My "social media star" friend is a school nurse who connects extremely well - and constructively - to the youth generation she serves through her job. I would think that her uncommon background (including a lot more younger siblings than is common in this country, and all with an individualistic streak) prepared her somewhat for that job. I'm sure that if she had instead been given what you and the person I replied to see as an "optimal" background, she would be less prepared for it.
As for the MLM guy, to be fair, I don't know if he's still into that, he just pitched some questionable cell phone provider once when we were in engineering school together. I do know he's better off than me materially today. I mentioned him to illustrate that the apple can fall further from the tree, too.
I'm not saying that it's impossible they will have those opportunities, but it's less likely than if they had access to the best schools - which the article states they don't. Maybe the author tries to make up for this in other ways, but IMO it's unlikely to afford the same opportunities. Plus, as GP mentions, there's no mention in this article of any of that.
> None of those kids that I know of have done especially poorly. Most of them have turned out very different from their parents, from becoming social media celebrities to getting involved with MLM-like schemes.
Getting involved in MLM sounds like doing poorly to me. At least it is morally questionable. Maybe they're doing well financially.