> It's not about, and I don't see anyone arguing the point, me being unable to move up the chain without someone moving down.

It's right here in the article

> Rather than sending our most brilliant minds up the income ladder, America is ensuring that the wealthy, no matter their mediocrity, retain their grip on the highest rung

The assumption the author is making is that both things (sending our most brilliant minds up the income ladder AND the wealthy retaining their grip on the highest rung) cannot be true.

Except Harvard has limited slots and the failsons of the rich buying in takes away a spot from someone who is actually competent and driven.

In most of the same articles - American cannot be a meritocracy, social mobility isn't 100%! The assumption that a perfect meritocracy would be shown by your income having no correlation to your parents is about as opposite true as can get. If there is any heritability to ability/"merit", that will show up as correlation between parent and child incomes.

"Meritocracy" is a poor term regardless, because I have a different definition of "merit" than you do, and so do the authors. I've yet to see an article lamenting inequality that even attempts to define "merit"