David Brooks and "The Likability Economy"

[BurtWorm]

For a "likable" conservative, David Brooks sure is a prissy little racist asshole.

The following is by Garance Franke-Ruta of the American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/09/post_1368.html#006219

THE PROBLEM WITH THE LIKABILITY ECONOMY. Yesterday, David Brooks argued that merit is its own reward in the contemporary economy, and that those who are falling behind are doing so because of a lack of merit. Even on its surface this philosophy is among the most pernicious and noxious forms of historical justification for social inequality around. A story in today's New York Times news section really drives that point home. Let's look again at what Brooks wrote:

...the market isn’t broken; the meritocracy is working almost too well. It’s rewarding people based on individual talents. Higher education pays off because it provides technical knowledge and because it screens out people who are not organized, self-motivated and socially adept. But even among people with identical education levels, inequality is widening as the economy favors certain abilities.

My colleague Ezra Klein has labelled this thesis The Likability Economy thesis:

...by relying on social skills rather than intelligence, Brooks makes the deciding factor mutable: a personality characteristic that we can change, improve, or develop.

In reality, this argument is nothing but a raw justification for the self-perpetuation of power. Today, The Times reports that New York City's Human Rights Commission has reached an agreement with a number of New York City advertising firms regarding apparently unequal promotion of African-Americans:

The commission’s analysis, which looked at salary levels as well as job titles, indicated that although the major ad firms have black workers, they are largely absent from the most senior or creative levels. Of 476 employees at DDB’s New York office, commission officials said, 51 are black. But of 159 employees making $100,000 or more, only 2 are black. Neither is among the 29 employees earning $200,000 to $300,000 or the 22 employees earning more than $300,000.

More at link...


--Garance Franke-Ruta
==============================
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY
4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS FROM THE
COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE PER DU RULES.

[LostInAnomie]

1. There has never been a meritocracy.

The meritocracy is a self perpetuating myth that allows those on top to pat themselves on the back and ignore those who put them there. Sadly, it is a myth that is impossible to falsify.

[bhikkhu]

2. a prerequisite of meritocracy is unlimited resources

which has never and will never be, except in the minds of cornucopean economists. Given limited resources and a presumed equality, random circumstance determines the end result of perseverance.

Given limited resources and some level of inequality in ability, those who begin the game with the most tend to win. This is essentially the world we live in, and the notion of meritocracy is an insult to the vast majority who have played the game well but come up short.

[skids]

3. Man have I felt that "niceness" discrimination...

...and I'm a male and supposedly "allowed" to be pushy. I can't even imagine what it must be like with the "pushy woman" label added on top of that.

Frankly it's gotten seriously ridiculous. You cannot say a single critical thing about anyone whatsoever in a job interview these days. Feh. Well they get what they filter for: sheep with no discretion.

[acmejack]

4. He is also a liar

Technical knowledge doesn't pay off, witness the legions of unemployed victims of the "Flat Earth" Economy. They can out source you sorry ass to David! Competence certainly is not it's own end to success, backstabbing and sycophancy is (likability?). Transformation? How many times in a lifetime are we expected to accomplish this feat, oh wise one? Who's paying, with what? Fuck you, David!