The Myth Of Meritocracy

by Scott Hughes

In respect to hunger & poverty in America, the U.S. people believe in a myth. The real myth is NOT that hunger and poverty don’t exist within America. Albeit, the prevalence of poverty hunger in America is largely downplayed and ignored by the collective American opinion. Regardless, no one can deny the staggering statistics. In the United States, 38.2 million people–including 14 million children–live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. 3.9 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. 8.0 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Though often ignored, the facts are blatant.

The real myth in America is the myth of meritocracy – the myth that the poor are just lazy and stupid. Most Americans seem to believe that the poor in America deserve poverty. These people believe the United States is a meritocracy, in which wealth and status is determined by merit. These people believe that the wealthy in the United States have earned their wealth through intelligence and hard work. And accordingly, these people believe that laziness and stupidity cause poverty.

The prevalence of this myth shocks some people, who wonder how over 14 million U.S. children could deserve poverty. Children. The non-meritocratic reality is obvious to most anyone who has worked or knows someone who has worked two or even three jobs and barely earns enough to survive. Indeed, many intelligent hard-working American families struggle to feed, house, and clothe themselves.

It seems that the belief in the myth of meritocracy isn’t based on logic or empirical evidence. Rather, it seems the belief in meritocracy is based on desire and cognitive dissonance. Not to say that the majority of non-poor Americans directly want to believe that 38.2 million American people are lazy and stupid. Rather, the majority of non-poor Americans want to believe that they, the non-poor, have earned their wealth and status. The majority of non-poor Americans choose to reject the notion that poverty is unfairly determined by non-meritocratic forces, because they don’t want to accept that their own wealth is equally unfair. The majority of non-poor Americans don’t want to admit that the majority of the poor Americans are unlucky, because that would entail that the majority of non-poor Americans are just lucky. Understandably, Americans want to feel like they are deserving, decent citizens living in a fair meritocracy. They don’t want to feel guilty, lucky or responsible to the poor.

Unfortunately, this pretentiousness and arrogance alone cannot explain the prevalence of the myth of meritocracy, because not only do non-poor Americans believe in the myth of meritocracy, but also poor Americans believe in it! While arrogance and a desire to feel proud could explained the non-poor Americans belief in the myth of meritocracy, it can’t explain why poor Americans believe in this myth. Just like non-poor Americans, poor Americans believe that they are inferior and deserve to be poor. Poor Americans literally have – both collectively and individually – an inferiority complex. Additionally, working-class and middle-class Americans never question their own status in relation to the upper-class. Indeed, working-class Americans don’t avoid poverty with actual wealth, but rather with credit-lines. Their houses, cars, and clothes are all financed with borrowed money. The majority of non-poor working-class Americans are literally on the brink of poverty. Generally, their apparent wealth is just an illusion.

To understand the prevalence of the myth of meritocracy, one must understand the socioeconomic structure of the United States. The true wealth in the United States is in the hands of a few. The top 1% in the United States have more wealth than the lower 95%. Generally speaking, the upper-class doesn’t work or produce. Generally speaking, this upper-class is unproductive and uncreative. Instead of being workers or managers, the upper-class make money by share-holding and banking. Money controls everything, so the richest of the rich don’t need to work. Indeed, the government-sponsored dollar is mightier than the sword.

It’s not in the interest of the richest and most powerful, the true owners of America, to have a rebellious working-class. The powers that be all have a stake in the continuance of the non-meritocratic oligarchy. So, right from the start in the government-run schools, students are taught to believe in the myth of meritocracy. The schools literally teach students blind nationalist patriotism. The entire social system, namely schools, indoctrinate the people to believe that America is completely fair and meritocratic. Any evidence that contradicts the myth of meritocracy is omitted from the courses, whether historical or contemporary. Indeed, even women-oppressing Indian-killing slave-owners are made out to be American heroes.

A very small minority of non-working unproductive people truly run America, and indeed most of the world. A very small minority of people have all the wealth and power. Simple Machiavellian philosophy says that those who benefit from the current social order will do whatever they can to keep that order in place. Simple Machiavellian philosophy says that those whom change would adversely affect will furiously try to stop change. It is no surprise that the very small minority of wealthy and powerful leaders want to keep the current social order; they’re living the good life. Wealth without work.

