It's just another form of authoritarianism, despotism, and oligarchy. Who decides what work is worth rewarding? What about the type of work?
It was always an antidemocratic idea sold to tech workers to stop the idea of questioning the system.
The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims. How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences? What about in our neoliberal society where money is the only purpose to life?
Corporations are the last authoritarian forces we willfully allow to dictate how we live our lives, I think anything to dismantle their power is worth pursuing. If democracy is good enough for states, it should surely be more than good enough for the economy.
As someone who is a big fan of consensus and voice, I don't see how current corporate leadership could get worse if more workers inside the company had more opportunities to direct its future. It's their future too, they need a say and telling people to just leave goes back to the neoliberal decaying value of money above all us.
At the risk of being accused of reductio ad absurdum - do you want companies to be run like American HOAs? If so, do you expect the results to be the same or different than with HOAs?
There are, if not millions of HOAs, surely at least one hundred thousand, but you only hear about the ones being silly.
It's a bit of a lazy punchline, especially because HOAs are one of the purest forms of democracy, they really only exist (barring certain corporate controlled ones that I don't think count) because the people there want them to.
It absolutely is a real thing. You don't get to declare that an existing word with more than 2000 years of history doesn't exist.
It may not exist in the Bay Area or in whatever subset of parameters you invented, but it absolutely exists and is something to strive towards.
> The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims.
Complete non-sequitur with 0 evidence.
> How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences?
You decide just like everything else. Based on context and some objective measurements. It's not a perfect system, because sometimes measurements can become the goal, rather than the underlying objective, but it's the best system we have.
You may have heard the joke that polyamory is wrong, because it should be multiamory or polyphilia. Meritocracy is a similar case. Because the word mixes Latin and Greek roots, it's unlikely to be old.
The first recorded uses of "meritocracy" are apparently by Marxist sociologists in the 1950s. They used it to describe a dystopian society, where merit serves as a moral justification for social classes, and social class determines the opportunities available to gain and demonstrate merit.
Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
> Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
Do you have any evidence for that? Aside from the thought-terminating cliché "it was used by Marxists once" ?
(Upper) middle class culture, where parents try to give their children a favorable start in life, which often involves a lot of effort. Such as buying a home in a good school district or helping them gain admission to a good university.
Because meritocracy isn't a real thing.
It's just another form of authoritarianism, despotism, and oligarchy. Who decides what work is worth rewarding? What about the type of work?
It was always an antidemocratic idea sold to tech workers to stop the idea of questioning the system.
The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims. How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences? What about in our neoliberal society where money is the only purpose to life?
What would your preferred alternative look like?
For the modern American tech corporation? Full throated workplace democracy, with an emphasis on small d:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy
Corporations are the last authoritarian forces we willfully allow to dictate how we live our lives, I think anything to dismantle their power is worth pursuing. If democracy is good enough for states, it should surely be more than good enough for the economy.
As someone who is a big fan of consensus and voice, I don't see how current corporate leadership could get worse if more workers inside the company had more opportunities to direct its future. It's their future too, they need a say and telling people to just leave goes back to the neoliberal decaying value of money above all us.
At the risk of being accused of reductio ad absurdum - do you want companies to be run like American HOAs? If so, do you expect the results to be the same or different than with HOAs?
There are, if not millions of HOAs, surely at least one hundred thousand, but you only hear about the ones being silly.
It's a bit of a lazy punchline, especially because HOAs are one of the purest forms of democracy, they really only exist (barring certain corporate controlled ones that I don't think count) because the people there want them to.
> Because meritocracy isn't a real thing.
It absolutely is a real thing. You don't get to declare that an existing word with more than 2000 years of history doesn't exist.
It may not exist in the Bay Area or in whatever subset of parameters you invented, but it absolutely exists and is something to strive towards.
> The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims.
Complete non-sequitur with 0 evidence.
> How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences?
You decide just like everything else. Based on context and some objective measurements. It's not a perfect system, because sometimes measurements can become the goal, rather than the underlying objective, but it's the best system we have.
You may have heard the joke that polyamory is wrong, because it should be multiamory or polyphilia. Meritocracy is a similar case. Because the word mixes Latin and Greek roots, it's unlikely to be old.
The first recorded uses of "meritocracy" are apparently by Marxist sociologists in the 1950s. They used it to describe a dystopian society, where merit serves as a moral justification for social classes, and social class determines the opportunities available to gain and demonstrate merit.
Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
> Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
Do you have any evidence for that? Aside from the thought-terminating cliché "it was used by Marxists once" ?
(Upper) middle class culture, where parents try to give their children a favorable start in life, which often involves a lot of effort. Such as buying a home in a good school district or helping them gain admission to a good university.