Meritocracy, economic turmoil, and the broken promises of the West | Daniel Markovits FULL INTERVIEW

The history of meritocratic systems shows a pattern of inevitably becoming more insular over time—exemplified by ancient China's meritocratic system where elites began special training their children for the civil service exams, reproducing the exact problem meritocracy was supposed to solve

“if you look across historical experiences with meritocratic system systems and this isn't the first time this has happened right uh this happened in China long ago and one of the things that happened with the Chinese meritocratic system is that the meritocrats started getting special training for their kids who started acing the exams that got you into the elite positions in the Next Generation and and in a sense this is like the iron law of oligarchy um just applied to meritocracy”

Advantage under meritocracy is distributed based on accomplishment, which depends on three inputs: natural ability, effort, and training. While natural ability and effort are more randomly distributed across the population, training is where the wealthy secure unjust advantage—the elite that reached its position through meritocratic means has unmatched willingness and resources to invest in training its children.

“Advantage is distributed based on accomplishment but there are three inputs to accomplishment natural ability effort and training and people who tend to Champion meritocracy focus on natural ability and effort because they think to my mind correctly that natural abilities are more or less randomly distributed across the population and even that differences in natural ability aren't debilitatingly great and they think that anybody can put in effort the thing they neglect is training”

If growth is a moral ideal and growth will end, then a post-growth world will have an enormous imaginative hole in civilization, requiring that we build new civilization around new ideals suited for a world with past growth but no future growth.

“if growth is a moral ideal and growth is going to end in the postgrowth world there'll be an enormous imaginative hole in our civilization and we'll need to build a new civilization around new ideals that are suited for a world in which there's been a lot of but there's not going to be any more”

The English language term 'made redundant' (meaning fired) captures the exact problem with market-based systems: it literally means 'declared worthless' or 'surplus to requirements', and this is the implicit status message of market-based meritocracy even when no one consciously believes in moral desert

“the English have a phrase for this that the Americans don't pick up you know when you get fired you are made redundant right and to be redundant is not a dignified State it's to be Surplus to re to requirements or worthless”

Economic privilege is directly associated with political power in capitalist systems because money is the power to command the state in the service of one's projects—those with money can use state enforcement (men with guns putting people in prison) to protect and expand their economic power.

“economic privilege is associated with political power in a capitalist system it just is political power in the sense that in a capitalist system money just is the power to Commander the state in the service of your projects so what it is to have 100 pound is to be able to allocate resources in whatever way you wish up to the value of 100 pound and if somebody else tries to shift that allocation somebody else tries to take the sweater you buy or block your entrance into the railway carriage for the ticket that you've bought men with guns will come and put them in prison”

When inequality of outcomes becomes large enough, equality of opportunity becomes impossible regardless of the system, because those with the most power use their privilege and resources to secure opportunities for their children within or against the system

“when inequality of outcomes gets big enough equality of opportunity becomes impossible that's true under meritocracy because the elite out trins everybody else but it's true under every system when outcomes are too different those who have the most will use their privilege and power within the system or against the system but often within the system to secure opportunities for their children and so equality of opportunity disappears”

The privilege of being inside an elite system creates structural incentives and possibilities to act in ways that promote the system's continuation, even for those who see through its structures and wish to critique it.

“one of the things about this economic and social order that we built is that it creates situations in which people who see through its structures have incentives and really only possibilities to act in ways that promote its structures”

Meritocratic advantage is distributed based on three inputs to accomplishment: natural ability, effort, and training, where natural ability and effort are relatively equally distributed across the population, but training is not, and the wealthy monopolize training investment with unmatched willingness and resources

“Advantage is distributed based on accomplishment but there are three puts to accomplishment natural ability effort and training and people who tend to Champion meritocracy focus on natural ability and effort because they think to my mind correctly that natural abilities are more or less randomly distributed across the population and even that differences in natural ability aren't debilitatingly great and they think that anybody can put in effort the thing they neglect is training and training really works and what's happened in our system is that the new Elite the elite that itself reached its position through meritocratic means has an unmatched willingness and interest in training its children”

Growth has become the common sense organizing principle for both societies and individuals, associated not just with one virtue but with ambition itself, and people have the feeling that giving up on growth means giving up.

“growth has become our common sense um we've Associated growth both as societies and as individual people we want more money we want to manage bigger organizations we've Associated growth not just with one virtue but with ambition in itself and we have this feeling that if we give up on growth we're just giving up right”

Rich people use their money to determine what everything else happens in society and this is bad for everyone else even if everyone else has enough to eat and adequate shelter because they don't have equal power.

