This is largely a numerical consequence of a far smaller effect:
Middle class: Average real wages do not change much aside from slow moving meta-factors like industrialization, etc.
Lower Class: By definition has no wealth
Upper Class: By definition has invested/growing wealth. Wealth rarely grows at > 3% per year in real terms.
Now run the simulation for a few dozen iterations and simply because of returns on investments, the distribution gets more and more skewed.
This is actually the main principled argument for an inheritance tax (though there are, I think, stronger arguments against it).
Fortunately for egalitarians the rich suffer from: trophy spouses, bad luck, bad investments, and spoiled rich kids that throw it all away. Also the non-rich often succeed in an investment, startup, etc.
The two groups intermarry often since things like beauty, intelligence and luck are doled out by different (but analogous and equally un-egalitarian) lotteries.
Middle class: Average real wages do not change much aside from slow moving meta-factors like industrialization, etc.
Lower Class: By definition has no wealth
Upper Class: By definition has invested/growing wealth. Wealth rarely grows at > 3% per year in real terms.
Now run the simulation for a few dozen iterations and simply because of returns on investments, the distribution gets more and more skewed.
This is actually the main principled argument for an inheritance tax (though there are, I think, stronger arguments against it).
Fortunately for egalitarians the rich suffer from: trophy spouses, bad luck, bad investments, and spoiled rich kids that throw it all away. Also the non-rich often succeed in an investment, startup, etc.
The two groups intermarry often since things like beauty, intelligence and luck are doled out by different (but analogous and equally un-egalitarian) lotteries.