Hacker News Reader

Comment by shrewduser | Hacker News Reader

I would argue yes. unless you can explain how rewarding people without merit over people with merit somehow leads to net happiness.

View on HN

What qualifies as rewarding people? Do food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education qualify as rewards?

Assuming we discover a perfect way to measure merit, what do we do with people who lack merit? What alternatives do you offer them over crime or suicide?

It's being done in Australia with aborigines. They're given large chunks of land, free income from the government or mining rights, and left to fend for themselves. They don't need to give value to other people, they can simply live, which is quite cheap without luxuries like electricity and permanent housing.

Because of the diminishing returns on incentives. It seems like the optimal solution is to reward those with merit just enough to keep then producing at maximum capacity while directing all surplus beyond that to raising up the median person.

What problem exactly are you trying to solve? and is that problem caused by meritocracy or something else?

The more accurately merit is measured, the more stable people's positions in society are likely to be. Which kinda sucks for people at the bottom.

I'd be concerned about problems from having a sharper divide between "employable" and "not employable", and instead of people who struggle to find/keep a job you'd have (slightly fewer) people who can't get jobs at all. That seems likely to cause more social problems.

OK maybe you need to read The Rise of Meritocracy before you advocate for society run by one? You might also try out Brave New World while you're at it.

Who/Whom? Ie, who decides what is merit and for whom will these standards be imposed? The public? experts? the people currently in power?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com