meritocracy – My Mental Model

Where I draw the line with the right

The city I live in is relatively progressive. Not necessarily in a ‘leftist’ sorta way, but more so in a classic liberal sort of way. In this landscape, it’s difficult for right-wing nonsense to get any kind of traction. But that’s not to say that I don’t see it. I have a close friend who has started following some of the center-right media like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. He’s been testing me with some of his nonsense. So perhaps it’s time to call it out here too.

Trans people are people. I don’t think we’d be in this free speech mess around gender pronouns if we hadn’t collectively been giant assholes to transgender people. Throughout history, we’ve treated those who we didn’t understand with contempt and history has never looked kindly upon it. It happened with people from unfamiliar cultures, it happened with people with unfamiliar skin colors, it happened with people with an unfamiliar sexuality, and it happened with trans people. Conservatism has never been on the right side of human rights because the role of conservatism is to avoid change. If those who are different are understood, accepted, and appreciated, they don’t special protections.

Full-time work needs to pay a living wage. There’s a suggestion that a minimum wage is a bad idea. Apparently, by allowing businesses to pay wages lower than the current minimum wage, workers will make more money. That open market model only works if two forces are firmly in play: A strong incentive to pay the workers as little as possible (to maximize company profits), and a strong incentive to pay the workers as much as possible (to maximize talent acquisition). If the incentive to maximize company profits is stronger than the incentive to maximize talent acquisition, there is a strong downward pressure on wages. That downward pressure can be so strong that someone working 40 hours a week may not make enough to make a living wage. If we’re in an environment where the cost of living is rising quickly, it gets even worse. And who benefits? Clearly it’s not the worker. The business will benefit from better margins, but for how long? An underpaid workforce is more of a liability than an asset. When business owners under pay their employees less, they rely more heavily on social assistance programs. These programs are funded by tax payers, and not the ones who aren’t making enough money to pay any significant tax. Paying your laborers less than what it costs them to live a middle class life is a terrible idea for any economy.

Racism still exists. Racism exists, sexism exists, ageism exists… there’s no lack of ways in which we try to generalize others to their detriment. I wish we could solve them all at once by understanding that prejudice leads to inaccurate understandings and bad decisions.. but we have to start somewhere. And I’m not interested in addressing controversial racism like who got kicked out of a Starbucks or who’s modelling a black panther costume. I’m talking about that KKK shit. That sand n*gger shit. That BUILD THE WALL shit. That is some of the ugliest behavior I’ve seen in western society and the right needs to do a better job of standing up to it. Everyone on the right wishes the moderate left would call out their more extreme counter-parts. Well everyone on the left wants the same from the right. It can’t be a, ‘sure, we all know that racism exists but it’s not the problem here.’ Without racism, we wouldn’t have Trump. Without racism, we wouldn’t have a government shutdown right now. Without racism, Fox News wouldn’t have been fear mongering around a migrant caravan. It might not be at the center of all our problems, but it does seem to make most of our problems worse. Identity politics exist on both sides, and both sides need to hold their crazies accountable.

Stop cherry picking your science. Climate change is real. Humans have contributed to it significantly. The scientific consensus here is over 99%. Why are you still arguing this? I understand if you’re a stake holder in the fossil fuel industry, but otherwise you’re just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Even if it wasn’t man made, our window of opportunity for maintaining an ecosystem that’s habitable for humans is closing. We should be all hands on deck, but the right is dragging their feet. If you have no interest in listening to scientists on this, then you’re about as useful as those on the far left which ignore biology to advance their gender politics agenda.

Religion. Religion exists across the political spectrum, but the right seems to have their own approach to it. The evangelicals denounced a democratic president for having an immoral character, then celebrated Trump on the basis that moral character isn’t an important consideration. The religious right also argues that abortion is a religious issue when the bible offers no such guidance beyond telling you how to do one. They’re also quick to point out all the flaws of religions like Islam, while failing to acknowledging the dark history of western religions or the issues of today. And to make it all worse, politicians are now abusing religion again, excusing their actions as some twisted act of god. Next time you see a politician say “well that’s what I believe”, look closely.

Feminism is a big deal. I’m not talking about the man-hating variety that seems to be pushing it’s way into the mainstream today. I’m talking about a movement that started centuries ago.. maybe even millennia. It’s about our species evolving to the point where men didn’t have to be hunters and gatherers, and women didn’t have to forage and care for the kids. It’s about men no longer having to go out and do hard labor and women being able to join the work force. It’s about moving past our traditional blueprints of what men and women were supposed to be, and exploring the freedom of what we can be within a modern society. One of the smartest things western society ever did was bring women into the work force. There’s still more ground to cover.

