Even on a level playing field, people would occupy a bell-curve. There will always be have-nots, at least as long as they're being measured relative to the have

Even on a level playing field, people would occupy a bell-curve. There will always be have-nots, at least as long as they're being measured relative to the haves. And to be sure, the have-nots will always be able to claim some disadvantage, even in a "perfect" meritocracy. Your skill and personality provide for opportunities, which are the groundwork for future opportunities. ie, excellent performance in school allows for a scholarship to the best universities. Excellence at the best universities lines you up for your pick of the litter to the best jobs. The best jobs are filled with the best people, and allow for 1) far better networking opportunities, and 2) far more experience and opportunities for advancement, which in turn provides for even better jobs. I'm certainly NOT suggesting that the world is currently fair, or devoid of favoritism. I just want to note that even in a true meritocracy there will be a stringent class divide. It's almost unavoidable, unless people with less skill are afforded the same opportunities as people with more skill. In this sense, it would be hard for a theoretical "perfect" meritocracy to survive multiple generations. The most talented people would quickly accumulate wealth and prestige.