I do not think you are presenting the strongest critique of meritocracies in your imagined counter argument. Similarly to you, I like the idea of meritocracy for the reasons you outlined in your first few sentences.
However, in practice meritocracy frequently devolves into classism: yes, the hard working kids of the families of higher class would be awarded more than the lazy kids of the same demographic. But the kids of the lower class would not have the same opportunity to invest in and grow their merit, because they would have to worry about taking a second job to help feed their family (or less extreme examples). I do not see a version of meritocracy in the USA that is not at least partially also classism, given the current state of the social safety nets.
Comments
I do not think you are presenting the strongest critique of meritocracies in your imagined counter argument. Similarly to you, I like the idea of meritocracy for the reasons you outlined in your first few sentences.
However, in practice meritocracy frequently devolves into classism: yes, the hard working kids of the families of higher class would be awarded more than the lazy kids of the same demographic. But the kids of the lower class would not have the same opportunity to invest in and grow their merit, because they would have to worry about taking a second job to help feed their family (or less extreme examples). I do not see a version of meritocracy in the USA that is not at least partially also classism, given the current state of the social safety nets.