> it can be flipped on its head to justify an aristocracy: the wealthy today are the ‘best’ and they will pass on their genes, successful values, and educational strategies to their children.
I disagree, I don't think this argument can be flipped on its head:
The point is that it's pretty clear that the wealthy today are not the best and that meritocratic approaches are much more effective than crossing your fingers and hoping that Einstein's kid will also be an Einstein.
A large reason why affluence and intelligence are at all correlated is because wealthy people have access to better education and better early childhood environments. The fact that even with those advantages, wealth is so uncorrelated with intelligence shows that we have a pretty big problem.
You write as though that is obvious, but it seems like most new billionaires we hear about on HN etc, are pretty intelligent.
It’s obvious that there are a lot of intelligent people who do not become wealthy, but that’s because becoming wealthy requires not just intelligence, but being in the right place at the right time at the right age. I.e. it requires the right kinds of opportunity.
> new billionaires we hear about on HN etc, are pretty intelligent.
New billionaires are the ones most likely to be intelligent (although again, measures of intelligence can't be detached from the opportunity you were provided), this is entirely consistent with the point I'm making.
> Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: In 1984, less than half the people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; in 2018, 67% of the 400 created their own fortunes.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the US is entirely without mobility. Particularly for the billionaires, most of that wealth is not inherited - although much more of that mobility is from low millionaires -> billionaire than it is from poverty -> billionaire.
You deleted your other comment about income and IQ. Worried that it would reflect badly when someone in the future would trawl through your account?
I disagree, I don't think this argument can be flipped on its head:
The point is that it's pretty clear that the wealthy today are not the best and that meritocratic approaches are much more effective than crossing your fingers and hoping that Einstein's kid will also be an Einstein.
A large reason why affluence and intelligence are at all correlated is because wealthy people have access to better education and better early childhood environments. The fact that even with those advantages, wealth is so uncorrelated with intelligence shows that we have a pretty big problem.