The main way to keep the masses of people from uprising is by tricking the masses with the myth of meritocracy. Convince the lower and working classes that classism is based on merit, and they’ll keep going to their jobs. Even as more children starve and middle-class debts increase, they’ll keep going to their jobs. So long as the working-classes and lower-classes have an inferiority complex, they’ll keep working. They’ll be depressed, stressed, and hungry, but they’ll keep working. Nothing changes, and those few people with a stake in the oligarchy prevail. The prevalence of the myth of meritocracy guarantees the prevalence of the oligarchy.

And, as long as the oligarchy prevails and nothing changes, 14 million American children go to bed hungry every night. And, 16,000 children die everyday.

About The Author: Scott Hughes has a blog about hunger & poverty at http://millionsofmouths.com/blog/nfblog/. You may republish this article so long as you keep all links intact and include this “about the author” footer.

Hunger in the U.S.

The latest U.S. federal data indicate that:

  • In 2004, 13.5 million households (or 11.9% of all U.S. households) were food insecure. Over 38 million people (13.2% of all Americans) lived in these households.
  • During the 12 months preceding the 2004 survey, 4.4 million households experienced hunger. Over 10.7 million adults and children lived in these households.
  • In 2004, 13.9 million children under age 18 lived in food-insecure households (19.0% of all children).
  • Food insecurity and hunger are concentrated in low-income households. In 2004, households with incomes below 130% poverty line had a food insecurity prevalence more than 3 times the national level. More than two-thirds of households reporting hunger had incomes under 185% of the poverty line.
  • Female-headed households showed disproportionately high levels of food insecurity and hunger, with 33% reporting food insecurity and 1 in 11 experiencing hunger.
  • Black and Hispanic households had food insecurity prevalences that were at least 2.5 times those of White (non-Hispanic) households.

From: http://www.centeronhunger.org/hunger/facts.html (Source: Nord, M., Andrews, M., Carlson, S. (October 2005) Household Food Security in the United States, 2004. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

SADC urges assistance to feed 10m Africans

by ANDnetwork.com

SADC has called on donor governments worldwide to respond quickly and generously with food aid donations in kind or cash to avoid widespread hunger from developing into a humanitarian disaster.

More than 10 million people will need humanitarian assistance in six countries across Southern Africa over the coming year following yet another year of poor agricultural production caused by erratic weather together with late and, in some cases, unaffordable inputs, such as fertiliser and seeds, two United Nations agencies and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) have warned. Reports compiled by the UN agencies Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) — following recent joint Crop and Food Supply Assessment Missions (CFSAMs) in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, and Zambia — show that countries were not able to grow enough food to meet domestic needs and that even allowing for considerable commercial imports, serious food shortages will persist until the next harvest in May 2006.

Other Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) reports — compiled by SADC together with the UN, non-government organisations (NGOs), and the governments of Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe — confirm the need for large-scale food assistance across the region at the household level. The region also needs to formulate national policies on staple food prices, agricultural reform, and trade at the national and regional level. Collectively, the 13 member states of SADC produced a cereal surplus of 2,1 million tones compared with 1,1 million tonnes a year ago. Most of the excess was produced by South Africa, which harvested a surplus of about 5,5 million tones this year.

Read ANDnetwork.com Article

Malnutrition Kills 10 Children Every Minute

Ten children die every minute as a result of malnutrition, more than a quarter of children in developing countries are underweight and suffer disease because of their poor diet, and in some areas almost half of all under-fives are malnourished, a new United Nations report says.

Unicef warns that the slow progress on reducing nutritional problems among children means that several key Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets may now be missed. Ann Veneman, executive director of Unicef, said: “The lack of progress to combat malnutrition is damaging children and nations. Few things have more impact than nutrition on a child’s ability to survive, learn effectively and escape a life of poverty.”