You overestimate your abilities. I used to assume that people who were wealthy were naturally hardworking and very smart. Then I started to meet some of them. Many of them were smart and many of them were hard working, but what they were more likely to have in common was an inflated sense of ego. They took responsibility for their actions, and since they were successful, they were responsible for their success. But then I would look behind them and see an incredible amount of support. More often than not, it included a good family, a private school, an ivy league education, connections, and an inheritance. Bit of a stretch to say you’re responsible for all those factors too. What I’ve noticed from the right is that tend to equate financial success with human value. Those who find a path to financial success overestimate what their contribution was to that point, and underestimate what was already in motion. And then they dismiss those who are less fortunate as lazy or uninspired.

You’re selfish. Something else I’ve noticed about the right is their tendency to be selfish, after they’ve ‘made it’. When I was younger, I wasn’t all that interested in helping my fellow human. It was about being as successful as possible, as soon as possible, and then helping my fellow human. I see a lot of people take a similar path, but when they arrive at success, they’re much less interested in helping others. Now it’s about paying the least amount of tax possible, or doing away with social assistance programs that you don’t personally use, or avoiding giving money to the homeless ‘because they’re just gonna use it on drugs anyways’. And what I find remarkable is that liberals do this too, just not when they’re poor. The rich shouldn’t give to the poor out of sympathy. The few should invest in the many, because none of us truly do anything on our own.

Your immigration policies suck. Besides the fact that they’re currently rooted in racism, they’re also shortsighted. Most people would be surprised to find that children of wealthy families make ill-equipped leaders. But it’s not that hard to understand why. When you go through adversity, you experience challenges that you wouldn’t otherwise have access to. Parents who have fled to the US from a harsh environment provide a powerful and unique environment for children to grow up in. That home is more likely to produce a world leader or Pulitzer prize winner than someone who was so rich that they didn’t need to bother learning the local language. Written on the statue of liberty is, ““Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where you escape from terrible conditions and are given the chance to make something of yourself. This is the secret sauce of the American immigration policy. If we close the doors to all that have made us great, and only open our doors to those who are already ‘great’, I think we’re in trouble.

You can be an argumentative dick. I know, because I used to be one too. Back in university, everyone was for gay marriage but me. I had no issues with gay people… or them getting married.. but I didn’t like that everyone was agreeing with one another on something they hadn’t really thought about. So I said I was down with them being legally married, but wasn’t OK with them appropriating a ceremony from a religion which was expressly against gay marriage. I may have had a point, but I was arguing for the sake of arguing. I see this happen from the right so often. You realize that your up against someone who hasn’t quite thought things through, and rather than help them get there, you pick them apart and try to make them feel like they don’t know what they’re talking about. Meanwhile, it’s quite possible that they had a point and just weren’t able to argue it effectively. Or maybe they had a good idea but didn’t quite know how to make it a reality. Fantastic, you won that argument.. but at what cost? At what point is the pursuit of truth more important to you than ‘winning’?

The relentless spin. If I were to guess, the right is more intelligent than the left. It’s not that a ‘right-wing’ ideology produces smarter people, it’s that intelligence lends to success,, success lends to wanting to keep things as-is, and wanting to keep things as-is lends to conservatism. You know, conserving the good life. So when the less fortunate get together and say things aren’t fair, we need change… you say that things are fair, that you’re an example of how to be successful, and to just keep working hard. But then the less fortunate notice that there are far more hardworking poor people than rich people. At the end of the day, the left might not have the best idea for how to get things done, but they are often right about what needs to be done. And no matter what they present you with, you’ll spin it to your favor. If you were up against someone who could debate you properly, you’d look absolutely foolish. But the mainstream media doesn’t provide that format so everyone’s left speaking into their echo chambers. I can’t tell you how many times colleagues of mine have tried to spin the most ridiculous Trump lies into something reasonable. Recently, they’ve started to give up.. suggesting that it’s not what he says but what he does. Well he’s behaving like the most compromised or corrupt politician in modern American history.. and you’re still trying to spin it.

