On top of the survivorship bias I would add the fundamental attribution error, or a close cousin to it. Our stories about successful people tend to attribute their success to inherent qualities and under-emphasize the role of their environment, especially just getting lucky.
Yes—the wealthy sympathetic parent. This is always left out of the speeches.
It’s not a hard equation. The wealthy can afford to take risks. They want their kids to succeed. Can take care of that marginal DUI. I could fill up a page of entitlements?
They know important people, or have the money, to influence important people. They can get their kids out of trouble. Can pay for schooling. Can risk money on multiple business/career ideas.
I grew up with Gavin Newsom. Went to the same high school. He was voted “Most Fashionable”. If this guy didn’t have that powerful, wealthy family, there is no way he would be where he is now. His younger year screwups, and learning difficulties, would have hobbled most of us for life. (I like Gavin. I think he’s a good guy. I’m just using him as an example. Marin County has many fine examples of wealthy kids getting ahead, but figured most of you wouldn’t know them.)
I grew up in a wealthy enclave, and pretty much every successful kid had a wealthy encouraging parent. A few middle class kids came out as good financially as dad if they went into his line of business, and didn’t work at screwing it up when “finding themself” in their 20-30’s.
A few low income kids succeeded if they finished college, and got a professional degree.
(I don’t equate success with money, or career. Some of the worst people I know are considered successful.)
After reading a few business books I noticed that everyone uses the same case studies (i.e. Toyota) but claims the companies were successful because of the title of the book I happen to be reading.
