Make America more Meritocratic

Greg Mankiw lays out the case that talented people (who make above average income) tend to have talented children (who make above average income). He surely oversimplifies, ignoring the fact that wealthier children have advantages in schooling, tutoring, stability etc. But his point still seems reasonable, and, in a followup post, and another, he cites studies indicating that heredity ("nature" if you will, as opposed to "nurture") is significant.

Paul Krugman takes exception to Mankiw.

"But, you know, there’s lots of evidence that there’s more to it than that. ... It’s comforting to think that we live in a meritocracy. But we don’t."

Without getting too far into the nitty gritty details, (I'm sure that nature and nurture both matter, and Krugman cites studies that support nurture) read the comments on Paul's blog. I'm amazed at how many people state categorically that there is no correlation between intelligence and income. e.g. "By the way, does anyone seriously think there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? " And many make straw-man arguments. Mankiw never claimed that the USA was a perfect utopian meritocracy.

I'm not sure what to make of Krugman saying we are not a meritocracy. If he means "not a perfect meritocracy", well, duh. If he means "not even remotely a meritocracy, it's all rigged", I beg to differ. Does he tell his students at Princeton to not bother studying or working, they may as well just waste their time playing beer pong? I hope not. We are an imperfect meritocracy, o.k.? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that's what he means. But that's not how he expresses it.

The other disturbing trend is how little either side considers "hard work" and perseverance and high-expectations from parents. If one only read the Krugman comments you'd think that the rich are only rich because they cheated or were lucky. (Here's an example) In effect, they are saying that neither nature nor nurture matter, just blind luck and greed. Now, in some cases, like recent Wall Street shenanigans, they are partly right. But, overall, hard work and talent matter. Inheritance is not all - the USA has high turnover in the richest Americans.

Maybe I've become an old fogey, but some kids today worry me. I have none, but have several friends with teenagers, and a good friend who teaches high-school. Many kids are not studying, not working, not even close to making the most of their talents. Why? Not sure. Because they see a few of their peers making millions as athletes or rock stars or poker players? Or they hear of government bailouts? Or they think it doesn't matter, we are a corrupt rigged state?

If we also buy into the liberal claim that the rich are just "lucky", that talent and hard work don't matter, that's one more nail in the coffin, why should kids study or work hard at all? Such a belief is bad for America's future. For a Nobel Prize winning economist to (possibly) advance such an idea (like I said, I'm not sure what is comment on meritocracy really means) is actively destructive to America's future. Conversely, government and business should not reward raw greed and luck, as has happened recently on Wall Street. Let's work to make America more meritocratic, if that's a word. :-)