As a sub-class of that, see also the Prosperity Gospel:
> Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith)[A] is a controversial religious belief among some Protestant Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
The Book of Job of course is a good counter-example:
Unfortunately, the KJ and NIV translations of Job are, well, almost incomprehensible. You have to read it a few times before you begin to grok it. If you are interested, the CEB translation is a lot more accessible for first time readers: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1&version=C...
Or Jesus saying about the rich:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
Mark 10,25
Look to examples of people who give without expecting anything in return.
TL;DW: if you believe the crap that hard work will make you successful (discounting luck), than you'd have to believe the opposite is true: that poor people are lazy.
There are degrees of bad luck otherwise that nobody can surmount. As a simple example, do you consider a person bedridden due to a sickness lazy?
> the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person
Note that this is in exact opposition to the wealth-heaven-camel-needle teaching in the bible. But that doesn't seem to matter. I'm sure there are interpretations that can make it go away.
Stuff like harrassment, arrest, and enforcement actions against a specific group of people isn't the _result_ of prejudice, its frequenty the _cause_ of prejudice due to the just-cause fallacy.
The hypothesis you linked can justify monarchies which meritocracy is intrinsically opposed to.
You can find inherent contradictions between freedom and equality for example, so a compromise is needed if you try to achieve both to a sufficient degree.
Social security has its dark sides in Europe and it isn't really clear what its future will look like with demographic problems. Is it better than the American model? I would enthusiastically say yes, but that is more due to corporate interest in medical fields in my opinion. Something the state might have difficulties to solve at this point.
But in many countries social security is in favor of older generations against younger ones. Still, it supplies aid where it is needed for now.
Including in the US of course, in the form of Medicare. Which also disproportionately helps people already well off, because they survive longer and so benefit from it for longer.