By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

The smartest/most efficient of us, are a tiny minority. I'd think catering to them wouldn't be the worst idea. Give them more resources and keep them more free of politics, within reason of course. The things that the majority of that minority typically end up doing for everyone are worth it.

2 Points.

1. Efficiency is always at the cost of human lives. Humans aren't built for efficiency and top efficiency will always cost lives. That's why humanity only works with a bunch of compromises. Like democracy, which is one of the least efficient forms of government, because it's just a compromise.

2. There is no evidence in the last 20000 years to support that the elites will do anything to properly advance or even handle humanity. In fact there is plenty of evidence against it, especially in the US. A meritocracy does not work and will not ever work. At least not if your goal is to bring a good life to a majority of people.

We already know that the Republicans have no interest to better the lives of the majority.

1. Not always. Compare European and American work ethic. Europeans are focused on getting shit done and going home when it's time to clock out. Americans put in 60+ hour weeks to look busy. Europeans get the same amount done in less time, they're more efficient and they also have more free time (and therefore better lives) as a result.

That's also an issue with hourly pay. You're typically paid on quantity of work, rather than quality.

2. A meritocracy absolutely does work. Western Europe is probably the most meritocratic place in the world and it also has the highest living standards and happiest people in the world. Not a coincidence.

Plus I'd argue that to be meritocratic you need a number of "socialist" policies in order to give everybody the opportunity to prove their worth. Those opportunities (and the fact there would be socialist policies in place even for people who couldn't make the most of them for whatever reason) would give a better life to the majority of people.

1. Those are some really dangerous stereotypes. What you describe has nothing to do with work ethics. Getting more done in fewer hours is not a sign of great ethics but a symptom of having to work fewer hours. There are countless studies proving that work efficiency increases with fewer work hours. Europeans have strong worker protection and lots of vacation and sick times. They are also required by law to work less. They get more done in fewer hours because they have to work fewer hours and as such have the ability and motivation to work efficiently.

US workers do not have that luxury. They are mostly paid by the hour. They do not have a social safety net, which increases stress and anxiety. So they naturally benefit from working less efficiently to not kill themselves and to get more money. They're also overall less educated, so some jobs that require good thinkers or skilled workers have to be done by lesser skilled workers. Also not their fault, but a mere symptom.

Don't forget that US citizens are also just humans and given the same circumstances they will perform just as well as European humans. Believing anything else borders on racism.

2. I'd argue a social safety net and a meritocracy do not mix. Unless that safety net is based on merit, whit it is absolutely not in Europe. I reject that western Europe operates in a meritocracy. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much incompetence among the elites.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.