The end of the article is more enlightening though.
"Wealthy individuals with lower ability can start new businesses because they are less likely to face the disciplining effect of external finance."
The author also writes that those same correlations occur in business school and other upper tier schools, which lend themselves to perceptions of high achievement.
At no time however have capital costs been low like in the software industry, so perhaps the real key is to encourage more of the low income to hack away :)
That's just bad math... Using a mean when they should be using a median.
Throw Bill Gates onto a bus and the average bus rider earns billions a year... That's not particularly meaningful.
"Sorry, this is another myth. Entrepreneurship creates a lot of wealth, but it is very unevenly distributed. The typical profit of an owner-managed business is $39,000 per year. Only the top ten percent of entrepreneurs earn more money than employees. And the typical entrepreneur earns less money than he otherwise would have earned working for someone else."
There are so many different kinds of entrepreneurs, and so many different types of new enterprises (restaurants, used car dealerships, high-tech startups, law firms) that statistics about the "average entrepreneur" aren't very much use to anybody.
It's like trying to decide whether plumbing is a good occupation by looking at the average salary of jobs starting with P.
Entrepreneurs are, on average, significantly wealthier than people who work in paid employment. Research shows that entrepreneurs comprise fewer than 9 percent of households in the United States but they hold 38 percent of household assets and 39 percent of the total net worth.
Entrepreneurs by their nature have more individuals at the end of each side of the scale, whereas people who work are clustered in the middle.
All a higher average tells you in this case is that when you "win" as an entrepreneur, those payouts are larger than when you "win" in the workforce.
Duh.