This article seems to be a "no true Scotsman" argument. The paper that it is based on, https://www.nber.org/papers/w19276.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w19276

This article seems to be a "no true Scotsman" argument. The paper that it is based on, https://www.nber.org/papers/w19276.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w19276.pdf , divides entrepreneurs into two groups, those with incorporated businesses and those with unincorporated businesses. Then says those with unincorporated businesses don't count. And then draws conclusions about entrepreneurs based on only the incorporated ones. Of course unincorporated businesses are limited in size and complexity. Incorporated businesses are going to be made by people familiar with lawyers, business practices, etc. Businesses that require large amounts of capital are more likely to be incorporated. People who actually incorporate their business I suspect are more likely to have had a good education. So yes, if you exclude all the people who are just hustling along with all the mom and pop businesses, then it seems to be that richer people are what is left. The article also mentions that both incorporated and unincorporated entrepreneurs were more likely to engage in illicit activities in their youth. So it seems the lede of the article is not supported at all.