In Twilight of the Elites Christopher Hayes establishes a correlation between inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity in a meritocratic system. American ideology is constructed around the concept of a meritocracy, in which individuals are presumed to have limitless opportunities and the ability to go as far as their own merit will take them. According to this ideology, hard work, talent, and intelligence guarantee one’s individual success. In what he dubs as The Iron Law of Meritocracy, Hayes establishes that as outcomes become increasingly unequal, so do opportunities. Individuals are partially predisposed for failure or success as a result of several morally arbitrary factors, such as family wealth, luck, and timing. Therefore, …show more content…
the impact that merit has on one’s economic success is vastly overestimated, which puts the principle of inequality of outcomes into question, as opportunity is not always equal. In order to ameliorate the inequality in opportunity, the disparity in wealth (outcomes) must me reduced. As predicted by Hayes’ Iron Law of Meritocracy, the rising inequality of outcomes in a contemporary meritocratic society results in greater inequality of opportunity, however, once the inequality of outcomes is reduced, equality of opportunity is able to be reinstated.
Hayes contends that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are directly correlated, as the consequence of The Iron Law of Meritocracy. Meritocracies rest on the principle of equality of opportunity; when equality of opportunity prevails, the delegation of individuals to places in a social hierarchy is determined by a form of competitive process, and all members of a society are authorized to compete on equal terms. Therefore, in a perfect meritocracy, there is not equality of outcome, since individuals are rewarded proportionately to their personal aptitude. Hayes refutes this …show more content…
notion and posits that unequal outcomes result in unequal opportunity, “Unequal outcomes make equal opportunity impossible…those who are able to climb up the ladder will find ways to pull it up after them, or to selectively lower it down enabling their friends, allies, and kin to scramble up.” In order for a meritocracy to be successful, there must be both social mobility and a proper application of the difference principle, which would guarantee that the capable poor ascend while the incompetent wealthy descend. Unfortunately however, The Iron Law of Meritocracy counteracts the possibility of social mobility, as Hayes explains when he says, “The Iron Law of Meritocracy states that eventually the inequality produced by a meritocratic system will grow large enough to subvert the mechanisms of mobility.” The Iron Law of Meritocracy speculates that societies organized around a meritocratic model will be unable to sustain social mobility. Eventually, meritocratic societies develop inequalities as they consequentially become less mobile, since those who become successful aim to preserve and protect their privilege and find ways to pass it down to future generations. As such, social mobility is severely hindered, and some of society’s most gifted members are unable to rise as easily to success. The impact that morally arbitrary factors have on success challenges the principle of equality of opportunity and the validity of inequality of outcomes.
Although a strong work ethic and high intelligence are pivotal characteristics for an individual to become successful, they are not the only determinants of success. The fact that many individuals fail to accomplish traditional measures of success despite high intelligence and a hard work ethic, while many succeed despite lack of qualifications, is indicative of the influence that morally arbitrary factors have on success. In our world today, one’s success is highly contingent upon timing and luck. For example, how many of the internet millionaires would have been able to achieve the astronomical success that they did, had they been born prior to the advent of the internet? Similarly, would Michael Jordan have been as successful as he is today if he hadn’t been born into a society that values skilled athletes so highly? As Michael J. Sandel explains in Justice, one cannot legitimately claim credit for success that is based on morally arbitrary factors, when he says, “Jordan is fortunate to possess the talent to excel at basketball, and is lucky to live in a society that prizes the ability to soar through the air and put a ball in a hoop.” Although one should not be penalized for his or her natural talents or good timing, the influence that family privilege, good connections, and pure luck have on success cannot be
