> And yet I don't any great percentage of people from a "rich family" making multi-billion dollar companies.

Because of the rarity of multi-billion dollar companies it makes more sense to flip the question - what are the demographics of those who found those companies?

If the odds of doing something are 1:100 who is going to have better odds at succeeding - the person who gets 1 throw or 10 throws? Neither are guaranteed to succeed, but they both have a chance and one is much more likely than the other. That's what's at play here.

There’s a lot more non-rich people though. So even at 1 throw each you’d expect them to be most of the successes under this theory.

Of course there’s also hereditary factors at play that people like to ignore.

> There’s a lot more non-rich people though. So even at 1 throw each you’d expect them to be most of the successes under this theory.

Well, this is why we have to look at the numbers. And it depends on the odds. If it's one in a billion and the rich get ten million throws and the poor get 1 each then the fact there are a lot of non-rich people isn't as impactful.

> Of course there’s also hereditary factors at play that people like to ignore.

Yes, like having cash to throw around and a safety net to rely on so that those shots can be taken as well as easier access to potentially important connections and resources.

He is an outlier, nobody is disputing that. Regardless of the odds to end up a multi-billionaire from a wealthy background, the odds of doing that from the working class are much lower. It does not mean that it never happens, I am sure there are examples.

> I'm also pretty sure with his first company sale he made much more money than his family ever had to begin with.

Well yeah. But he got there partly because he had some money to invest in the first place, and partly because he had useful connexions.