Residents of the real world most likely know the great American meritocracy is a lie. And yet, we are so heavily indoctrinated that even the most unsurprising revelations can feel shocking. Case in point is the new book Dream Hoarders, which examines the growing gap between rich and poor.

The author, economics professor and Brookings Institution fellow Richard Reeves, notes that while the US has always had a class system, the upper middle class – which he defines as those earning $120,000 a year or more – is not only widening the gap between itself and everyone else, but also hoarding opportunities in a way that makes it difficult for any outsiders to climb up to it. (The 1% is getting richer even more quickly, of course, but there aren’t enough of them to hoard opportunities on a mass scale.)

While people like Donald Trump would like you to think the American economy is a magical font of money that will bless every last citizen who deserves it, the truth is it’s a zero-sum game; there are only so many good jobs, spots in elite colleges and tony area codes to go around.

And the top 20% have set things up to guarantee virtually all of those spoils go to their children, as well as their children’s children, leaving the bottom 80% little to work with. Society is growing increasingly segmented along class lines, which intersects a great deal with race in a horrid Venn diagram of oppression.

As Reeves notes, this is not usually due to direct classism, although he’s appalled that American universities admit to giving preferential treatment to “legacy” students. Rather, those who got a head start in life are set up to succeed from the very beginning, when they attend well-funded public elementary schools, to the middle, when they get internships because of who they know. (I would also add that only the upper crust can afford to do unpaid internships.)

The American dream? Top 20% pulling away from the rest, study finds Read more

By the time they enter the job market, they have considerable advantages over everyone else. And then they inherit vast sums of wealth. All the while, they use the myth of meritocracy to justify their position.

On a micro level, these behaviors are understandable. What parent wouldn’t do everything in their power to ensure the best possible life for their children? But carried out on a mass level, they lead to what Reeves characterizes as “a less competitive economy, as well as a less open society”.

So what’s to be done?

While it might feel good to hate these people and/or convince them to hate themselves for hoarding all those dreams, that’s not ultimately going to solve anything. While it’s never a bad idea to have an awareness of the role one’s background played in one’s own success – “checking your privilege”, in the parlance of the internet – that alone is not going to fix inequality.

Rampant inequality is not the fault of a class of people doing exactly what anyone would do in their position, but a political and economic system that incentivizes and enables them to do so. (Don’t hate the player, hate the game.) It follows that the solution is not individual and moralistic, but collective and political.



All over the world, social democratic movements are gaining popularity and power on the strength of ideas meant to reduce inequality and stimulate the economy: increased inheritance tax, maximum wage, taxes on the wealthy, and increased spending on the programs people need to not just survive, but thrive.

Another important element is unionism: when workers assert their power, wages rise along with purchasing power and general feelings of satisfaction. An even more exciting solution is on offer in the UK, which votes on Thursday, where the Labour party wants to democratize the economy by empowering workers to direct the fruits of their labor. Worker-owned cooperatives, re-nationalization and other forms of public, community-oriented ownership all have roles to play.

If the upper middle class wants to go beyond checking their privilege to actually relinquishing some of it, they can support these movements. Only then can they live down Reeves’ ignominious moniker, and only then will there be a more equitable distribution of dreams.