And those that do invariably either had a scene they could grow into - like Steve Jobs orbiting around HP and landing at Atari in his earliest days, which wouldn't have happened if he'd been living in (say) Idaho.
Or they have some questionable connections and history - Russian oligarchs being the ideal examples, although there are others.
I rarely hear the argument that the USA needs gov funded heath care, BECAUSE it would be good for entrepreneurs. It's a bit like being part of a wealthy family :)
Folks who come from a high status background tend to be more willing to do low status things, because doing so doesn’t undermine their status, which comes from elsewhere.
Your summary is both a good point and a little chilling.
I've always wondered in Capitalism how this concept of a JOB for people to have a living wage is sustainable in modern times. Much less for people to innovate and thrive.
I don't think you can really have that same kind of status in tech without building something very significant which typically takes years of experience.
I think success here is somewhat incidental. No doubt the vast majority of niche workers are pursuing non-viable careers, a minority can just about wring a living from it, and a vanishingly small part will actually see some measure of success - upon which that path too will close off quickly, both due to masses of people flocking to follow those footsteps and active gate keeping by value-extracting entities.
Implicit in this model, there is a dark timeline where there are always many more people than there are opportunities. Since this system of exploring possible paths and then closing them off to the lower masses is so extremely effective, eventually every single niche will be flooded with overqualified eager young upper-class people who are just perfectly networked for success, and even though they are so many there are still untold thousands more of hopeless dregs below every single one of them.