It is: we call it "social classes". Because intelligence correlates positively with success and because people tend to have children with other people from a similar social stratum, the exact situation you described emerges as a pattern.
I know very intelligent and very stupid people all over this income range, with no obvious pattern.
The more interesting question is which correlations are strongest. I can't find a link, but I read a study that came out a few years ago that showed the biggest correlation with financial success was the parents' income levels. That is, controlling for the intelligence of the parents, an average-intelligence person born to wealthy parents was more likely to be financially successful than an above-average-intelligence person born to poor parents.
That may also be obvious, but it has more effect on the veracity of the common view of our society being a meritocracy.
> That may also be obvious, but it has more effect on the veracity of the common view of our society being a meritocracy.
Why? There's nothing about that that speaks to how much of a meritocracy we are. Parents' financial success directly measures everything that contributes to financial success (rather than, say, a subcomponent); you'd expect it to be highly informative.
The result you cite still holds when both children are adopted away. Is that support for the view of society as a meritocracy?
In a meritocracy, as I understand the idea, one's success is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
If the biggest factor in your success is your parents' wealth, doesn't that suggest we might not have a pure meritocracy?
Do you have a link to the study? I don't remember the part about it still holding true when children are adopted away. That is an interesting finding. It would support your point (I think the point you're making, at least) that it's not necessarily parents using their class/wealth to bolster their children, but instead the parents have the proper mix of traits (intelligence, grit, ability to delay gratification, etc.) that results in financial success.
Nor do I. Who decides what abilities are important? How do they go about measuring them?
However, I do think it is "bad thing" for members of the elite to believe that we live in a meritocracy – when we do not, IMO. Skimming that Guardian article, I think my feeling is similar to the criticism put forth there. The notion that we live in a meritocracy creates a sense of entitlement and superiority in the elite. That is, if you believe we live in a true meritocracy, then those on top are there because they're smarter and harder working, and those on the bottom are there because they're less intelligent and/or aren't working as hard. Said more simply, meritocracy results in the feeling that you deserve your riches, and they deserve their poverty.
Whereas, in reality as I see it, your financial success is dependent on many factors outside of your control. Sure, most successful people are fairly smart and work hard, but many less successful people also have those qualities. The other factors contributing to success are things largely summed up by Warren Buffett's notion of the "Ovarian Lottery".
I'm not advocating a meritocracy. I'm advocating an honest assessment of society and the factors contributing to financial success.