So I just did an experiment with simple assortative mating, where the population is drawn into an ordered list, with the probability of selection being proporti

So I just did an experiment with simple assortative mating, where the population is drawn into an ordered list, with the probability of selection being proportional to wealth, and then paired off according to their order in the resulting list (so the wealthy are more likely to mate with each other). The results surprised me somewhat, though as with most things are somewhat obvious in retrospect. If you take a (model) world with unbiased inheritance (a 1:1 split between the two children), then no "mating strategy" is able to increase wealth inequality - at worst it can keep it the same as it was. This can be seen by noting that neither of the children of the two wealthiest members of the population can have more than the wealthiest of their two parents. Over many generations, unless the mating selection is extremely carefully chosen, the wealth distribution will collapse to perfect equality, for any mating strategy. Assortative mating therefore can at worst exert a drag on the (natural) restoration to equality. In a (model) world with biased inheritance this leads to greater amounts of wealth inequality, because the expansion of inequality through the unequal inheritance is "resisted" less by the reduction in inequality caused by mating. In conclusion: try and treat your kids the same if you want a more equal world!