“what rich people do is they use their money to determine what everything else happens in society even if everyone else has enough to eat and adequate shelter because they don't have equal power”

A just social order requires that political arrangements produce sympathies and bonds among citizens intergenerationally such that all citizens can see the collective arrangement as a shared project in the common interest, and inequality begins to undermine this even if the worst off are not materially destitute.

“the political Arrangements need to be such that they produce sympathies and bonds among the citizens intergenerationally in such a way that all citizens can come to see the collective Arrangement as a shared project in the common interest and at some point inequality begins to undermine that even if the worst off are not materially destitute”

In typical recent years at Yale Law School, there are more children whose parents are in the top 1% of the income distribution than in the entire bottom half

“there are in typical recent years more children whose parents are in the top 1% of the income distribution than in the entire bottom half”

The share of Major League Baseball players whose parents are Major League Baseball players has been increasing, not because of better natural ability but because elite training from professional parents cannot be matched by other families

“there was a study a few years ago about major League Baseball in the United States and the share of major league baseball players whose parents are major league baseball players has been going up and the reason is not natural ability the reason is it takes an enormous amount of training to be able to hit say a major league curveball and if your father knows how to do that and starts teaching you how to do that when you're three and can invest in coaches by the time you're 18 you will know how to do that”

At Yale Law School, in typical recent years there are more children whose parents are in the top 1% of the income distribution than in the entire bottom half of the population, demonstrating that meritocracy and equality of opportunity are not the same thing.

“an institution like mine there are in typical recent years more children whose parents are in the top 1% of the income distribution than in the entire bottom half”

Aristocratic and meritocratic systems are not logical opposites; rejecting the extremes does not require endorsing the opposite. An aristocracy of class, race, or gender where a biologically-determined identity passed at birth determines your advantage is terrible, but this does not mean meritocracy (superiority-based allocation) is the only alternative

“a math professor of mine used to say uh to reject one extreme isn't to endorse its opposite all right and the old roughly speaking aristocratic system and it could have been an aristoc an aristocracy of class family based or it could have been a race aristocracy or it could have been a gender aristocracy but the basic point is that there is some uh biologically passed on identity category that is of course also socially constructive but that is past mechanic to you at Birth that determines your advantage right that's a terrible system and there's no no sane person would want to return to that so what is an alternative”

Growth cannot continue because if the population grew by a factor of 10 and average incomes by a factor of 30 over 250 years, continuation of that growth rate would result in 100 billion people 30 times richer than today's average by 2500, which is physically impossible.

“over the last 250 years the population of the world has increased by a factor of 10 and average incomes have increased by a factor of 30 if growth at that rate continues in 2500 there will be a 100 billion people on the planet who are on average 30 times as rich as the average pole is today that's not going to happen so that means growth is going to end”

Growth is one of humanity's greatest moral accomplishments because 250 years ago almost everyone was poor (80% of the world in 1800 lived on less than $2 a day in current dollars), and today only 10% do, entirely due to growth not redistribution.

“growth and the IDE deal behind it are one of Humanity's greatest moral accomplishments 250 years ago almost everybody was poor 80% of the world in 1800 lived on less than $2 a day that's what's con considered deep poverty now $2 a day in current dollars not in $2 not in $1800 and the reason why today only 10% of the world live on less than $2 a day which is immorally too much but very different from 80% % is growth all right there the the economic inequality in the world today is exactly the same as it was in 1800 so there's been no redistribution it's all growth”

Beyond economic-political power, Rawls recognized that political arrangements must produce sympathies and bonds among citizens such that all citizens can view the collective arrangement as a shared project in the common interest, and at some point inequality undermines this even if the materially worst-off are not destitute

“very few people read the third part of a theory of Justice which is on the moral and political psychology of social stability and a just order and rs there talks about the fact that the political Arrangements need to be such that they produce sympathies and bonds among the citizens intergenerationally in such a way that all citizens can come to see the collective Arrangement as a shared project in the common interest and at some point inequality begins to undermine that even if the worst off are not materially destitute”

The fact that meritocratic inequality doesn't require cheating makes it worse, not better, because if the real problem is structural, focusing on corruption in the system (alumni preference, donor preferences, fraud) is a way the system avoids being challenged, as fixing corruption leaves the underlying structure 80-90% as unequal.