You don’t want a meritocracy. I’m a big fan of equal opportunity over equal outcome. So is the right.. it’s one of their primary arguments against social security programs. The left hasn’t been able to wrap their head around the concept in a way that fits their ideology. I think the political spectrum is generally clueless about what a meritocracy really entails. For example, there’s a good chance that in a true meritocracy, most top CEOs would still be men. But you know what else happens in a meritocracy? Those responsible for educating future generations aren’t living paycheck to paycheck. But perhaps the most powerful example, in a meritocracy, inheritance wouldn’t exist. In a meritocracy, you receive resources in exchange for the creation of value. The more value you produce, the more resources you have to work with. In that model, someone like an Elon Musk would be one of the most well resourced individuals in the world while someone like Trump would be broke. But in a world where Trump can leave billions in wealth to his children.. something’s not right. In a world where future generations of your family can enjoy substantial resources despite having not created any value… something not right. In a meritocracy, Harvard isn’t filled with legacy students and lucrative internships aren’t filled with people who’s parents know an executive at the company. That whole idea of an inside track.. the powerful helping the powerful.. none of it exists.

If we could find a way to cast aside all the nonsense… from all sides of the political spectrum… and come together to be effective for the greater good… we could probably do something pretty darn special.

A New Economy

I find it interesting that so much of what we consume, we consume for free. At least when it comes to the internet. Looking for a recipe? Good chance it’ll come from a blog or site that you don’t have to pay for. Wanna watch something on YouTube? Also free. Wanna cruise through a slideshow of cool pictures? Instagram. Wanna listen to music? Spotify. Have a weird question that you hope someone has an answer for? Quora.

How is it that so much of the value we consume on a daily basis, we consume for free? These companies aren’t exactly operating at a loss either. I wonder if these platforms have anything else in common? Like sourcing most of their content from their audience.. or monetizing via ad revenue.. or monetizing data collected from their users.

Well, are the content producers at least earning a living wage? Some are but the vast majority aren’t. Maybe these platforms just need to charge more for their services so they can pass some of that income along to the content creators. I don’t think the audience has the disposable income for that model. Why? Because the blogs people are writing, the pictures people are taking, the videos people are making, and questions people are answering are being paid for in views and likes instead of dollars. Ironically, those who are the exception to the rule tend to be paid in ad revenue.

Our economy seems to be based on the consumption of goods or services. Yet so much of what we’re producing now is based in knowledge or art. It also seems like the only way we’re interested in compensating the production of knowledge or art is through a cut of consumerism. There’s something very backwards about that.

It’s occurred to me that our economy is evolving. The introduction of the internet ushered in the information age and it’s an era where knowledge is the most important asset we can generate. Yet we have an economy which doesn’t know how to value this asset or appropriately compensate those who have produced it without a direct application to a good or a service. The traditional capitalist might suggest that without a direct application to a good or service, something is worthless. To that individual, I would remind them of our efforts in space exploration. These aren’t goods or services for the sake of consumption. At it’s core, it’s exploration for the sake of exploration, something that’s been a very real part of the human spirit for all of recorded history. And throughout history, our sense of exploration has always led to new found prosperity. Not least because we have to invent a whole bunch of cool new stuff to get us to where we want to go.

Whatever this next economy looks like, it needs to find a way to better allocate resources and value. No longer should a home take 20 years to pay for. No longer should a luxury brand command a high price on a poorly manufactured item. No longer should the internet need to rely on ad revenue to provide their services. No longer should research facilities rely on government funding. No longer should content producers require millions of fans to make a living wage. It’s time to spread the wealth. Not for the sake of spreading it or creating ‘equality’, but because we need to find a way to deliver the wealth back into the hands of those who are creating value we consume. The world we currently live in is one where you could inherit a house from your parents and never have to work again. Meanwhile, rent is so expensive that saving up for a home is unrealistic for most. In that world, financial prosperity is largely determined by how wealthy your family was. That’s taking us back to the feudal times where a divide existed between land owners and peasants. Fuck that. That’s not good for anyone.

Centuries ago, we used to have an economy based in farming, back when 90% of the population had to farm in order for us to get enough food. Now, less than 5% of the world’s population produces all the food that we eat. It led the way for a the industrial revolution where production shifted to factories. And it was through that manufacturing boom that we developed an economy based in goods. Once we started automating more and more of the manufacturing process, the economy shifted again to the consumption of goods and services. Well with automation making another push, what happens to our economy when 10% of the world’s population can produce 100% of the goods and services we require? I would predict another industrial revolution. One where goods are manufactured at home by your 3D printer. One where services are more likely to be provided by an AI than by a person. In this economy, do we continue to insist that knowledge and art have no value on their own? That unless you are the producer of a good or service, you are not valuable to our economy?

