There's been a growing number of voices[0][1][2] speaking to not only inequality but also the meritocratic system that seems to have positive feedback loops that worsens inequality by precluding opportunities for those who don't fit the mold of the college education track. I think it's only a matter of time (within the next decade?) where this comes to a head and results in some shock to the system that forces a correction.
From "Down with meritocracy" (Thu 28 Jun 2001 21.59 EDT):
The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033.
Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating.
Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.
Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable.
It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.
Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education.
I just listened to a great interview with Joel Greenblatt[0] on the subject of education. It's really worth a listen. I think the solutions are within our reach with just a little political will.
Meritorcacy is the worst form of allocating resources except for all those other forms, I'd say. How else would you suggest doing it? A meritocracy at least gives people a way to strive to do better. A system in which one cannot raise his chances of success by improving himself is likely even worse than what we have.
One place to look is other countries, e.g. Germany. They have alternatives to the college/university track that enable people who don't fit that mold to still prosper.
The way the U.S. is structured it's as if the only route to success is becoming a professional basketball player in the NBA. Oh, you don't happen to be extra-tall or able to shoot a basket? You must not be working hard enough.
Interesting thoughts. How do they achieve this? And do you believe it will hold up to increasing automation?
There are definitely good non-college jobs in America, though fewer than there were fifty years ago. Many are trades - welder, carpenter, plumber. Are things similar in Germany?
This article does a pretty good job of describing the system in Germany[0]. They have an apprentice system that offers an alternative to the usual college/university track.
what are the chances this "shock" is peaceful? Anyone have ideas? Unfortunately, it may be not very high (though I am optimistically hoping we can figure something out!) A very cool atlantic article I read following a similar line of thought, highly recommended read:
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...
[1]https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43671669-the-meritocr...
[2]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-sma...