“the fact that it doesn't require cheating this is the last point I want to make doesn't make it okay and the other criticism I have of people on the left who focus on the abuse of the system is a criticism that people on the more radical left have always had of people on the more Centrist left which is they moralize and personalize politics and it it feels good to say that those who are at the top are somehow corrupt or venal but if the real problem is structural actually focusing on the corruption is a way that the system doesn't get challenged because It's relatively easy to say let's get the rotten apples let's shut down the alni preference let's stop people from being able to bribe their or anti University and say we've won and the fact is even if all those things happened the system would be I don't know the precise number you know 90% 80% as unequal as it is now”

Economic growth cannot continue indefinitely: over the past 250 years, global population increased 10-fold and average incomes increased 30-fold; if growth at this rate continues, by 2500 there would be 100 billion people averaging 30 times current wealth, which is mathematically and physically impossible.

“over the last 250 years the population of the world has increased by a factor of 10 and average incomes have increased by a factor of 30 if growth at that rate continues in 2500 there will be a 100 billion people on the planet who are on average 30 times as rich as the average pole is today that's not going to happen so that means growth is going to end”

The gap between SAT scores of children whose parents are in the top 5% of income and middle-class children is approximately 250 points, while the gap between middle-class and below-poverty-line children is only 125 points, making the rich-middle class gap twice as large

“the gap between the typical SAT score of a child whose parents are in the top 5% of the income distribution and a middle class child is now about 250 points the gap between the typical SAT score of a middle class child and a child that grows up below the poverty line is just 125 points so the rich middle class Gap is twice as big as the middle class poverty Gap”

The market wage is not a particularly important or valuable thing and should not be in a just society, implying that the solution to meritocratic inequality involves radically reducing what market wages determine about a person's dignity, opportunity, and social worth

“actually by the way also your Market wage is not a particularly important or valuable thing or would not be in a just Society”

Fifty years ago there was enormously more racial inequality, gender inequality, and religious inequality than today, representing genuine egalitarian and emancipatory movements that have succeeded impressively despite progress being incomplete

“there was enormously more racial inequality 50 years ago than there is today there was enormously more gender inequality 50 years ago than there is today there was enormously more religious inequality enormous more inequality by sexual orientation or gender identity than there is today um so there have been genuinely egalitarian and emancipatory movements that have succeeded and succeeded you know not completely but impressively and highly consequentially”

Growth—the increase in average incomes and living standards over time—has been one of humanity's greatest moral accomplishments, reducing global poverty from 80% living on less than $2/day in 1800 to only 10% today, entirely through growth rather than redistribution, and the growth ideal was essential to achieving this moral progress.

“growth and the IDE deal behind it are one of Humanity's greatest moral accomplishments 250 years ago almost everybody was poor 80% of the world in 1800 lived on less than $2 a day that's what's con considered deep poverty now... the reason why today only 10% of the world live on less than $2 a day which is immorally too much but very different from 80% % is growth all right there the the economic inequality in the world today is exactly the same as it was in 1800 so there's been no redistribution it's all growth”

Donor preferences and alumni preferences at universities explain only a small portion of elite overrepresentation; the fact that Marowitz's own law school has no alumni preference yet still has a student body full of privileged children demonstrates that meritocratic advantage operates within the rules.

“if you are a big enough donor to a university that affects your child's ability to get into that University and it makes a difference but the amount you have to donate is very very large 5 1015 million I don't know the exact amount because the universities being ashamed of this keep it secret uh a very small number of kids get in in that way...my own law school has no alumni preference at all and yet our student body looks like the student body of other places full of the children of privileged parents”

Healthcare systems organized around superiority (identifying the most skilled specialists, paying them millions, and organizing the system around them) produce worse population health outcomes than systems organized around excellence (investing in nurses, GPs, and preventive care), because preventive mid-skill care prevents disease more efficiently than elite specialty care, and such a system would also produce a more egalitarian labor market.

“right now we have a system particularly in United States that is incredibly competitive focuses on superiority it wants to know who is the most skilled vascular surgeon and that person gets the Health Care System arranged around them and makes millions of dollars a year we don't have enough nurses we don't have enough GPS... if we had more nurses and GPS we would have a healthier population if we redirected Healthcare away from the superior superordinate Elite TR trained workers towards mid skilled workers population Health would go up because that's a much more efficient way to provide Healthcare prevent diseases from coming up before they need to be cured by Superior workers”

Rawls came close to saying that economic inequality had made the government of the United States illegitimate, and was more clear-eyed and skeptical about inequality than his popular characterization as a theorist of acceptable inequality suggests

“Rawls himself was actually more cleare eyed and skeptical about inequality than some of his writings or that characterization of him acknowledges um I was uh at a conference years ago at which he spoke on the occasion of I don't know if it was the 25th anniversary of the publication of a thir Year Justice and he came very close to saying that economic inequality had made the government of the United States illegitimate”

Superiority is a formal property—one can be superior at any activity, even those with zero social value (e.g., arbitrage finance), and market systems reward superiority regardless of the substantive value of the activity; modern finance, while generating massive individual wealth for superior traders, has zero or negative social product.

