“Everyone can succeed as long as they work hard”. How many times has that statement been heard? The Meritocracy Myth by McNamee and Miller, challenges the widely held American belief in meritocracy - that people get out of the system what they put into it based on individual merit. The common misconception is that the American system distributes resources – primarily wealth and income – based on individual merit. It is widely believed that this is how the system works – and that the ideology is that individual merit is based on “combination of factors including innate abilities, working hard, having the right attitude, and having high moral character and integrity” (McNamee and Miller 277). McNamee and Miller argue that there is a gap in how people think the system works and how it actually does work and have defined this gap as the meritocracy myth. Their argument has two parts. First, that “the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream” (McNamee and Miller 277). Secondly, they identify a number of "non-merit" factors that counteract the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility. McNamee and Miller then identify several ways they feel America can be a more meritocratic society.
McNamee and Miller reference the 2003 study done by Kenneickell that demonstrates their argument that the distributions of wealth and income are skewed, with the top 20 percent of households receiving a large portion of the total available income. While 20 percent does not sound like a large foothold, keep in mind that those 20 percent, receive 49.7 percent of the available income. Tess, for all intents and purposes, should be living the American Dream and benefiting from the meri...
... middle of paper ...
...e that great effect on economic outcomes, it relies heavily on the premise that such goals would be viewed as something desirable and politically feasible. It is widely believed that a meritocratic society will actually cause more harm than good. The authors note that “the myth of meritocracy is itself harmful because by discounting the most important causes of inequality it leads to unwarranted exaltation of the rich and unwarranted condemnation of the poor” (McNamee and Miller 284).
If we want to make societal change, we must first work on ourselves before attempting to change other areas that are affected by the meritocracy myth. We must address our own beliefs and how they may affect our behaviors. Pure meritocracy will probably never fully integrate into our everyday lives, but by addressing it consistently, some of the possible side effects can be reduced.
Mantsios effectively communicates the phenomenon of stereotyping certain races, genders, and social classes will be more successful than others in America. Does it matter what your social and economical standings are, and do they play a role in if you will succeed in life? The importance of this essay was to talk about the different viewpoints and to argue the point of succeeding and social statuses. I
The United States has always been viewed as a land of opportunity, where one could achieve anything they put their mind to, no matter who they are. Freedom and economic stability are the factors that make our country appealing. People are hopeful that the opportunities the country holds will help them achieve the American dream. This dream consists of achieving financial success, but time has proven that the American dream is a rare occurrence. Unfortunately, ambition, hard work, nor perseverance are enough to be successful in America. No individual is guaranteed success or destined for failure, but it is apparent that women, people of color, and those born into poverty will face greater obstacles than others,
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.
The pool of opportunity has grown smaller from what it once was, and it seems that opportunity parallels the wealth in capitalist America—a small number of individuals are successful in their endeavors, and the rest must settle for less with disappointment and disillusionment. While hard work and perseverance may push individuals to new heights, the power of optimism and positive thinking can only take a person so far. The great American dream and frontier is only available to those with certain circumstances, and those circumstances are becoming less available to the new generation coming into the
The highest earning fifth of U.S. families earned 59.1% of all income, while the richest earned 88.9% of all wealth. A big gap between the rich and poor is often associated with low social mobility, which contradicts the American ideal of equal opportunity. Levels of income inequality are higher than they have been in almost a century, the top one percent has a share of the national income of over 20 percent (Wilhelm). There are a variety of factors that influence income inequality, a few of which will be discussed in this paper. Rising income inequality is caused by differences in life expectancy, rapidly increases in the incomes of the top 5 percent, social trends, and shifts in the global economy.
In the United States there are four social classes : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Of these four classes the most inequality exists between the upper class and the lower class. This inequality can be seen in the incomes that the two classes earn. During the period 1979 through the present , the growth in income has disproportionately grown.The bottom sixty percent of the US population actually saw their real income decrease in 1990 dollars. The next 20% saw medium gains. The top twenty percent saw their income increase 18%. The wealthiest one percent saw their incomes rise drastically over 80%. As reported in the 1997 Center on Budget's analysis , the wealthiest one percent of Americans ( 2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88 million people). But in 1977 the bottom 35 percent had about twice as much after tax income as the top one percent. These statistics further show the disproportional income growth among the social classes. The gr...
Income inequality in the United States, as of 2007, has reached levels not seen since 1928. In 1928, the top one percent received nearly 24% of all income within the United States (Volscho & Kelly, 2012). This percentage fell to nearly nine percent in 1975, but has risen to 23.5% as of 2007 (Volscho & Kelly, 2012). Meanwhile, in 2007 (see
The principle behind our entire society is if one works hard he/she will be rewarded justly, this principle is considered the framework for the American dream. Writer of the Century History Review, Tony McCulloch, referred to the American dream as, “all American citizens should be able to better themselves through hard work, especially in their education and employment, so that they could achieve a higher standard of living (16+).” For hard work there must be incentive such as a better job or acceptance into a top tier school. Today adults actively reward all children regardless of the achievements or lack thereof. The generic blue ribbon system actively destroys all incentive for hard work by essentially promising children they will be rewarded for just sho...
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.
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
America has always seen as the symbolic ideal country of prosperity and equality. This is the reason why people come to America hoping to become successful, but in matter of fact we all have an equal plan field to be successful is not entirely true. For there are social boundaries that keep use limited based upon our own status. Whether we are born of a low class or of a high class the possibility of economic mobility in a sense are predetermined by two factors of social class and success together they both affecting one’s another opportunity of success. In order to achieve success, we must know that it is made up of two main concepts and they are fortune and position.
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
In this documentary, many of the individuals were “born rich,” meaning that they have inherited an excessive amount of money, not because of their intelligence and talent, but because they are heirs to wealth. The director of the film, Jamie Johnson highlights the life of the rich, in which the wealthy 1% have more than the rest of the 99% of people. Meritocracy is non-existent in the life of the rich. A rich person has many educational benefits, because they have the networks and connections that those of the middle and lower classes do not have. The rich have the right access to schools because of their wealth and power that comes from their wealthy status. For example, in the documentary one of the rich kids, Luke Weil, attended Brown University and was describing his entry to the Ivy League as expected. He did well on the boards, but it was “incidental” (Weil, movie) because without it he would have still went to Brown University or any other Ivy League University because of his inherited wealth. Interestingly, even when he attended Brown University, he was not a good student, where in his first year he did not attend more than eight academic events, including tests and exams. As a result, he was put on academic probation because he was not attending classes so he was
People who work hard enough become successful and build a good life for themselves and their family. Millions of Americans and others who admire America have believed this for generations. However, is this still true? Brandon King debates his interpretation of the American Dream in his published work, “The American Dream: Dead, Alive, or on Hold?” During his essay, the speaker highlights how important the American Dream is to the economy and providing a distance from inequality. The speaker emphasizes his belief that the American Dream is still alive within America and that people must work hard to achieve it. When discussing the American Dream, King will agree that the idea is alive and thriving in the minds of Americans; yet, I argue that the idea is on hold within American society due to lack of upward social independence and economic mobility.
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.