Why do leftists abhor the concept of a meritocracy?

[Flopper]

Flopper,

I get where you're coming from, but on the flipside, how is giving everyone the same pay raise fair to the person who does 25% more work or brings in 25% more orders? I worked on both sides of the union when i was with UPS, and as both an employee and a manager it pissed me off to see people that did as little as the could get away with being paid just as much as the best workers. There wasn't any incentive to work harder, because you're raise was determined by contract. On the other hand, there was a lot of incentive to ride the clock and stretch 8 hours worth of work into 10 hours so that you could rack up some overtime.

As I said, where merit can be accurately determined, I have no problem with merit pay. In your example, order takers that take 25% more orders than their piers should be paid more. But what about the order takers that only take in 10%, 5%, or 3% more than average should they be paid more? I say no, because the method being used to measure merit is not that accurate at accessing the true value of the employee. For example the person that only brings in 3% above average may spend more time building a good relationship with customers or may do extra jobs in the office, or whatever.

In many businesses if not most, there is no objective way to measure the merit of all employees. For about 8 years I managed about 25 people. My employer was a strict believer in merit pay. Bonuses and pay raises all depending on employee evaluation. I could always pick out the top 5 and bottom 5. For the rest, it was just a guess and I’m sure I was wrong about as often as I was right. The result was poor employee moral and high turnover. I think if I had been able to pay a large bonus to just the top 5 employees and a small bonus to remainder of the department, it would have solved a lot of problems and the business would have benefited.

 

[rdean]

Never claim that Dallas has no smog.

I never did. You're lying again.

Oh no, I have no integrity.

Well, whatya know. You finally got something right.

Dallas is really, really CLEAN with "sweet smelling air". I was wrong. It looks like the land of OZ. Just follow the "Yellow Brink Road". How could I be so wrong. Wah, wah, boo hoo.

Nice strawman. It's smarter than you are.


Dean, if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

But then, if you didn't lie, you wouldn't be dean.

Oh, and Mormons! Booga booga!!

Look stupid Dave. I'm only going to do this one time.

This is what you said:

No similarity at all. Buildings are all wrong. Dean fucks up again.

And now dean is claiming these are Texans, based only on his bigotry against conservatives.

Dean, why do you lie so much? Oh, wait, you really believe your claims are true simply because you say them, don't you?

This isn't the first time I've busted you passing off pictures of China as places in America.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but you lack the integrity.

Oh, and dean doesn't support a meritocracy, because he'd never be promoted.

And you showed a picture of Dallas. This picture:

You showed that picture because I showed a picture I took from an article about Dallas pollution. They said it was a "symbolic" picture to demonstrate the pollution in Dallas. Fine, because there are plenty showing the terrible pollution in not only Dallas, but all of Texas.

Clearly it's the SAME group of buildings from the other side shrouded in smog.

And worse for your kind, there are plenty more.

Like this one and the others I posted.

That's the trouble with your kind. Instead of looking at the truth, you see a "T" isn't crossed so you scream "liar". The truth is the truth.

Texas is the most poluted state in the union. We all know it. It's a fact. Calling a fact a lie doesn't make it less of a fact. It simply shows that you are in denial.

And this is Galveston Bay, NOT China. Take a good, long hard look:

 

[daveman]

Never claim that Dallas has no smog.

I never did. You're lying again.

Well, whatya know. You finally got something right.

Dallas is really, really CLEAN with "sweet smelling air". I was wrong. It looks like the land of OZ. Just follow the "Yellow Brink Road". How could I be so wrong. Wah, wah, boo hoo.

Nice strawman. It's smarter than you are.


Dean, if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

But then, if you didn't lie, you wouldn't be dean.

Oh, and Mormons! Booga booga!!

Lie about what?

You claimed pictures of China and Hong Kong were from Texas.

You lied.

 

[daveman]

Never claim that Dallas has no smog.

I never did. You're lying again.

