Meritocracy - a system where people are rewarded based on ability and talent.
Overlooked issues
1. Unequal starting conditions
Meritocracy assumes everyone starts from equal conditions, but factors beyond our control (talent, family wealth and values, social connections, other biological factors) shape opportunities from birth. Wealthy families can afford better education too, point discussed below, creating a privileged path that meritocracy views as “earned success.”
There is also the issue of the current time period and what the market deems as a valuable contribution: maybe someone could’ve been a great programmer in the 17th century, but those were not valued then. Meritocracy also overlooks this arbitrary timing.
2. Credentialism as gatekeeping
Politicians have promoted education as the path for a great future. Bill Clinton said in the ’90s that “what you earn will depend on what you learn.” But this reduces education to getting diplomas, credentials. It is gatekeeping for accessing economic opportunity. Economic justice becomes about removing barriers to credentials instead of addressing structural inequality. Culmea e că, după cum s-a menționat și în podcastul de mai jos, este obsesia asta cu vârfurile (România produce mulți olimpici) în loc de sprijinul instuțiilor, programelor mai puțin dezvoltate. The focus shifts to competing for diplomas instead of supporting/educating citizens who can solve problems or genuinely love learning.
This mindset fuels populist revolt. When credentialed elites dismiss those without degrees (like Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment about voters who didn’t support her), resentment grows. Clinton won regions accounting for 2/3 of GDP, emphasizing the economic divide between urban centers and those left behind.
3. Pride and shame dynamics
Meritocracy leads to corrosive social attitudes: it flatters the successful and humiliates the unsuccessful. It tells winners “you’re the sole reason for your success”, ignoring luck and privilege, and tells losers “you’re the sole reason for your failure”, dismissing structural barriers.
Example in the podcast: “cote de incluziune” (inclusion quotas), policies that guarantee somewhat equal access (though not results) for historically marginalized groups whose societal role was diminished by discriminatory politics. Yet “persoane în asistență socială” face social shame rather than support.
The issue isn’t that we shouldn’t compensate valuable contributions. The problem is that meritocratic thinking over-indexes on pride rather than humility. This attitude prevents us from having honest conversations about bad economic policy and blocks our ability to build a society we all want to live in.