To be fair this is at least an improvement over Medieval times when 'Might' meant 'ancestry'.

How is this different to being born into wealth?

In the 1300s you could be broke but if you had the blue blood you still had power.

People today can become wealthy, and wealthy people can lose wealth, much much easily than nobility was created or revoked under feudalism.

There's objectively more social mobility. That's an improvement. Don't confuse "it's an improvement" with "it's an acceptable and desirable end state".

I don’t know. For some reason when I think of social mobillity I think of Genghis Khan.

Exactly. He's notable because he was so unusual.

How many people in the US have been born into a lower to middle class family, and gone on to make more than $10 million in the last 30 years?

> Exactly. He's notable because he was so unusual.

Now I have been taken to communicate that Genghis Khan with his KPI of human ears was an example of positive social mobility.

This is peak move fast across the steppe and break things mindset.

Well, off hand, Bill Clinton, Obama and JD Vance all fit this rubric.

There are likely to be many other examples. These are just well known ones.

Yes, my point is there are tons of them. Not just White House residents, but tons of people who own random businesses all over the country.

I still argue that our current capitalist system is nothing more than an extension of the Norman system. Only capitalist executives see even less of the humanity of their ‘customers’ and the damage from their policies/maximal extraction than medieval lords saw in the serfs of the village that their policies/maximal extraction impacted.