
America’s elite: An hereditary meritocracy - bootload
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21640316-children-rich-and-powerful-are-increasingly-well-suited-earning-wealth-and-power
======
jballanc
For millennia, being "elite" meant owning land. In a primarily agrarian
society, owning land is a _huge_ advantage. So then, if that land is passed
along hereditary lines, the establishment of a "landed aristocracy" is
inevitable.

The risk in "meritocracy" is that we no longer live in an agrarian society. In
the modern economy skills, training, and education are the surest means to
success. We've replaced the "landed aristocracy" with the "educated
aristocracy". This could only be considered a meritocracy if the potential to
become educated was equally available to all, but the situation in America is
further from that ideal than almost any other place in the world.

~~~
crdoconnor
>In the modern economy skills, training, and education are the surest means to
success.

Nope. Still land _:

[http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-
col...](http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-college-
degree-or-being-born-rich/)

_ actually it was never just land either. It used to be about owning land,
debts, gold and slaves

Now it's about owning land, debts (bonds), gold and shares.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I can't find numbers on how many Americans own homes, but 67% of homes are
occupied by their owner. That's quite a large aristocracy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States)

52% own stocks.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/162353/stock-ownership-stays-
reco...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/162353/stock-ownership-stays-record-
low.aspx)

I'm too lazy to google bonds and gold (both easily available to anyone with a
brokerage account).

The means to success seem pretty accessible based on these numbers.

~~~
Retric
Thee is a meaningless difference between renting and owning 50+% the value of
your home.

Looks for the % of Americans that own 95% of their home and try again.

PS: Out of 300 million There are under ~21 million households that own their
home actually own their home.

~~~
TheCondor
Actually, there is a very substantial difference. The world recognizes and
honors that 50%. Particularly the credit markets do and in a liquidity event,
you walk with the 50% in cash.

Now if you were to just up and stop paying your debts, you can lose it.

~~~
Retric
Assuming the market does not tank. Plenty of homes have lost more than 50% of
their value.

------
_0ffh
This is a red herring!

I can believe the argument of hereditary meritocracy for an academic middle
class, where children grow up in houses with books in them, rather than 24/7
TV, and parents who are able and willing to help their kids when they struggle
with their school work.

But it does most definitely NOT apply like this for the "elite" \- that is
when you get a cushy, highly paid job where you can virtually do no wrong
because you studied at the right university, visit the right clubs and
(therefore) know the right people. And that is only until you come into your
inheritance, when your "work" will consist of raking in the huge rent you are
receiving because you are rich already.

~~~
tormeh
So much this. That merit is hereditary is a problem, but merit was never that
important anyway. The thing that really drives me up the wall, though, is
popular culture's insistence on hard work as the key to success, when really
the most common way to success is various variants of interest(investment
returns etc)

------
wmyl
"Our Enemy, The State", by Albert J. Nock - 1935. CHAPTER 4
===================================================== AFTER conquest and
confiscation have been effected, and the State set up, its first concern is
with the land. The State assumes the right of eminent domain over its
territorial basis, whereby every landholder becomes in theory a tenant of the
State. In its capacity as ultimate landlord, the State distributes the land
among its beneficiaries on its own terms. A point to be observed in passing is
that by the State-system of land-tenure each original transaction confers two
distinct monopolies, entirely different in their nature, inasmuch as one
concerns the right to labour-made property, and the other concerns the right
to purely law-made property. The one is a monopoly of the use-value of land;
and the other, a monopoly of the economic rent of land. The first gives the
right to keep other persons from using the land in question, or trespassing on
it, and the right to exclusive possession of values accruing from the
application of labour to it; values, that is, which are produced by exercise
of the economic means upon the particular property in question. Monopoly of
economic rent, on the other hand, gives the exclusive right to values accruing
from the desire of other persons to possess that property; values which take
their rise irrespective of any exercise of the economic means on the part of
the holder.[1]

Economic rent arises when, for whatsoever reason, two or more persons compete
for the possession of a piece of land, and it increases directly according to
the number of persons competing. The whole of Manhattan Island was bought
originally by a handful of Hollanders from a handful of Indians for twenty-
four dollars' worth of trinkets. The subsequent "rise in land-values," as we
call it, was brought about by the steady influx of population and the
consequent high competition for portions of the island's surface; and these
ensuing values were monopolized by the holders. They grew to an enormous size,
and the holders profited accordingly; the Astor, Wendel, and Trinity Church
estates have always served as classical examples for study of the State-system
of land-tenure.

------
jokoon
> they meet the standards of meritocracy better than their peers, and are thus
> worthy of the status they inherit.

Or maybe the education system ended up being tailored for well minded people,
and not for the others ? Education involves a lot of human interaction, it's
pretty difficult to teach and learn.

> Neither has plausible ideas for what to do about it.

The purpose of education, in my mind, is to lift people out of poverty by just
teaching them a job that their parents don't have any relationship with, and
will never have.

If you put competition in something that is made to reduce inequality, you
will be disappointed. Maybe expensive schools should be taxed to fund more
public schools too. There's a student loan bubble, so why not tax it to fund
community colleges ?

To be honest, I live in france, I think the problem with the US education
system is what the education quality students are exposed to from age of 8 to
16. I think it's very heterogeneous in the US, and that might be the source of
the problem.

------
WalterBright
Unsaid in the article: 1. 85% of America's millionaires are self-made ("The
Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley) 2. there's never been more free
opportunities for self-education, from the Khan Academy to MIT lectures free
online.

