[Potemkin]

And as we can see around us, its working great.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin @Puffer Fish

I was told in my profession, some big private sector companies like Google for example pay engineers and software developers pretty well. I have heard that such companies like Facebook and Google pay like $300,000 a year. However, that is just hearsay on my end. I certainly don't make that kind of money. You don't have to be a doctor to make that kind of money. But honestly, I would not want to work for Google or Facebook either. I am sure you will earn every penny of that $300,000 just like doctors do.

[Puffer Fish]

I was told in my profession, some big private sector companies like Google for example pay engineers and software developers pretty well. I have heard that such companies like Facebook and Google pay like $300,000 a year.

I wouldn't be surprised, but that is really on the upper end. Either an engineer who is considered particularly talented and valuable, working on some special project, or an engineer in mid-upper level management.
You also have to consider housing costs in that area. A household needs to earn at least $200,000 to afford a normal middle class home in that area. Probably somewhat more than that. It can be hard to retain qualified and talented people in an area where the housing costs are so high. Given that being the case, $300,000 is not really as high as you might think for that area. Consider that your mortgage payment would probably cost $73,000 a year, nearly half of your after-tax income (the state also has higher taxes than most states, especially for higher incomes).
Probably more typical salaries are about $130,000 and $170,000 would be considered very good, better than average. Although $220,000 engineer salaries are not extremely uncommon in that area, for someone with experience, who the company recognises as talented, and puts in 52 hour work weeks.
Of course it's the type of job that many people are probably not well cut out for. It's no coincidence that 80% of software engineers at Google are men, and that's not because of any discrimination by the employer.

I don't wish to discuss this more, since we're getting off topic.

[Puffer Fish]

You have one job to fill, and you have 2 options.

Option A: Is poor, and brilliant. Will perform at incredibly high levels, innovate, and be a key team member for decades.

Option B: Is rich, but adequate. Will meet minimum standards, and hit benchmarks, but won't set the world alight.

You're going to sit here and with a straight face tell me that you would hire Option B?

Your analogy is obscuring the major issue that I was pointing out, and that is who pays for it.

Do you think society should preferentially give more opportunity to the brilliant, even though there may be plenty of other less brilliant and slightly less motivated people who are still perfectly capable of doing that job?

Your analogy of "meritocracy" is a false one, because it would be creating an artificial inequality.

Meritocracy, under a free market system, is where the people or private companies who pay for it are choosing the person for the job, through a combination of meritocracy and price.

What you seem to be suggesting, on the other hand, is a system where government chooses to make investments in people (for future work in the private sector) based on an extreme form of competition. Since this is taxpayer spending we are talking about, the same rules of meritocracy do not apply. (That is one of the basic tenants that any Libertarian philosopher would point out to you)

Now don't get me wrong or misunderstand, obviously there needs to be some level of meritocracy, they can't be giving out slots to persons who are totally unqualified, and probably half the population (or more) is just not cut out to be a doctor.
I'm just pointing out that a more moderate form of meritocracy should be used. Say, instead of only holding out the opportunity to the top 1 percent, the opportunity should be available to the top 20 percent, even though obviously not all of them will be able to get it.

This isn't an issue of who I, or even who we as a society want to hire. This is an issue of who is getting taxpayer money, a taxpayer-funded education.

In economic terms, I think you are viewing this all in terms of patients, rather than thinking about what is fair for the people who may want to be doctors also.

What this comes down to is an issue of choice of precise rationing allocation mechanism. Something that's always controversial in political economics.

[Fasces]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DEI hiring that don't align with whatever you're spewing about the poor average rich wannabe doctors.