Well, whatya know. You finally got something right.

Dallas is really, really CLEAN with "sweet smelling air". I was wrong. It looks like the land of OZ. Just follow the "Yellow Brink Road". How could I be so wrong. Wah, wah, boo hoo.

Nice strawman. It's smarter than you are.


Dean, if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

But then, if you didn't lie, you wouldn't be dean.

Oh, and Mormons! Booga booga!!

Look stupid Dave. I'm only going to do this one time.

I doubt it. You lie all the time.

This is what you said:

I know what I said. I wrote it.

No similarity at all. Buildings are all wrong. Dean fucks up again.

And now dean is claiming these are Texans, based only on his bigotry against conservatives.

Dean, why do you lie so much? Oh, wait, you really believe your claims are true simply because you say them, don't you?

This isn't the first time I've busted you passing off pictures of China as places in America.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but you lack the integrity.

Oh, and dean doesn't support a meritocracy, because he'd never be promoted.

And you showed a picture of Dallas. This picture:

You showed that picture because I showed a picture I took from an article about Dallas pollution. They said it was a "symbolic" picture to demonstrate the pollution in Dallas. Fine, because there are plenty showing the terrible pollution in not only Dallas, but all of Texas. [/quotte]
And Hong Kong, too, which everybody knows is JUST LIKE Dallas.

Clearly it's the SAME group of buildings from the other side shrouded in smog.

And worse for your kind, there are plenty more.

Like this one and the others I posted.

That's the trouble with your kind. Instead of looking at the truth, you see a "T" isn't crossed so you scream "liar". The truth is the truth.

Texas is the most poluted state in the union. We all know it. It's a fact. Calling a fact a lie doesn't make it less of a fact. It simply shows that you are in denial.

And this is Galveston Bay, NOT China. Take a good, long hard look:

Dean, why did you leave out the bit where I showed you knowingly and deliberately lied about the polluted river which is actually in China, but you claimed was in Texas?

Do you really think pretending it's not there means it's not there?

Well, you are pretty damn stupid, after all. And leftists think they can define reality.

Damn shame for you that reality just refuses to cooperate, huh?

 

[midcan5]

So which particular The Man is keeping you down?

D -

You must know by now (?) you never address the issue, you hide behind that thin veil of slogan, not very meritorious. Next time study for the test.

Wrong. The issue is meritocracy.

You claim: "There never was equality, or even equality of opportunity, there never will be..."

So someone's keeping you down. Who is it? Answer the question.

I may have to change that D to an F, you aren't reading my posts with any understanding. Meritocracy is not a thing, you cannot point to it, it only means whatever you want it to mean. Your assumption that things keep us down demonstrates your conservative thinking, you assume since equality (another wild abstraction) does not exist, some mechanism must exist that creates that situation. If I accept that metaphor I have a problem as then I accept a conservative assumption that I am allowing something to keep me down. I am weak in other words and you are strong (?). But I don't accept your worldview or the way you frame the world, life is not that simple. Your conservative metaphor only justifies in your mind what I do not, it turns reality on its head.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - MLK Jr.

Sounds like he dreamt of a meritocracy to me.

But what do I know?

Not much, actually I'd have to say nothing. You do realize that King's speech was a cry for change and not about meritocracy? The 'I have a Dream' speech came ten years after Brown and King said nothing had really changed for Blacks. It was about civil rights legislation; MLK and LBJ finally accomplished that momentous legislation. It always amazes me that the right wing today totally ignores history for the sole purpose of justifying bad policy or trying to repeal good policy. An excerpt from speech is below, it is time for you to learn just a bit of history. See bold.

"But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition."
[....]
"It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children." MLK I Have A Dream Speech (TEXT)

 

[manifold]

So now we have Riva and midcan5 trying to argue in a roundabout way that the 'content of one's character' is somehow not a subjective measure of merit.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that gut-bustingly hilarious.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Ravi]

So now we have Riva and midcan5 trying to argue in a roundabout way that the 'content of one's character' is somehow not a subjective measure of merit.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that gut-bustingly hilarious.