ignored. Hayes explains the influence that these morally arbitrary factors have on success, when he says, “The pyramid of merit has come to mirror the pyramid of wealth and cultural capital.” This flips the concept of a meritocracy on it’s head, as individuals are rewarded for things that they did not earn through merit, but instead by being born into the right family, or being at the right place at the right time. Thus, inequality of outcomes is not morally justified, since there isn’t actually complete equality of opportunity to begin with. In order to ameliorate the inequality of opportunity, the inequality of outcomes must be made less disparate. However, this is not to imply that talented hard-working individuals should be penalized for being successful, or that children born into affluent families should be stripped of their familial wealth. The road to success is similar to a relay race, in that we inherit an initial starting point from parents. In this relay race to success, individuals who come from affluent families are given a meaningful head-start, while individuals who come from poor families have significantly more hurtles to overcome. Therefore, if a certain child’s parents were unable to achieve material success as a result of lack of talent, drive, connections, or education, then that child will have a more difficult time becoming successful than would a child from an affluent well-connected family. Thus, the opportunities of a child from a poor family compared to those of a child from an affluent family are unequal as a result of unequal outcomes. Hayes alludes to this paradigm when he says, “Over time, a larger share of the families were staying within in their class through their lives.” In saying this, Hayes is implying that children from lower socioeconomic class families are predisposed to remain within the same socioeconomic class as their parents. Consequently, the only solution for unequal opportunities is to make for more equal outcomes. Absolute redistribution of monetary wealth is not the solution, because it adversely affects motivation for those who need to ascend and reduces incentive for those whose capital is to be confiscated for redistribution. Therefore, less capital will be created and the system will become depleted of resources. A more practical solution would be to increase access to education, healthcare, and jobs, for those who have reduced access. Such opportunity would permit meritocratic principles to foster ascent up the socioeconomic ladder. As wealth increases, greater capital would be available in the society so as to further invest in the process. It would become self perpetuating. In Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes elucidates the inaccuracy in the assumption that social and economic resources in American society are distributed purely on the basis of merit. Hayes argues that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are bound by The Iron Law of Meritocracy. As inequality of outcomes rises, it becomes impossible to maintain equality of opportunity. This is consequence of the impact that morally arbitrary factors have on one’s success. Therefore, individuals are either rewarded or penalized for reasons other than personal merit, such as family wealth, timing, luck, etcetera. Consequently, in our current system, inequality of outcomes is not morally justified, as individuals are not granted equal opportunity. In fact, inequality of outcomes leads to inequality of opportunity. Therefore, in order to give every individual equal opportunities for success, the wealth disparity present in the current American economy must be ameliorated.
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
Growing up in The United States, people are given this idea of an American Dream. Almost every child is raised to believe they can become and do anything they want to do, if one works hard enough. However, a majority of people believe that there is a separation of class in American society. Gregory Mantsios author of “Class in America-2009” believes that Americans do not exchange thoughts about class division, although most of people are placed in their own set cluster of wealth. Also political officials are trying to get followers by trying to try to appeal to the bulk of the population, or the middle class, in order to get more supporters. An interesting myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how Americans don’t have equal opportunities.
In the Forbes article called, Two Nations…both black by Henry Louis Gates Jr. it talks about how African American people don’t see themselves as good enough to be successful like “white” Americans. In the article, it talks about how African Americans are living in a period of time where they are having the best of times and the worst of times. The article also talks about how African Americans are not assimilating to the American norms. Henry Louis Gates Jr. goes on to say that in order for an African American to be successful they need to have a good career. He says that being an athlete is not a serious occupation, but having an education is. He then mentions that segregation will be broken once they cross the line of integration and when they graduate from a university not by playing a sport, but by their work that they do.
Nevertheless, our social structure isn’t a brick wall were individuals are trapped in there social class. We are still able with education and the opportunities to shape our lives and achieve our full potential. Harlon L. Dalton emulates the possibility within his story about Horatio Alger, “neither Alger nor the myth suggests that we start out equal. Nor does the myth necessarily require that we be given an equal opportunity to succeed. Rather, Alger’s point is that each of us has the power to create our own opportunities.”
