This study seems to hide everything behind the magical "luck" while not actually explaining anything. The way I understand it, some randomness is added to the m

This study seems to hide everything behind the magical "luck" while not actually explaining anything. The way I understand it, some randomness is added to the model, which I assume was calibrated until the model yielded the result that is similar to the modern-day wealth distribution. So all it proves is that other factors alone (IQ, etc.) are not defining of the outcome, but it still doesn't explain what factors are. "Luck" exists, I believe, but saying that person's wealth depends mostly on luck alone, is dismissive of all other human individual and collective qualities that are actually at play. -- P.S. I also agree with other comments here, correctly observing that being rich is by far not an objective for everyone. On the other hand, hopefully, wealth is a mean to achieve some other life objectives. Otherwise it's just sad indeed.