But whatcha gonna do?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...e-concept-of-a-meritocracy-8.html#post3784684

 

[midcan5]

So now we have Riva and midcan5 trying to argue in a roundabout way that the 'content of one's character' is somehow not a subjective measure of merit.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that gut-bustingly hilarious.

But whatcha gonna do?

Well for one thing, get graded an F in history. If you can take 200 years of exploitation and wash over it with a few words from a speech that claims another story, you're not gonna make it in history class. Read the whole speech again and try to understand the times it was spoken in, and why, and while this grade is an F, and there is no extra credit, next time you may just have learned a bit. "Overcome..." "Freedom..."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk]YouTube - ‪Martin Luther King "I have a dream"‬‏[/ame]

 

[manifold]

I got an A in history.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[daveman]

So now we have Riva and midcan5 trying to argue in a roundabout way that the 'content of one's character' is somehow not a subjective measure of merit.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that gut-bustingly hilarious.

But whatcha gonna do?

Well for one thing, get graded an F in history. If you can take 200 years of exploitation and wash over it with a few words from a speech that claims another story, you're not gonna make it in history class. Read the whole speech again and try to understand the times it was spoken in, and why, and while this grade is an F, and there is no extra credit, next time you may just have learned a bit. "Overcome..." "Freedom..."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk]YouTube - ‪Martin Luther King "I have a dream"‬‏[/ame]

"America sucks and has always sucked" isn't history. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have lied to you.

 

[daveman]

D -

You must know by now (?) you never address the issue, you hide behind that thin veil of slogan, not very meritorious. Next time study for the test.

Wrong. The issue is meritocracy.

You claim: "There never was equality, or even equality of opportunity, there never will be..."

So someone's keeping you down. Who is it? Answer the question.

I may have to change that D to an F, you aren't reading my posts with any understanding. Meritocracy is not a thing, you cannot point to it, it only means whatever you want it to mean. Your assumption that things keep us down demonstrates your conservative thinking, you assume since equality (another wild abstraction) does not exist, some mechanism must exist that creates that situation. If I accept that metaphor I have a problem as then I accept a conservative assumption that I am allowing something to keep me down. I am weak in other words and you are strong (?). But I don't accept your worldview or the way you frame the world, life is not that simple. Your conservative metaphor only justifies in your mind what I do not, it turns reality on its head.

Unless you're acknowledging that where you are in life is indeed the result of your choices and actions, yes, you think someone's keeping you down.

 

[rightwinger]

Some might argue that leftism and a meritocracy are mutually exclusive ideals, but that is not really the case. There may be conflicting elements that need to be balanced, but by and large the two could definitely coexist. Yet for some reason leftists dismiss the meritocracy concept out of hand at best, and view it as an absolute evil at worst. And I just don't understand why.

Why do leftists abhor the concept of a meritocracy?

The left welcomes merit based success...who doesn't?

What they don't welcome is when rules are changed to enable one group to accumulate more wealth than others. Doesn't the labor of the working class have merit?

When you cut taxes on one group with the perception that it will help all groups and it doesn't work.......why do you keep doing it? What is the merit in that?

When CEO salaries increase 1000% and the output of their companies and global competitiveness decreases......what is the merit in that?

 

[daveman]

What they don't welcome is when rules are changed to enable one group to accumulate more wealth than others.

Oh, you mean like by Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxing hiring standards for certain groups of people...

Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

 

[rightwinger]

What they don't welcome is when rules are changed to enable one group to accumulate more wealth than others.

Oh, you mean like by Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxing hiring standards for certain groups of people...

Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

Were the people who benefited from those programs able to seize a major portion of available wealth? I think not

What those programs did was enable them to compete for a few more crumbs and achieve a basic standard of living

In the last 30 years the richest 4% of the population were able to stake out an additional 8% of available wealth. Was it based on "merit" or the ability to change the economic landscape to benefit themselves and maintain political protection?