“superiority is a formal property I can be superior to you at anything even if the thing that I do isn't actually very valuable um so uh modern Finance I think the the best view even among fairly conventional economists now now is that the social product of modern Finance is zero there's a kind of Finance that's very valuable because what you want to do is you want to get Capital Financial Capital into the real projects in life that are most socially productive and that's what Finance properly constructed does but modern Finance is all about Arbitrage it's all about elaborate ways to squeeze out short-term advantages from the system that's socially worthless but there are people who are superior at it and in our system system the people who are superior at it make literally a billion dollars a year”

The English phrase 'made redundant' (when someone loses their job) literally means being declared surplus to requirements or worthless, reflecting how market inequality creates psychological injury by declaring unequal social worth, not merely unequal consumption ability.

“the English have a phrase for this that the Americans don't pick up you know when you get fired you are made redundant right and to be redundant is not a dignified State it's to be Surplus to re to requirements or worthless”

An excellence-based system would restructure healthcare to emphasize mid-skilled workers (nurses, GPs) rather than elite surgeons; this would produce better population health because preventive medicine is more efficient than elite specialists, and would also produce a more egalitarian labor market with more middle-class jobs.

“right now we have a system particularly in United States that is incredibly competitive focuses on superiority it wants to know who is the most skilled vascular surgeon and that person gets the Health Care System arranged around them and makes millions of dollars a year we don't have enough nurses we don't have enough GPS and nurses and GPS have two interesting properties the first is if we had more nurses and GPS we would have a healthier population if we redirected Healthcare away from the superior superordinate Elite TR trained workers towards mid skilled workers population Health would go up because that's a much more efficient way to provide Healthcare prevent diseases from coming up before they need to be cured by Superior workers”

Modern finance has social product of approximately zero because it focuses on arbitrage and extracting short-term advantages from existing systems rather than allocating capital to socially productive projects; people who are superior at this worthless activity earn billions of dollars annually, exemplifying how meritocratic superiority rewards formally evaluated skill regardless of social value.

“modern Finance I think the the best view even among fairly conventional economists now now is that the social product of modern Finance is zero there's a kind of Finance that's very valuable because what you want to do is you want to get Capital Financial Capital into the real projects in life that are most socially productive and that's what Finance properly constructed does but modern Finance is all about Arbitrage it's all about elaborate ways to squeeze out short-term advantages from the system that's socially worthless but there are people who are superior at it and in our system system the people who are superior at it make literally a billion dollars a year”

Fifty years ago, there was less economic inequality despite a less meritocratic system because the old aristocratic elite was structurally unsuited to succeed in a meritocratic system; they weren't very smart or hardworking, so when elite institutions began demanding intelligence and effort, the old families couldn't and wouldn't keep up.

“there was less economic inequality and uh one of the reasons why was that 50 years ago was a moment when the meritocracy was getting going and the old Elite that the meritocracy displaced was structurally unsuited to succeeding at a meritocracy to be blunt the old Elite weren't very smart and they weren't very hardworking and so when Elite institutions of education and Elite employers started demanding smarts and hard work the old families just couldn't keep up they weren't inclined to keep up they couldn't keep up”

In a recent year, approximately 15,000 high school seniors in the US had at least one parent who attended graduate or professional school and scored at the Ivy League median on the SAT verbal section, while fewer than 100 students had neither parent complete high school and achieved this same score

“there were roughly 15,000 High School seniors in the United States one of whose parents had attended graduate or professional school who scored at the ivy league Median on the SAT verbal scorp if you ask how many kids in the country were there neither of whose parents graduated high school who scored at the ivy league median the answer is that the tail at that point is so thin that statistical techniques are unreliable but if you crunch the numbers it's under a 100”

Harvard and Yale are currently more socioeconomically segregated than they were in 1970, contradicting the assumption that removing old mechanisms of privilege (class-based connections) automatically reduces inequality

“I think Harvard and Yale are more socioeconomically segregated than they were in 1970”