Causation seems wholly unattested, and I would guess that the attributed causation is backwards. People who are skilled/talented/privileged/whatever enough to m

Causation seems wholly unattested, and I would guess that the attributed causation is backwards. People who are skilled/talented/privileged/whatever enough to meaningfully influence policy and the world around them will start by using that influence to get themselves to a $210K+ household income, because that's the individually-rational thing to do. As the article notes, there are a bunch of professions where this is median for a single earner and a whole lot of professions where this is median for a dual-income household. The argument about policy influence implies that everyone is in theory equally capable of influencing policy. (Note this is orthogonal to whether everyone should be equally capable of influencing policy.) But you wouldn't argue that everyone is equally capable of earning high salaries (again, orthogonal to whether everyone should be) - you can empirically see that 10% of households make over $210K and 90% make under that, for whatever reasons. Why wouldn't we expect those reasons to also apply to people's empirical capability to influence policy?