"We shouldn't toss meritocracy out even though its consequences are inegalitarian. This externality can be mitigated in a number of ways, which are generally accessible to democratic societies."
How so? I have my own ideas (starting with a realistic floor for a basic living wage for all adults) but am curious about yours.
If meritocracy is the appropriate paradigm that encourages talent to succeed and to lead (despite various corruptions that game the meritocratic system, all of which can & should be improved), a framework that seems to be necessary for liberal societies to continue progressing & succeeding... what becomes of the less talented in a meritocratic society? Does Wooldridge address this?
Wooldridge's argument doesn't directly address how meritocracies should manage material inequality. I think like me he's amenable to many different democratically negotiated solutions.
It is certainly a weak point in the book given that I'm sure he's well aware of how natural intellectual talent (which is what modern economies demand) and subsequent economic rewards are distributed (normally and power-law, respectively).
This necessitates some form of social transfer. The questions concern the mechanisms and degree of this. Unfortunately, the historical record for this approach is fairly dismal in terms of actually mitigating both the material and psychic doldrums in the lower rungs. It seems the only true progress is how high societies can bring up the floor, which is a function of how much and how fast the growth is.
So I don't have a great answer for what should be done with our current situation, though I think prioritizing unleashing growth will be the ideal long-run solution versus trying to find the perfect system of social transfers.
"We shouldn't toss meritocracy out even though its consequences are inegalitarian. This externality can be mitigated in a number of ways, which are generally accessible to democratic societies."
How so? I have my own ideas (starting with a realistic floor for a basic living wage for all adults) but am curious about yours.
If meritocracy is the appropriate paradigm that encourages talent to succeed and to lead (despite various corruptions that game the meritocratic system, all of which can & should be improved), a framework that seems to be necessary for liberal societies to continue progressing & succeeding... what becomes of the less talented in a meritocratic society? Does Wooldridge address this?
Wooldridge's argument doesn't directly address how meritocracies should manage material inequality. I think like me he's amenable to many different democratically negotiated solutions.
It is certainly a weak point in the book given that I'm sure he's well aware of how natural intellectual talent (which is what modern economies demand) and subsequent economic rewards are distributed (normally and power-law, respectively).
This necessitates some form of social transfer. The questions concern the mechanisms and degree of this. Unfortunately, the historical record for this approach is fairly dismal in terms of actually mitigating both the material and psychic doldrums in the lower rungs. It seems the only true progress is how high societies can bring up the floor, which is a function of how much and how fast the growth is.
So I don't have a great answer for what should be done with our current situation, though I think prioritizing unleashing growth will be the ideal long-run solution versus trying to find the perfect system of social transfers.