Why wouldn't it? In the end this is a people problem, not a tech problem. And both Silicon Valley and Bangladesh have some form of "local" meritocracy. Meritocracy applied and working within your stratum but not across the boundaries.

Whether you're poor or in a lower caste you still get some form of meritocracy within your group to keep you content and motivated. But crossing the boundary to the next level, while not impossible, is designed to be highly unlikely because people in all layers like the security those boundaries provide them.

The paper identifies one threshold at ~500 USD. That is, in Bangladesh, those with more than 500 USD assets tend to accumulate more assets, while those with less than 500 USD assets don't.

As people in Silicon Valley have more than 500 USD assets (citation needed), I don't see how this paper applies to Silicon Valley at all. There can be another such threshold, but the paper doesn't provide any experimental support for one.

That's a bit pedantic, the principle is exactly the same showing humans operate on the same principles regardless of geography. OP clearly discussed "the idea of meritocracy", not "the exact threshold" and the study just pinpointed a threshold while confirming the universality of the mechanism.

Whether it's $500 in Bangladesh where Google tells me the "typical" salary is ~$150-$300, or $500k in SV where the typical pay might be $150k-$300k the principle is still very much the same.

Everyone claims meritocracy but in the end it's proven it's not individual merit we're actually looking for. We're looking to maintain barriers around our layer of society and allow some form of real meritocracy only within a layer.

You don't think things like access to education, medical care, clean water, nutritious food, vaccinations, quality public schools, subsidized colleges, rule of law, minimal corruption, limited impact of religious identify, avaiable reliable housing might have an impact on the outcomes?

That's... absolutely not what I said, or implied. Access to all of that is the boundary between the layers. People in layer n will make sure people in layer n-1 are missing at least one thing so they can't compete on equal footing. People in layer n+1 will do the same to people in layer n.

If you don't have access to schooling and someone else does then that's something that will make you always start with a handicap when competing with them. The boundary, whether education or medical services, is there so one layer feels safe from the inferior one. People want it there even if this means they start off with a handicap compared to the superior layer. Most people are more afraid of losing what they have than they are keen on winning something they don't already have.

Surely the human factors at play are not incomparable.. ?