I liked much of what the author had to say, but claiming that America has a more rigid class structure than a nation with a hereditary monarchy seems like a stretch.
Why should I not I want my kids to grow up with the privileges of the top 20%? I worked the hours of 3 standard people over my lifetime to accumulate the wealth I want to pass onto my offspring to secure my genetic legacy. Aren't I just fulfilling what biology deems as life's most imperative mission?
Why should I feel hated for cashing in the chips on a successful venture that would have failed 9 out of 10 other times? Starting a business already has negative expected value, so why is it on the 1 out of 10 times that I succeed, 40% of what I win gets taken away?
Why should I want to live my life to the same degree of effort and reward as every else? What is the point of living life in such a manner, as governed by some impenetrable limiter of success and reward, it would be like being stuck for the rest of your life on tutorial island in Runescape, where you can't burn your shrimp on the campfire and you can't die to monsters, as that is where 100% of accounts begin their lives and where 80% of accounts never log back in.
I think a constant effort/reward ratio would be something to aim for, since it keeps each individual equally motivated. This might not be optimal for the society as a whole, but it is pretty close. ([0] discusses this in terms of network usage pricing, but the math is more general.)
[0] http://www.mit.edu/people/jnt/Papers/R-04-rjsm-elastic-tr.pd...
You might deserve whatever you've worked for, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether your children deserve more or less than others. I'll let you look up John Rawls's "veil of ignorance" thought experiment for yourself.
> Why should I feel hated for cashing in the chips ... 40% of what I win gets taken away?
The system does enough to incentivize gambling already. The results are already non-linear, and if you were truly one of those lucky ones then you're still richer than the other nine even with 40% taken away. To the extent that incentives for gambling and arbitrage displace incentives for more beneficial or sustainable kinds of effort, that's bad both morally and economically. Almost nobody's suggesting that everyone should be kept absolutely level. The question is to what extent we should attenuate the accumulation of riches (especially inter-generational riches) to balance out the various "rich get richer" amplifying effects that already occur.
mind defining exactly what those skills are? seems like maybe the market does not value them as much as you do, which in any merit-based or free market system is 100% OK
True, but I don't think that's what "class" generally means. Class is about privilege - about the ability to get ahead because of who you are rather than what you do. If you're in a higher class you're more likely to get into or to stay in that top 20% than somebody of a lower class who made equivalent choices and efforts. In a classless society there would still be a top 20% but those kinds of disparities could not happen. I think it's an unachievable goal, because environment is not quite the same as class (though the two are strongly related) and also affects outcomes, but it's something generally worth striving toward.