A Perfect Meritocracy Will Have Little Social Mobility – Outlook Zen

Skip to content

RP

Uncategorized

June 27, 2026

I’ve increasingly been hearing people assume or claim that meritocracy and social mobility go hand-in-hand. Their argument often goes like this:

In a world driven by nepotism, cronyism, bribery etc, the only way to get ahead is to have money and/or powerful connections

Children born to rich and powerful parents will inherit both, allowing them to also succeed

Whereas children born into a middle-class or lower-class family will find it almost impossible to get ahead, regardless of their merit, because they lack the money and connections needed to succeed

Therefore, if our society has low social mobility, that implies that we live in a society driven by nepotism, cronyism, and/or bribery. The exact opposite of a meritocracy

This argument is extremely compelling because it is part-true. Cronyism, nepotism, and bribery will indeed reduce social mobility. However, this argument falls into the trap of thinking that the reverse is also true. That cronyism, nepotism, or bribery are the only ways of reducing social mobility. This assumption is false for one simple and unfortunate reason: a meritocracy, despite being the exact opposite of a cronyist society, also results in minimal social mobility .

To understand why, ask yourself this. What leads to a person having more merit? People have debated this for millennia and the two most compelling answers are nature and nurture.

Nature: what you are born with. Your genes. Your birth circumstances. Things that we humans have minimal control over.

Nurture: the environment you grew up in. The quality of your nutrition. Your study/exercise regimen. How well you were taught by your parents and teachers.

Which one do you believe plays a bigger role in the person you grow up to be, and how capable you are? Do you believe that it mostly comes down to nature, or nurture? We can debate this forever but it is all moot – the answer is completely irrelevant when it comes to social mobility.

Imagine if we live in a perfectly meritocratic society. One where the richest, most powerful, most successful people, are the ones possessing the most merit. What do you think that implies for their children’s character?

If you believe that nature plays the most important role in shaping our character, then the children of the most meritorious people in society… will also grow up to be the most meritorious people in society. Apart from a few unlucky souls, most children born to highly capable parents will inherit their genes, and will go on to become highly capable themselves. We will still see some random variation that determines the Olympic gold-medal winners – but the top 1% will be disproportionately made up of kids born to the top 1%.

Suppose you reject the above and declare that nurture plays the more important role in shaping our character. This may initially seem better, but who do you think is nurturing kids? Our parents are one of the most important and impactful influences in our lives, especially in our early years when our character is most malleable. We see them, either consciously or subconsciously, as our role models. We emulate them. We strive to live up to, or surpass, the example that they have set for us.

And even if you were to downplay the role of parenting in our lives, they still indirectly control every other aspect of our environment. Successful parents have more resources, which they use to give us better nutrition, more character developing experiences, and a superior education featuring the best teachers and tutors money can buy.

Sure, we can try to level the playing field as much as possible, through government policies such as universal healthcare for children, and better funding for public schools. America in particular is notoriously bad at this, thanks to its policy of segregating students by income-based school districts. But the only way to have a truly level playing field is to ban all private schools, to assign all students to randomly assigned schools, and to rip every single baby away from their parents and put them all in government-run daycares. Short of these dystopian measures, if you’re living in a meritocracy, the children of highly capable parents will inherit a more nurturing environment that results in them becoming more highly capable as well.

So the next time someone points at our dismal social mobility as proof that we are not living in a meritocracy, tell them that they are sadly wrong. Dismal social mobility is exactly what we would expect from a meritocracy.

What does all this mean? Should we abandon meritocracy and hire less qualified candidates based on personal need or pitiful life stories? I don’t think so. Society flourishes best when the most capable people are chosen for its most important roles. Hence why I continue to believe in meritocratic ideals.

What we instead need to abandon is our belief...