~~~
normloman
1.85% is pretty small. (EDIT: This is incorrect. I take it back!)

And learning online may teach you the skills, but won't replace the prestige
you earn or the connections you make at an ivy league university.

The fact that you're at a prestigious university in the first place means
there's a good chance you're already rich. And the easiest way to get rich is
to be rich in the first place. This is the point of the article. Not that
education makes all the difference, but that being rich has so many
advantages.

~~~
adaml_623
85% not 1.85%. There is a formatting issue with the parent post

------
alkonaut
A lot of the problems with social mobility in the US could be solved if
universities didn't get to handle their own admissions. Interviews and
"letters of application" are just a way to let wealthy sponsors get their kids
into the best education. Why not just say universities either hand over their
admission to a central agency OR agree to base all admission on objective
parameters like standardized tests or grades?

~~~
mantas
My country uses exact system that you're suggesting and I am jealous of US
system of interviews and letters of application.

Over there, potential students submit their high school performance reports to
a centralised system and select programmes they want to study. Then system
selects students based purely on their academical performance. It includes
high school exam and average grades at final year of high school. Few top
performers in each programme get all expenses paid, a bunch of good-but-not-
best get partial coverage.

All seems good on paper, but it gets nasty during the last few years at high
school. People do whatever they can to increase their grades. Including
cheating, manipulating teachers and so on. In addition to that, people learn
solely for the exams. Instead of gathering general knowledge, previous exams
are studied to prepare for questions that may be in the upcoming exam. So it's
either studying for grades or paying for studies.

Another problem is that some people graduate with the best grades and don't
know what they want to do. But they're pretty sure to get a free spot thanks
to good grades. They apply for random programme that has a cool title.
Sometimes they end up enjoying it, sometimes they just sit through it and end
up working in a different field. While people who were genuinely interested in
that subject, but had lower grades, may not get even a paid spot.

It may be grass-is-greener thingie, but interviews and letters of application
seem to be much better way. Grades do not show if particular person is a good
fit for the specific programme. Different schools/teachers rate their students
a bit differently as well.

~~~
alkonaut
Interviews and letters of application might seem like a good idea, but on
closer inspection it isn't. As you could expect, an industry of "consultants"
has emerged, helping rich kids get into Ivy League schools, by interview
training and "helping them" write letters of application (i.e. writing it for
them). So the grass doesn't seem much greener.

Perhaps the best system would be a combination of anonymized grades/scores
combined with anonymized interviews?

~~~
mantas
There're always people who want to game the system :( I still think that
interviews/applications are better on theoretical level though. Maybe it's
because I didn't do very well in high school :)

Anonymization definitely helps. It's strictly enforced on national exams there
and it seems to work pretty well. I'd focus on ensuring that applicants
themselves do the job though. For example, application letters could be
written in a controlled environment, without any help from 3rd party. Some
people would memorise prepared letters, but it would make it a wee bit more
fair.