Read More – Global Policy Article

US Hunger & Poverty Facts

From: http://www.worldhungeryear.org/info_center/just_facts.asp

US Hunger & Poverty Facts

  • From 1967 to 2003, average household income (adjusted dollars) grew from $7.589 to 9,996 for those in the bottom 20%, and grew from $83,758 to $147,078 for those in the top 20%.1
  • In 2003, California had a poverty rate of 13.4%, compared to 9% in Virginia, 19.9% in Washington D.C., and 12.7% for the U.S. 1
  • For those living in poverty, the poverty gap per family member (defined as the total dollar amount short of the poverty line) grew from $1,873 to $3,018 (adjusted dollars) between 1975-2003. 1
  • From the years 1980-2000, average net income (adjusted dollars) for households with children grew by $876,300 for the top 1%, and grew by $2,000 for those in the bottom 20%. 1
  • While the number of persons at poverty level declined from 13.4% to 12.5% from 1987-2003, the number of persons on Medicaid grew from 8.4% to 12.4%1
  • Approximately 7.5 million workers (6% of the U.S. workforce) earn at or near the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.2
  • If the federal minimum wage had maintained its 1968 peak value, it would be $8.69 an hour today. 2
  • From 1956 to 1981, the minimum wage was approximately half of the average American workers wage; today it is about 30%. 2
  • In the 1960s and 70s, a full-time worker earning minimum wage could support a family of three at the poverty level. 2
  • Approximately 7.5 million workers (6% of the U.S. workforce) earn at or near the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. 4
  • From 1956 to 1981, the minimum wage was approximately half of the average American workers wage; today it is about 30%. 4
  • In the 1960s and 70s, a full-time worker earning minimum wage could support a family of three at the poverty level. 4
  • Of those individuals directly affected by the most recent federal increase in the minimum wage, 70% were over the age of 19, and 35% of the income gains went to the poorest one-fifth of working households.2
  • Currently, 13 states have laws mandating a state minimum wage that exceeds the federal level by at least one dollar and is near half the average wage of workers in that state. 2
  • Housing costs continue to squeeze the budgets of low-income families. The typical household in poverty paid 64% of its income for housing in 2003, up from 61% in 1997. 3
  • One of every 12 (8.3%) elderly Whites were poor in 1999, compared to 22.7% of elderly African-Americans and 20.4% of elderly Hispanics. 4
  • A worker earning minimum wage would have to work 97 hours a week to pay the rent of an average two-bedroom apartment. 5
  • Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2001, 26.4% of female-headed families were poor, while 13.1% of male-headed families and 4.9% of married couple’s households lived in poverty. In 2001, both black and Hispanic female-headed families had poverty rates exceeding 35%. 6
  • The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that in 2004, requests for emergency food assistance increased an average of 13%. The study also found that 56% of those requesting emergency food assistance were employed. High housing costs, low-paying jobs, unemployment, and the economic downturn led the list of reasons contributing to the rise. 7

Source material:

  1. Just the Facts: Poverty in Los Angeles Institute for the Study of Homelessness and Poverty, US Poverty, Income and Health Insurance Data, March 2003.
  2. Institute on Assets and Social Policy, Minimum Wage: Creating an Asset Foundation.
  3. Hunger, Crowding, and Other Hardships are Widespread among Families in Poverty, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, December 2004.
  4. “Poverty in the United States: 1999, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, pg.60-210.
  5. Institute for Children and Poverty, Homeless in America: A Children’s Story – Part One (New York, NY: 1999); Twombly, Out of Reach: The Growing Gap Between Housing Costs and Income of Poor People in the United States (Washington, DC: The National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2000).
  6. Hunger and Homelessness Survey 2004, 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2001, P-60, no. 219: Table 1.
  7. U.S. Conference of Mayors – Sodexho USA, December 2004.

How the Other Half Lives

In the late 1800’s, Jacob Riis, a Danish immigrant in the United States, set out to document New York City’s teeming tenements on the Lower East Side. His finished product, How the Other Half Lives, was an immediate success and is now recognized as a canonical work of American sociology. By calling attention to the day-to-day activities of New York City’s forgotten underclass, Riis, along with a handful of other Progressive Era reformers like Upton Sinclair, catalyzed a political movement that would change the course of American history.

At Nextbillion, my colleagues are working on an equally ambitious project, which, in many ways, mirrors Riis’s 19th century work. From what I have seen, their project, Tomorrow’s Markets, is a 21st century answer to the problems that Riis first identified in the 1890s…

Read Nextbillions Article