zlacker

>>tysone+(OP)
It's not like meritocracy is completely unrelated to real life, it matters in a certain regime. However, if like Vanessa, you're born to lesser circumstances, you just cannot escape poverty by just working harder. Similarly, if you are born to very well off standards, even if you're a dope and spend money from Dad's inheritance on cocaine, sure, you won't be successful but you'll still have a net of some kind. You can always improve your lot, but where you start has a large impact on how much of phase space you can reach, so to say.

I think the mentality is shifting a little as millenials and gen z are slowly letting go of the meritocratic myth, but blaming internal motivations more than context is a problem in the American conception of the world we still suffer from as a nation. The inability of us to accept that our actions are not the only determining things in our lives seriously limit our ability to fully comprehend the world and how it really works which leads us to thinking ideas like work requirements are actually sane rather than completely counterproductive.

>>noober+kH
> the meritocratic myth

I've been around to see people over decades, and how their decisions affect their lives. Meritocracy is not a myth. Where people wind up is very much a consequence of their choices.

This isn't the Soviet Union where one is assigned a career, a job and an apartment.

I've seen immigrants arrive here with nothing and become millionaires. That's why everyone wants to come to America. The opportunity is here.

>>skooku+PQ
>I've been around to see people over decades, and how their decisions affect their lives. Meritocracy is not a myth. Where people wind up is very much a consequence of their choices.

Choices is not the same as skills. Meritocracy is about merit, not choices.

>>coldte+fZ
People choose to acquire skills, or not. It's the whole point of all the education available to Americans, most of it free. Choose it, or not. Heck, you can even get an MIT education for free over the internet. It's up to you.

>>skooku+x41
>People choose to acquire skills, or not.

>It's the whole point of all the education available to Americans, most of it free. Choose it, or not. Heck, you can even get an MIT education for free over the internet. It's up to you.

It's only free if your time is worthless.

Else you have opportunity costs. Which are not just monetary (e.g. needing to work long hours to put food on the table) but human too (e.g. tending to a sick relative or raising your kid).

One could still study after his shift flipping burgers for their "MIT education for free over the internet". But they'd still be left without an actual MIT degree, and even following that free education will be much harder than the average HN commenter whose parents splurged for their education.

>>coldte+Gg1
>>It's only free if your time is worthless.

If a person is poor, and they still think sparing an hour watching a Ivy League university lecture(that can vastly increase their opportunity range) isn't worth your time, they have far bigger problems related to entitlement.

>>Else you have opportunity costs.

And there they have a choice. Which opportunity is more important to one's life?

>>and even following that free education will be much harder than the average HN commenter whose parents splurged for their education.

There is often a huge space between Homelessness and being a billionaire.

You can always start doing work that is better than flipping burgers. And I don't any one will contest the fact that it will take a person years before they reach 6 figure salaries.

Again, even an entry level QA job could pay you better than flipping burger and you can work from there.