives does not.
Yes, I realize that this tangential to Andrew’s point that the issue is with the “-ocracy” part.
“Perhaps a perfect meritocracy relies on having unbiased ways of measuring merit, but arguing that (imperfect) meritocracy is better than its alternatives does not.”
Any kind of meritocracy relies on having unbiased ways of measuring merit and arguing that that truth makes treating meritocracy as an uncomplicated good thing a really bad idea is eminently worthwhile.
If you create a system that guarantees that certain people can’t ever gain merit then “meritocracy” is not imperfect, it’s a sham.
I think Andrew’s pointing out that meritocracy is a paradox like those barbers who shave all and only people who don’t shave themselves. As soon as you try to let people reap the rewards of a meritocracy, it undercuts the meritocracy.
Bob:
Yup. One can imagine having merit-based employment without it being meritocracy. In merit-based employment, people get jobs according to their merit. The problem comes with the “ocracy,” by which the people with merit don’t just get the jobs; they also get power, which they then use to hire their friends and relatives.
I’m surprised you didn’t say anything about second and third and sometimes fourth generation athletes, some of which are even more successful and some of which are mediocre and some of which are duds. It’s usually pretty easy to distinguish between merit and meritocracy in professional sports, at least at the highest levels, because there’s not a whole lot that can keep a bad player in a league.
Also this is the second time I’m posting this because the first time it just never even appeared for some reason.
“It’s usually pretty easy to distinguish between merit and meritocracy in professional sports”
It’s within a lot of people’s lifetimes that the NFL was convinced that blacks couldn’t be good quarterbacks. If someone never gets the chance to prove their merit, how exactly can they be distinguished?
I think you missed the point because you came up with a different point you wanted to make instead, but okay.
I think I responded to a point that you didn’t really understand you were making, but okay.
https://preview.redd.it/ben-simmons-vs-bronny-upbringing-v0-i7l89cabu0be1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a7f467566284bf9325c5b70a0fdb742c7795eba
Will:
Regarding your comment, “this is the second time I’m posting this because the first time it just never even appeared for some reason”: Sometimes comments get caught in the spam filter.
There’s a deeper issue here, I think. Capitalism relies on the motive of self-interest to stimulate and organize economic life. That can work, more or less, for a lot of things, but it’s a problem when it comes matters of inheritance and control — Andrew’s “-ocracy”. Since we still have ties of family and kinship, serving oneself also means benefiting those we care about most. Rich people have *always* promoted their kids any way they could, and ownership/control of businesses frequently passes along familial lines. Plutocrats proclaiming their love of meritocracy are not really advocating a disinterested method for sorting out life’s advantages; they’re just telling us the reason they’re on top is that they deserve it.
I think the Lutnick story is perfectly normal. It would be unusual if he *didn’t* promote his kids commensurately with his wealth and institutional power. We have a president who says ability should rule and whose fortune in the real estate biz was bequeathed by his father. Hardly anyone pays attention.
Trying to frame this kind of nepotistic transfer of power/ownership/wealth as a phenomenon that is especially attributable to capitalism really weird. Families have always tried to pass status, wealth, power, control, blah blah blah to their children, and it continues to happen in all sorts of situations that have nothing to do with capitalism.
Didn’t say it was attributable — read again. Nepotism can complicate the self-interest motive that capitalism depends on, however. Lutnick’s solicitude for his kids is not a product of capitalism. The presumption that his management of Cantor Fitzgerald will serve some larger social interest due to a rough correspondence between personal and social benefit doesn’t work so well.
Thinking about meritocracy this way seems clever at first, but is actually incoherent.
The definition of meritocracy is that those with merit get to be in charge. If you choose people to be in charge based on something else (e.g., nepotism) then you are not choosing on merit, and you no longer have a meritocracy. You have to continue to make decisions based on merit to have a meritocracy, otherwise you have something that used to be a meritocracy but is not any longer.
A democratically elected leader who goes full dictator and cancels future elections is not leading a democracy. He is leading what used to be a democracy, but is not any longer. Saying that the people put him in charge and he decides what to do and he decided on this path does not in any way mean its a democracy.
Similarly, using your merit to raise up people without merit cannot be labeled meritocracy.
bjs12:
See Bob Carpenter’s comment above.
No, I’m not buying it.
Andrew gets to be in charge due to his merit, through meritocracy. He appoints Buffoon to be in charge next. The meritocracy has ended. Just because Andrew has the -ocracy does not mean that the next layer gets to put merit- out in front.
In contrast, Andrew appoints Bob to be in charge next due to Bob’s merit. We still have a meritocracy.
No paradox. Just two different ways of choosing the next leader: one through merit (meritocracy) and one not (nepotism in the original post, buffoonocracy in this example).
Indeed, I believe that many people may spend their power (earned meritoriously) in ways that do not propagate merit. But other people will propagate merit. The former are not operating in a meritocracy, the latter are. Again, no paradox.
I think what Andrew is saying is that in the real world, meritocracy inevitably devolves into buffoonocracy.
+1 I’m not buying it either.
It’s very strange to me to try and understand the reasoning presented in the blog post at places. Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding, but it seems to me that there might be an assumption (“And one thing you do when you’re in charge is take care of your kids!”) that might play a large role in some of this reasoning. Or, it’s a definitions thing, as is often the case.
“Taking care of your kids” seems something people think of differently, one option might be that trying to find a fitting job for your children might be seen by the partents as “taking care of your kids”. This could explicitly involve making sure your children find a job that’s fitting concerning their individual qualities, interested, or talents. I also assume that there are likely many examples of parents who don’t make it easy for their kids or don’t “take care of their kids” even when they could.
More importantly, I agree with bjs12 if I am understanding correctly. If a meritocracy can be defined as “A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement” and a person is “advanced” because their parents put them in that position not because of their merit but because they might view that as “taking care of their kids” that’s no “advancement that is based on individual ability or achievement”. That’s not a process that’s part of a meritocracy, or an example of something that is supposed to happen in a meritocracy, or however you want to phrase it.
Bjs, Anon:
Fair enough. Meritocracy results in a mix of outcomes, some of which preserve merit-based employment (e.g., me hiring Bob Carpenter), others of which presumably do not (Lutnick hiring his sons, Sen. Gillibrand’s son getting a ridiculously lucrative job, etc.).
My above post was titled, “‘Howard Lutnick gives top Cantor Fitzgerald jobs to his sons Brandon and Kyle’ is a very clean example of meritocracy.” A more accurate title would be, “‘Howard Lutnick gives top Cantor Fitzgerald jobs to his sons Brandon and Kyle’ is one of many paths of meritocracy.”