It's also interesting that regardless of anything, in the end your genes and where/when you were born determine pretty much your whole life, and that's just luck. In the end success attribution to anything but luck is just ego.
One can be talented at many different things. Perhaps the people at the top were talented at a less obvious but more relevant skill than those who didn't "succeed".
Looking strictly at monetary success, people who succeed purely and obviously by luck (lottery winners) generally do not stay successful very long. They quickly lose their money.
AFAIK, the bankruptcy rate for people who get rich via working on something is far less than people who were randomly assigned riches. This would seem to imply that the former are doing something differently.
Interestingly, your genes arguably determine (and at the very least heavily influence) your talent also, implying that having talent itself is a result of luck.
That’s why I don’t like that thinking. I want to believe that you’ve were given a spectrum from a start and that you can move in that spectrum if you want to by exposing yourself to luck (you’ll probably say: depending on your genes...)
Anecdotally, I knew two identical twins who were both obese. They both tried to diet, but one always relapsed, while the other got serious and lost weight. Ultimately only one of the twins was "successful" at getting down to a healthy weight, while the other "failed".
Is it just luck, then, that one of the twins was born with more mental fortitude? Is that your logic?