If it only applies to 1 in a million, it is not even demonstrably useful information about the upper class itself.

From a matter of plain definitions, Bill Gates started in the upper class from the moment of his birth. His circumstance did not require him to work a single day, in order to live comfortably for his entire life; ergo, he is upper class.

It may be true he rose from "upper class" to "very upper class" based on 99.9% his own achievement, but it is a non-argument regarding the ossification of the aristocracy in general. Guessing about the other 99% of the aristocracy based on the particulars of the most extreme 1% of the aristocracy is not logical.

They're talking about these people's origins, not their current wealth.

Let me emphasize it again - perhaps by sheer repetition, the main point will become obvious:

It's not something relevant to the general population, the middle class in general, or the concept of social mobility, IF IT ONLY APPLIES TO 1 PERSON IN 1 MILLION.

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(It's especially unnecessary when replying to someone who already understands the point you're making.)

The article presents that caveat straightforwardly:

   The popular view of America's upper class is that of an
   ossified aristocracy. But research from the National
   Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at
   least among America's richest individuals. 

And elaborates:

    Over the last 30 years, income inequality has grown and
    intergenerational mobility has decreased. The rich are
    getting richer and drawing up the ladder to the upper
    class with them. 

    The story differs for the members of the Forbes 400 List.

So I'd say you're in violent agreement with the author.

The problem is that on one hand the try to talk about "America's upper class", on the other hand they restrict themselves to looking at members of the Forbes 400.

In other words: They're seemingly trying to make the story sound more relevant than it is, by framing it as if they have something to say about "America's upper class", when the data they look at consists only of a tiny subset of extreme outliers.

Bingo.

Bill Gate entered the upper class based on birth. His own efforts brought him yet higher. But Bill Gates proves exactly nothing about how hard working people move into the upper class, because he never ever did so himself.

Alright, pg, I had enough. I looked at the list of Russia's billionaires. At least 5 of them had humble backgrounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gutseriev) 1 has a Muslim father. Some have Jewish sounding last names. Some of them had no early data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_people_by_net_w...

EDIT: Will check my hypothesis that Communist politburo members had an even more varied background, to support some extreme conclusions.

Well I'd think that Russia is rather unique in that their power structure semi-collapsed during the 90's and during the chaos of America trying to turn the country to capitalism there were some who were able to jump into the power vacuum and rise to the top.

Most of them have since been disposed (like the guy you linked to) or brought into the fold of the new power structure that arose around Putin.

I will do a more comprehensive study soon, but my comments about politburo members (especially late soviet ones) was meant to preempt such points as yours. If you look at the billionaires from other countries, it is also as diverse if not more so than the US. In fact it makes some sense (to me at least) that a survey of any extreme outlier populations should show such diversity, it is rather the opposite (a homogeneity) that is interesting...