Gregory Mantsios presents himself as an expert in this essay because he states a lot of facts. The author uses stats, his own opinion, and my favorite thing that brought me in was the myths that he told the reality’s for later in the essay. Mantsios believes that no matter what social or economic class that you fall into, you have a fair chance at succeeding in life. I feel that the intended audience is the citizens of America or people in the workforce since they are the ones that have to deal with this situation. The thesis of this essay is “Perhaps, most importantly, the point that is missed is that inequality is persistent and structural- and it manifests itself in a multitude of cultural and social ways.” The author discussed the problems that occur from economic and social classes. The purpose of this argument is to debate on what kind of people will be successful in life. Everyone has a shot at being successful, and that they do with it is
Although most Americans continue to believe working hard is the most important element for getting ahead, they no longer believe that it guarantees success (Hanson 2010: 570). "Lack of thrift, effort, ability, motivation, and self-control are the most popular explanations for poverty among Americans. Thus, inequality is justified and the Dream can stay alive in the context of one of the wealthiest nations with one of the greatest wealth divides" (Hanson 2010: 571). Instead of one undifferentiated American dream to collectively strive towards, there are several interpretations which pertain to differing social locations. This is because of the inequalities of advantages and disadvantages across generations produced by cumulative institutional processes and an unfair opportunity structure (Pallas 2008:
In the collegiate world of sports, basketball has become an increasingly recognized sport among African Americans, predominantly males. The hope of any young basketball player is that one day a scout will come and recruit them into stardom The question that presents itself as a problem to the lucky few who are chosen to go professional, is whether or not an education is more important than a million dollar shoe deal, “The NCAA's (1998) annual six-year study reported that only 33% of Black male basketball players graduated, (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1999). Individually, basketball reported the lowest graduation rate in all divisions,” (Robinson, 2004:1). Basketball players have become so idolized in the eyes of young Black male basketball athletes, that the value of education appear to be less important in the development of these young men, “According to Sailes (1997), there is an over-representation of Black males in particular sports and an under-representation in other segments of American society. He provides the example of percentages of Black males competing in the NBA (77%), NFL (65%), MLB (15%), and MLS (16%) in comparison to the fact that fewer than 2% of doctors, lawyers, architects, college professors, or business executives are Black males.”, (Robinson, 2004:1). The idea of the attainment of a professional basketball player’s salary in the NBA, without even having to go to school for the time it takes to earn a degree is very appealing to some players. Those with a wealthy, or even upper-middle class upbringing may not view material assets as a priority. In the Black community, we have theorized that money and success play a more important role than education in most households. Although these two seem to go together, one resulting from the other, this does not apply in the sports world. Our research will examine the role that the family value system plays in influencing Black vs. White male athletes to turn professional, as opposed to obtaining a college degree before turning professional.
In “What Do We Deserve?”, Arora takes a look at political philosophies and asks an important question, “How much of my good life do I really deserve?.” He brings up that argument that the contest of life is “rigged from the start” (Arora). How do one fix the contest so it's fair for everyone? Society can start by leveling the playing field to give everyone an equal chance, eliminating the idea of winner vs. loser, and encouraging and rewarding hard work and natural talents. Once the system is repaired, then we will see that those who make the effort and take advantage of their own gifts will succeed and be truly deserving of their earnings.