If we stay on this path, we would require a basic income to afford our basic needs. Those who own the companies which provide these services would be the only ones generating an income. I’m not sure how they would charge the rest of us for their services so they’d probably be free. But they’d have to pay their own bills, so ad revenue? But who’s buying their stuff when everyone’s broke? And you know how the government will fund everyone’s basic income? By taxing the few companies and individuals who are making money. Meanwhile, everyone else is doing one of two things. Wasting away in depression with a lack of purpose in life…. or producing something of value for the rest of us to consume.. for free.

It would be downright remarkable for someone to introduce a currency, unique to the free-economy. Upvotes, blog views, likes, listens… when someone consumes the value you’ve produced, you receive those points and those points can be spent on the goods and services produced by others in this economy. Imagine if food was available via that currency. Imagine rent.

Now that’s disruptive.

True Meritocracy

The world is a crazy place. It’s probably always been a crazy place, but something’s different right now. Something’s starting to boil over.

A war is being waged between how things have been done, and how they could be done. It’s tradition versus progress. People are afraid. The future is uncertain. If you have it good, change isn’t so appealing. But most people don’t have it so good – so change is coming.

One thing we all seem to agree on though is the concept of a meritocracy. The best person for the job should get the job.. Seems straight forward but I don’t think we really appreciate what that really looks like. In a meritocracy, opportunities are only earned, no longer given.

I consider myself someone who has fought hard for almost everything he has, but I’d be foolish if I said that I had earned all my opportunities. I went to an inner-city high school that probably had the lowest graduation rate in the city. Most of my friends lived in the projects while my family was middle class. When grade 12 came along, they were barely considering college. Meanwhile, my dad kicked my ass into gear, paid for biology and math tutors, and even a guy to help walk us through the application process to universities. That didn’t mean that I wasn’t working my ass off, but still.

And the idea of being able to afford university? My grandparents set some money aside for that. It didn’t cover the full ride, but it let me come out of university with barely any debt. I know I’m intelligent, I know I’m capable, and I know I have a strong worth ethic, so perhaps I earned an opportunity at a university education – but how many other intelligent, capable and hardworking people never had that opportunity? How many of them are working dead-end jobs because they weren’t given the same opportunities along the way that I was?

In my mind, in a meritocracy, resources and opportunities flow to those who are most deserving. So how does one determine who is most deserving? It’s a function of efficiency – If you’re going to do the most with the opportunity, you deserve it most.

In the case of post secondary education, it’s not a matter of payment, access, or even intelligence, it’s a function of who will do the most with that education. How many times have we seen people end up with a bachelor’s degree only to find out that it had nothing to do with what they wanted to do with their lives? How many times has someone who would’ve turned that degree into a bright future, been turned down?

In the case of jobs, how often have we seen friends hired over strangers? I’ll concede that familiarity and trust are important factors to consider when hiring, but the inside track is real. How many times have mom or dad made a call to one of their friends at the firm to get their kid set up? How many other kids who were more qualified were turned down because of it? And here’s the crazy thing, is the kid who got hooked up really better off?

How often do we see kids pushed into careers like accounting or law by their parents, only to discover that it’s not aligned with them at all. Sure it comes with a decent income and some degree of job security, but if that’s not their gift to the world, they’re holding themselves back. If they could make the effort to tap into their inner-genius and align themselves with what they were born to do, not only would they probably make a lot more money, they’d probably be a lot happier too. And for bonus points, that would now free up a spot in their previous profession for someone who was born to do that.

And now we arrive at one of the most interesting and currently relevant oversights of a meritocracy: Inheritance wouldn’t exist.

If you googled: great leaders who come from wealthy families, you might be surprised to at what it returned. Not much. If you do, you’ll notice that google tries to auto-complete the query with ‘nothing’ instead of ‘wealthy families’, the second suggestion is ‘poverty’. This query returns everything you would expect it to. Is that a pattern worth observing?

If you’re born into a wealthy family, are you more or less likely to encounter obstacles and experience adversity? Are you more likely to be given your opportunities or earn them? How likely are you to experience sacrifice? How likely are you to think of your own self-worth as an extension of your family’s success? How likely are you to have a skewed perspective of who you are and what you can offer the world? How likely are to you see equality between you and someone who isn’t as nearly well off?

