https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/articles/...
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/articles/...
It says that most people are rich because their parents are rich. Not because they inherited their wealth. Stable home life, good schools, good network, good attitude and a financial backstop in the event of disaster (which allows a higher risk appetite) are all things that correlate positively with becoming rich. Your parents can give these without a penny of inherited wealth.
Fair enough. It's an astute observation, but it's misleading to say the first sentence, yet not imply the second, since most people aren't going to read into it that deeply. You'd just say: "Most people who are wealthy are so due to their stable home life, good schools, good network, good attitude and a financial backstop in the event of disaster". Why would you lead with parent wealth? It pre-supposes inheritance without additional context.
You can pay for someone's top university education (~$250k) and pay their food and rent for the first 10 years since they graduate (another ~$240k).
Notice how there's no direct contribution to their net-worth.