 

[daveman]

What they don't welcome is when rules are changed to enable one group to accumulate more wealth than others.

Oh, you mean like by Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxing hiring standards for certain groups of people...

Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

Were the people who benefited from those programs able to seize a major portion of available wealth? I think not

What those programs did was enable them to compete for a few more crumbs and achieve a basic standard of living

In the last 30 years the richest 4% of the population were able to stake out an additional 8% of available wealth. Was it based on "merit" or the ability to change the economic landscape to benefit themselves and maintain political protection?

Like I said: Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, you mean like by Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxing hiring standards for certain groups of people...

Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

Were the people who benefited from those programs able to seize a major portion of available wealth? I think not

What those programs did was enable them to compete for a few more crumbs and achieve a basic standard of living

In the last 30 years the richest 4% of the population were able to stake out an additional 8% of available wealth. Was it based on "merit" or the ability to change the economic landscape to benefit themselves and maintain political protection?

Like I said: Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

As do you. You'd rather the merit be white male.

 

[daveman]

Were the people who benefited from those programs able to seize a major portion of available wealth? I think not

What those programs did was enable them to compete for a few more crumbs and achieve a basic standard of living

In the last 30 years the richest 4% of the population were able to stake out an additional 8% of available wealth. Was it based on "merit" or the ability to change the economic landscape to benefit themselves and maintain political protection?

Like I said: Don't pretend you don't mind rules being changed. You just want to dictate who benefits.

As do you. You'd rather the merit be white male.

And you know this...how, exactly?


This ought to be amusing.

 

[Article 15]

Some might argue that leftism and a meritocracy are mutually exclusive ideals, but that is not really the case. There may be conflicting elements that need to be balanced, but by and large the two could definitely coexist. Yet for some reason leftists dismiss the meritocracy concept out of hand at best, and view it as an absolute evil at worst. And I just don't understand why.

Why do leftists abhor the concept of a meritocracy?

The Right seems to believes merit should be the only factor determining advancement. The Left seems to believe that there are other factors to be considering in addition to merit such as seniority. Sometime there will be a person that is clearly exceptional but often judging merit is purely subjective. Using seniority in conjunction with merit is IMHO the right method for determining advancement.

Even COngress eliminated seniority as a factor. The only places that practice that are union shops. If someone is a shitbag he doesn't become less of a shitbag because he was able to last in the system more years than someone else.
Is meritocracy an ideal system? No. But it is better than anything else I've seen proposed. Including grievance culture.

In the Air Force, your time service and time in grade accounts for part of the score that determines whether or not you are promoted to the next rank.

 

[jillian]

The answer's simple. Meritocracy erases their big chip, the handout. And handouts mean votes. Those beholding to you for what you've given them are want to repay you for your gracious generosity and the hope there's more where that came from for them and others like them, including family, friends, etc.

yokie dokie,,,,

cool how you hit the rightwingnut talking point.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Right seems to believes merit should be the only factor determining advancement. The Left seems to believe that there are other factors to be considering in addition to merit such as seniority. Sometime there will be a person that is clearly exceptional but often judging merit is purely subjective. Using seniority in conjunction with merit is IMHO the right method for determining advancement.

Even COngress eliminated seniority as a factor. The only places that practice that are union shops. If someone is a shitbag he doesn't become less of a shitbag because he was able to last in the system more years than someone else.
Is meritocracy an ideal system? No. But it is better than anything else I've seen proposed. Including grievance culture.

In the Air Force, your time service and time in grade accounts for part of the score that determines whether or not you are promoted to the next rank.

Since when?

When I was in, the only requirements were time in rank and not shitty evals. And that was just to take the advancement test. Even if you passed it didn't mean promotion.

things like medals, certain awards, and qualifications added points.