How the Rich Threaten Meritocracy

¶ … America's New Aristocracy," January 24, 2015, The Economist

Without even realizing it, many marginalized citizens in the United States may believe that they somehow deserve to be poor and disadvantaged because of some fundamental character flaw or lack of ambition or talent compared to their more affluent counterparts. This belief is based in large part on the lessons that are taught in the public school classrooms concerning the superiority of a meritocracy in determining who comes out on top in American society. Indeed, this has been the foundation of the American dream since the country's inception, and Horatio Alger et al. have been used to encourage young people to pursue this dream irrespective of their circumstances. What these lessons ignore, however, are the enormous class differences that exist in American society that have a pronounced effect on determining how big a slice of the American pie people receive Young people from low-income families will inevitably lack the same types of educational and vocational opportunities that their more affluent counterparts enjoy, of course, but the differences do not end there. According to an article in The Economist (America's new aristocracy, 24 Jan 2015), the rich in America get richer because they tend to group together to reproduce and to provide their offspring with all of the advantages that money can buy. Using an appeal to ethos based on the editors' credibility as responsible journalists and several examples from the historical record, the article also draws on pathos to emphasize that, "Far more than in previous generations, clever, successful men marry clever, successful women. Such 'assortative mating' increases inequality by 25% ... since two-degree households typically enjoy two large incomes" (America's new aristocracy 2).

In support of their assertions that legitimate meritocracy is threatened by the inordinate advantages provided the rich in American society, the editors go on to argue that college graduates earning hefty salaries will somehow naturally spend more time with their children and take a greater interest in their education. Ignoring the vagaries of genetics, the editors suggest that, "Power couples conceive bright children and bring them up in stable homes -- only 9% of college-educated mothers who give birth each year are unmarried, compared with 61% of high-school dropouts" (3).

The editors of "America's new aristocracy" concede that the United States is different from other Western countries in the manner in which the public schools are funded. For instance, the editors note that [The U.S.] education system favors the well-off more than anywhere else in the rich world. Thanks to hyperlocal funding, America is one of only three advanced countries where the government spends more on schools in rich areas than in poor ones" (America's new aristocracy 4). The editors also point out, though, that it is only natural that the children of rich people somehow deserve better schools because they are more heavily taxed in their local school districts compared to their disadvantaged counterparts in inner city neighborhoods. For instance, the article adds that, "They move to pricey neighborhoods with good schools, spend a packet on flute lessons and pull strings to get junior into a top-notch college" (America's new aristocracy 4).

In sum, the angle of vision employed by the editors of "America's new aristocracy" beats an old drum that the rich are exploiting the system to provide unfair advantage for their children. The editors clearly assume that their audience is not comprised primarily of ultra-wealthy readers, and their choice of words (e.g., "pull strings," "American elite," "top of the pile," and "the game is rigged") is intended to evoke negative reactions to just how good affluent people have it in the United States compared to the Average Joe. For example, the editors also emphasize that, "For those at the top of the pile, moving straight from the best universities into the best jobs, the potential rewards are greater than they have ever been" (America's new aristocracy 5). Taken together, although the editors of The Economist make some good points concerning the threats to meritocracy in American society, they neglect to describe the impact these trends have had on the working poor.

Assuming that a "rising tide raises all boats," it would also seem reasonable to suggest that the potential rewards are also greater for everyone else than they have ever been, but the harsh realities of recent years make it clear that not only are the rich getting richer, they are getting richer faster as well in ways that have had significant implications for the working poor. According to Van Brimmer, "The Great Recession and subsequent tepid recovery awakened many to the disturbing fact that a disproportionate amount of the gains have gone to those at the top" (22).

This increased diversion of wealth to the ultra-wealthy to the exclusion of the working poor has made it increasingly difficult for even the most hard-working dual income families to make ends meet, let alone send their children to expensive private schools or in many cases spend quality time with them reading to them or otherwise engaging in activities that promote learning. In this regard, Van Brimmer emphasizes that, "It used to be that people were poor because they were unable to work. But in recent years, more and more of these individuals are working full time-even 50 to 60 hours a week in some cases -- and still remain impoverished" (22). When these same families see wealthy Americans who are already at the "top of the pile" then "pull strings" to gain even greater advantage, it is not surprising that they are disillusioned and frustrated. As Van Brimmer concludes, "At the same time, there are wealthy heirs who never work. Both groups challenge our assumptions about the American meritocracy -- the idea that to earn a good living, you must work hard and get paid for that effort" (23).