Your link seems to say otherwise. If economic mobility were low then most rich families would not see their wealth meaningfully eroded for generations. This was the case in feudal Europe and many ancient empires like Rome. The fact that most families lose wealth in 3 generations due to mismanagement implies someone else is gaining that lost wealth - ergo economic mobility should be high.
Personally I feel the economic mobility afforded by high paying jobs and widespread capital in the US is unmatched. I started making more money than my parents by my junior year in college and genuinely feel like I have a non-zero chance at hitting 25 million USD net worth during my life. I have friends who have gotten millions of dollars in startup funding and have 10+ paid employees. You can't say the same if you live in Europe.
> Where is that money coming from?
Not sure what you mean by this?
They're creating it. Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
I might be misinterpreting the facts but Gates got the deal to sell DOS to IBM because his Mom knew someone or was on the board. Bezos went from a successful career in finance to start Amazon. Zuckerberg started Facebook at -Harvard- and partly, the success of Facebook was predicated on Harvard's social prestige.
I just don't understand where people come up with these weird bootstrap narratives from.
They're saying that he didn't start a billionaire. He multiplied his wealth by a factor of a thousand or more.
Simply because if you've such wealth already you're most likely in a position to take risks, etc.
A billion is actually just a lot of money, there's a much more finite amount of room at the top.
All you need to do to make a million quid in the UK is get a 75th percentile job and save half of it. After a few decades you are now a millionaire. I mean, everyone can't do it, but it's not some unfathomable task.
In the US I imagine it's even easier. Your median income is lower but the top end is insane.
I agree that it is possible, but it is sadly an impossible task for most. That's my point above: for those who have wealth it is easy to grow it. It takes money to make money.
My other point was that those who have a billion started with millions.
The ways one can use to multiply millions by a thousand aren't open to people that only owns thousands. And you really don't want to multiply your possessions by a thousand if they are negative.
Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat.
An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become substantially physically stronger can be successful with high probability.
But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place. Lots of people don't even care, despite it being almost strictly superior.
It would be logically incorrect to use that fact in order to argue that muscle mass is likely to be unchangeable. It is changeable, it's just not the path of least resistance.
edit: or, to put it succinctly - prevalence is not probability