Some people may be born into a family with wealth, and that is acceptable. Some people on the other hand, are not born into a family with wealth, and that is acceptable too. The work that families have done to get to the level they are in, are just a cushion. People should try to build their own reputation or success. Even if people work toward their goals of success, it could take years to reach, it isn’t something that happens over night usually. The way they act or present themselves in certain circumstances will determine if they succeed or fail. As much as people want to control every step toward that, there are things that are out of everyone's control. Every action they do, every decision they make, they can not control everything. There are certain things that can put a halt toward success, things many do not see coming till it happens. Oedipus had no idea that he was the one causing the sickness that was spreading through his kingdom. He was doing well as a king, but certain things can change that. His curse put on him when he was younger, was out of his control. The priest reminds Oedipus of his success depict the sickness surrounding them, “You saved us from Sphinx…”(40). Success may be the one thing you can control, but at the same time have no idea what could come
As Miller and Wilson revealed, athleticism is not always analogous with success. Willy regarded Biff highly because he observed Biff’s presence and athleticism, and he believed these qualities would result in immediate success. Today many parents associate sports with success and therefore pressure their children to excel in sports. In today’s society it is very rare that fears of discrimination would cause children to not pursue a lucrative career in sports. Both Miller and Wilson knew the impact of sports on family dynamics, and how sports have evolved from a leisure time activity to a full-time commitment. Clearly, many of the qualitative aspects of sports--competition, teamwork and physical dexterity can contribute to being a success in almost any career.
The history of sports goes back since ancient times. It has been a useful way for people to explore nature and their environment. Sports include different activities and games such as football, soccer, basketball, and etc. to express their skills and talents. Also, sports are a way to relax and have fun; but are sports all our African Americans rely on? The dream to become future sports stars. The reason why Gates begins his essay with an anecdote is to show and compare how many african-american athletes were at work today and how little the chances of African-Americans becoming athletes are compared to being a lawyer, dentist, or even a doctor. African-Americans assume that they are born athletes and it’s because the school system doesn’t teach them reality and educate them to undertake more realistic goals for careers.
Davis and Moore’s model of stratification includes rewarding people when they accomplished bigger challenges. In order for the person to perform a task they need to feel motivated. This includes not only family motivation but the resources that they have making the process smoother. For example, a medical doctor will not waste 22 years of his life in school if in the end they make the same as a janitor (lectures) In order to succeed, there needs to be a big reward waiting in the end as part of the motivation to reach their goal. These rewards includes money, prestige and power (lectures) People will feel motivation knowing it will pay off, such as making them icons and great examples for the rest of the society. To guarantee that those positions get fulfilled, these rewards must be handed out.
Meritocracy, unlike aristocracy, is the system in which talented people are rewarded and promoted to leadership positions based on their merit. According to James Whitehurst, meritocracy “now refers to organizations where the best people and ideas win.” However, as true as it may sound, meritocracy in America is still a myth and is not a certainty. In the article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack,” McIntosh’s disdain of meritocracy when she described as “I must give up the myth of meritocracy.” She mentioned the meritocracy myth because in reality, many people who lack talents and experience can still climb the upward mobility ladder and become wealthier while the rest of
All individuals have different paths and life goals. It is true that individuals may start out with more advantages than others, but it should not be used as a limitation to others. Mantsios lists several realities discussing the different levels of opportunity for Americans. In these realities, he describes that wealth and our economic status is important in order to reach success. In one of his realities, Mantsios discussed the privileges within inheritance laws stating: “…Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed, […]. Inheritance laws provide built-in privileges to the offspring of the wealthy and add to the likelihood of their economic success while handicapping the chances for everyone else” (392). It appears as if he only believes success comes out of extreme wealth, and if someone is not, they’re disadvantaged and will ultimately be less successful than others. Mantsios talks only in extremes; he discusses the very rich, the very poor and how each affects each other, while simultaneously arguing that there is little to no chance for those in the middle or lower class to grow and become successful. In contrast, Jay-Z discusses how he did not let the obstacles he faced, or his economic status limit him. He is quoted saying, “don’t let [society] diminish your accomplishment or dim your shine” (Packer 361). Here, he is taking a much more positive approach, stating that individuals should not limit their success based on their social class. Class should not be a tool used to limit individuals and their success. To say that an individual born into the upper class will just coast through life without hardship is untrue. In the same respect, to say that an individual born into lower or middle class will have no chance at success, is just as untrue. We all face different levels of hardship in life, therefore condemning an individual because they have a leg up or down in
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.