Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!).
What you are doing - in essence - is making it sound like gigantic economic inequalities and wealth concentrations in hands of few families are some underlying, unavoidable fact of universe.
While in reality they are - largely - a result of unlimited, largely untaxed generational wealth transfer. And outcomes of other similar policies.
>My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful
No, it does. It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people.
Depending on what those x, y and z, you can gauge the actual shape of the "non-uniform distribution" and how it changes over time. Which is exactly the point.
