The weird thing about an economic model that allows that disparity to occur, is because it's some local maximum of effort to change. There's enough people will

The weird thing about an economic model that allows that disparity to occur, is because it's some local maximum of effort to change. There's enough people willing to sell their stake in the fight to the next few up in the economic ladder, in exchange for some small portion of the wealth owned by the rung above. The main driver being that small portion they get is still greater than any amount of wealth and power the person could access before. A change in the status quo means then losing the source of that wealth. We land at a plateau because some critical mass of people (not even that many, globally speaking), accept that as OK, and their summed wealth and power outweighs everyone not in that tree. (With the amount that they care decreasing the further down you find yourself if you are in the tree.) Given the current system, we could widen that tree, so more people share in the wealth of the rich few by protecting them, and/or we can shorten the tree by reducing how much wealth one person can accrue. Either way, it's searching for a new local maximum where enough of the people living comfortably can choose to ignore the plight of the people suffering by protecting someone else. We do get some choice over the ratio though. It's just hard to get the ball moving, clearly.