> rationalize their extreme wealth as "meritocracy" when it's inherently luck of the draw
Maybe extreme wealth is mostly luck, but meritocracy has merit. We all want the best when we're hiring, but want to be treated like the best when we're getting hired.
Discounting merit too much would just mess the balance between the two parties and break the process. Who would hire a person unfit to do the job? Who would spend years learning just to be treated equally to someone who didn't invest as much?
Maybe extreme wealth is mostly luck, but meritocracy has merit. We all want the best when we're hiring, but want to be treated like the best when we're getting hired.
Discounting merit too much would just mess the balance between the two parties and break the process. Who would hire a person unfit to do the job? Who would spend years learning just to be treated equally to someone who didn't invest as much?