To grasp the stark realities of income inequality in the United States, let’s step back into the Middle Ages—a time of rigid hierarchies, bound peasants, and the unchecked power of lords. Strange as it may seem, the social and economic structure of feudalism offers a compelling metaphor for today’s America. While we pride ourselves on progress and mobility, the parallels are unsettling.
Consider this: what if the “poor” and “working poor” of modern discourse were instead labeled as “serfs,” tied to their debts and dependent on the wealth of others? Such terminology is provocative, but it strips away the veneer of polite euphemisms to reveal the harsh inequities of our economic model. After all, Jesus himself said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11)—a phrase often used to excuse systemic inequality as inevitable, even natural.
But is it really? Or have we allowed a modern form of feudalism to emerge, where wealth and power are concentrated at the top, leaving the majority with limited mobility and little say over their economic destiny? In her book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, Isabel Wilkerson describes the entrenched hierarchies that shape American society, particularly in racial terms. This essay broadens that lens to examine how class divides mimic the economic disparities of the medieval era.
The similarities are chilling. Then, as now, the elite owned vast resources while those at the bottom toiled to survive. Nobles held the land; today, landlords and corporate elites control housing and employment. Social mobility was rare, and for many in the United States, it remains a mirage. Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr’s 19th-century observation rings true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same (“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” in French).
The following sections break down this metaphor, categorizing medieval roles—serfs, peasants, villeins, tradespeople, merchants, and nobility—into modern economic percentiles. By mapping these groups to today’s wealth distribution, we expose the stratification that keeps so many Americans trapped.
1 Serfs (0th-20th Percentile): Serfs were bound to the land and entirely dependent on their lord for survival. They had no freedom to make economic decisions and lived in a state of perpetual debt or poverty. Today’s equivalent would be the poor and working poor—individuals in debt or with zero net worth, reliant on low-wage work or welfare. These individuals face systemic barriers to upward mobility, struggling to meet basic needs in an economy that often exploits their labor. Share of Net Worth: Negative or ~2%. Estimated number of households: ~25.6 million.
2 Free Peasants (20th-40th Percentile): Free peasants had more autonomy than serfs, often owning or leasing small plots of land for subsistence farming. However, their economic stability was precarious, and they were still vulnerable to exploitation. In modern terms, this group aligns with the lower-middle class—individuals with slightly more financial stability but limited means to accumulate wealth. Share of Net Worth: ~4%. Estimated number of households: ~25.6 million.
3 Villeins (Semi-Free Peasants) (40th-60th Percentile): Villeins occupied a middle ground. They had some rights and protections but were still subject to the authority of a landowner. Their labor provided them with a measure of economic stability, but their dependence on landowners restricted true autonomy. Today, this group corresponds to the working class, who have jobs providing some financial security but remain heavily reliant on their employers. Share of Net Worth: ~10%. Estimated number of households: ~25.6 million.
4 Tradespeople and Artisans (60th-70th Percentile): In medieval times, tradespeople and artisans were skilled workers who often owned their shops or small businesses. They were more economically independent than peasants, but their success depended on the stability of their local economies. The modern equivalent includes skilled tradespeople (e.g., electricians, plumbers, and carpenters) and small business owners who enjoy a modest degree of financial independence. Share of Net Worth: ~11%. Estimated number of households: ~12.8 million.
5 Merchants and Wealthy Tradesmen (70th-80th Percentile): Merchants and wealthy tradespeople thrived on commerce and trade. Their businesses generated significant profits, placing them in a higher social and economic class than artisans. In today’s context, these individuals align with successful entrepreneurs and professionals whose wealth comes primarily from trade or business ventures. Share of Net Worth: ~12%. Estimated number of households: ~12.8 million.
6 Minor Nobles and Lower Clergy (80th-90th Percentile): Minor nobles and lower clergy were landowners or individuals with some political or social influence. Their wealth afforded them comfort and stability, though they were not at the very top of society. This group is akin to today’s upper-middle class, including highly successful professionals and smaller landowners. The modern equivalents of clergy may include influential figures in media, technology, or lobbying. Share of Net Worth: ~16%. Estimated number of households: ~12.8 million.
7 Higher Nobility and High Clergy (90th-99th Percentile): The higher nobility and clergy had vast wealth, landholdings, and political power. They were the elite of their time, wielding immense influence over society. Today, this group corresponds to wealthy professionals, CEOs, high-ranking political figures, and others in the top tier of economic and social impact. Share of Net Worth: ~29%. Estimated number of households: ~3.8 million.
8 Royalty and Top Elite (99th-100th Percentile): At the pinnacle of medieval society were royalty and the highest-ranking clergy. Their wealth and power were unparalleled, often inherited, and rarely challenged. The modern equivalent is the ultra-wealthy—billionaires and others who possess vast resources, political clout, and social influence. Share of Net Worth: ~36%. Estimated number of households: ~1.3 million.
The hierarchical structure of medieval society provides a striking metaphor for understanding income inequality in the United States. Despite technological progress and democratic governance, significant barriers to upward mobility persist. The concentration of wealth and power at the top perpetuates systemic inequities that echo the dynamics of feudalism, making the American Dream increasingly elusive for many. Recognizing these parallels highlights the urgency of addressing these disparities. The continuing, elusive task is how to foster greater economic equity and create a society that values opportunity, mobility, and justice for all.