P.S. Anonymous interviews would look great. Live Robot voice converter, full
face (body?) mask... I'd watch this movie.

~~~
alkonaut
I think the catholics have all but perfected the anonymous dialogue...

------
userulluipeste
"The children of the rich and powerful are increasingly well suited to earning
wealth and power themselves. (elite is producing children who not only get
ahead, but deserve to do so: they meet the standards of meritocracy better
than their peers, and are thus worthy of the status they inherit) That’s a
problem"

Actually, this kind of thinking in itself is a problem. If there is any
deterrence in social mobility where potential value does not get the chance to
become true value then by all means - address that deterrence. But taking a
political standing questioning the moral for current state where (although
resourceful) potential value becoming true value? This is wrong. Humanity
getting better (through non-destructive ways) does not need justification in
someone's eyes or qualification in some political doctrine's view, because it
is in itself more important than any of these.

~~~
userulluipeste
Got down-voted pretty quickly! Was it after a rational analyze of the contents
I've written or was it just an emotional response?

~~~
userulluipeste
More karma burn and no explanation whatsoever. I think this answers not only
my parent question, it also gives a glimpse on human nature of our time and
what are we currently surrounded by. The humanity that I've mentioned earlier
has apparently still a long way to go.

------
WalterBright
> Caltech, a university which admits purely on academic ability, has more
> Asian students than other elite schools.

Caltech is unique in other ways - it's the only university with an honor
system top to bottom.

------
wmyl
We abolished "titles of nobility" but forgot to address the government
privileges, such as patent "royalties" and land- _titles_ , which yield the
payments that monopolists like to rent-seek.

------
bootload
source
<[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/558494900245643264>](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/558494900245643264>)

~~~
blfr
HN doesn't interpret <> correctly. Here
[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/558494900245643264](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/558494900245643264)

~~~
bootload
thx @blfr

------
transfire
When I step back and take a look at modern America, I don't see much of a
meritocracy. It looks much more like a mediocrity.

------
minikites
It wouldn't be a complete solution, but a 100% estate/inheritance tax would go
a long way to correcting this. Without that you can't even remotely pretend
everyone in this country has equality of opportunity.

~~~
userulluipeste
I haven't down-voted you, but I must say it's a crazy idea. We may try finding
ways to impose some handicap to some people for... what exactly? For some
political/social sense of rightness? In the end, the fact is, the entire
society benefits from having competent people around, regardless of their
pedigree chart. Moreover, like the article mentions, the inheritance isn't
just estate/material any more. It's a broad spectrum that starts from
(probably controverted) genetic advantage up to the process of being groomed
for high-level positions in society. Say, how would we tax the parent's
reputation and her network of social connections that somehow spills over the
off-springs?

~~~
minikites
It's very possible that I'm missing some vital concept but start from the
other direction, as if inheritance never existed: The point of taxes is to
contribute to society for the help they have given you for resources we all
share (infrastructure, national defense, education, etc). After you die, why
should your accumulated wealth, produced with the help of society, go to only
your offspring instead of society at large?

~~~
aswanson
Because our theory of justice and government include property rights. Those
rights include the privilege to gift legally acquired property, while we live,
to our children.

Turn that question around. What is society at large going to do for my
children if I die today that I couldn't do better if I was living and
directing my efforts toward them?

~~~
minikites
Property rights are already voluntarily violated through taxation, this is
just a more thorough example. Why should someone who hasn't earned property
get to exercise rights over it? Society contributed to the wealth, the
offspring may or may not have, but if they did they should have been paid
before the elder in the situation passed on.

And to your second point, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. Because taxes are so
vilified, we don't have the fiscal ability to take care of people as we should
(in my opinion). If society at large had a form of basic income, that would
answer your second point and one way to fund it would be to massively increase
estate/inheritance taxes.

~~~
userulluipeste
I never thought of taxes as property violation. I guess I had perceived these
through their original concepts - from the roman right. There a property was
rightly yours in the society that considers you a part of it. At your turn, it
was your duty to make sure the society that recognizes your rights stays in
one piece, which meant protecting it with your life if necessary. That was
your contribution to society. Later the citizen's contribution become solely
financial and it's somewhat understandable now why it's perceived as a racket.
You've suggested that after you die the property should go to society, which
is totally outside the roman right tradition and hard to swallow in west.
However in east (or at least in China) you may find your suggestion already
implemented. I'm not aware of all details, but I remember that a "property"
there (like a house to live in) is yours only for a limited time and your
children have to buy it all over again!

~~~
minikites
Interesting, I didn't know that about China.

And regarding taxes as property violation, it's a very popular meme in the
American Right/Conservative/Libertarian groups that "taxes = theft".