Maybe this is why Warren Buffett, perhaps one of the most grounded billionaires of all time isn’t passing his billions along to his family. Not because he doesn’t like them, but because he thinks it’ll do more harm than good. Personally, I think one of the best things you can do for your children is to help them discover their own success.

Back at the banks, part of my role was to help devise estate plans for my wealthy clients. More often than not, they were great people who had worked hard their entirely lives to build what they had. Most were philanthropic, but almost all wanted to leave the majority of their estate to their kids while paying the least amount of tax in the process. From their perspective, they earned the money and should be able to do as they please when they pass away – it was about freedom of choice.

So is freedom of choice at odds with a meritocracy? I don’t think so. On first glance, someone might think that my suggestion would be a 100% estate tax with the proceeds used to fund something like free post secondary education. I don’t think it’s that simple. It would be too easy to invest your estate into a business or other asset, and gift that asset to your heirs, only for them to sell it and receive an indirect inheritance. Rules create loopholes. They need to be self-motivated to do it. We have to convince the rich that their families are better off without all the money. It needs to be logical, and it needs to be their idea.

So why is passing your fortune through to your kids so important? The average price of a home here is about 20x the average household income. The cost of living is high across that board. What that means is that the only people who can afford real estate are people who already own real estate, people who in the top 1%, and children who receive financial assistance from their parents. Under the guise of a free market, we exist in a scenario where only the wealthy and their children are capable of buying real estate.

You can only own property if your parents owned property – that’s downright feudal.

But how are you going to convince those parents not to help their kids? I’m sure the parents would much rather spend that money on a vacation home or their favorite charity, but they’re deeply invested in the future of their children and will gladly sacrifice some of their success to see their kids get ahead. But what if they didn’t?

A market will go up when there are more buyers than sellers. A market will go down when there are more sellers than buyers. When the well-off are funding the real estate purchases of their kids, they’re creating buyers. They’re effectively raising the market price on everyone. If they were willing to let their kids experience the realities of an unbalanced market, you’d be helping the market find its equilibrium – where an average income could afford an average home. But they’re scared. They don’t trust the system, and they definitely don’t trust that the system will look out for the best interests of their kids. So they take matters into their own hands and take care of their family at the expense of others. Do I blame them? No, especially because I don’t think many of them make that connection. Caring for your offspring is one of the most powerful instinctual drives we have, including protecting them at the expense of others. So how do we move past it then?

Government as it exists now, if they ever came around to it, would want to put rules in place. There would be regulations, and taxes, and other nonsense that would be more likely to shift wealth to the lawyers and accountants than to the people who would make the best use of it. The movement towards a meritocracy needs to be a movement of the people, and it may have already started.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates spent some time over the last several years speaking with their fellow billionaires about the impact of leaving their wealth to their families. They’ve made progress. More than 150 billionaires have already publicly pledged to give half their fortune away, including Zuckerberg who pledged 99% of his Facebook shares. Just about every self-made billionaire will have a keen eye for investments so what does this really look like? How is this connected to a meritocracy? Does it stop at the billionaires?

When you’re looking to make an investment, the first thing most people ask is how much will I make? I would ask, “of what?” Investing is not financial by nature, it’s much more dynamic than that. When these billionaires are looking to invest, most aren’t simply writing a check to their local chapter of United Way, they’re looking for the best return on their investment. So what are they getting back? I’d guess it varies on a case by case basis, but I think above all else, they’re looking to put those resources behind those who will do the most with them. How many women are there in the world who are capable of so much more than the opportunities afforded to them today? How many children die from poor health care before they’re able to contribute to society? How much of the world is still off-line and unable to see beyond their own horizon? These kinds of investments might create a return of capital, they’ll almost definite return some warm and fuzzies, but the real genius is the return that’s created for the rest of the world.

Think of how many women there are in the world who are operating at their full potential. Now compare it to how many women in the world who will never have the opportunity to work, let alone at something that they were born to do. Now multiply that number by how many neurons there are in the average brain and you’ll arrive at the world’s largest untapped source of brain power. You could say something similar about most people living in poverty. Imagine the power of bringing those minds online. Imagine what the world would look like if we were all afforded the opportunity to tap into that inner genius – that’s the foundation of a meritocracy.

Does it stop at the billionaires? I hope not. They can’t do it alone. They need our help. They have the money, but we have the power – we just don’t know it yet.