Ok, but... your claim that the article its "extremely misleading" seems unjustified. There are two different issues: (1) the motive for the article and (2) the information discussed in the article.

You said, "I read the supporting links but remain unconvinced." Ok, but you obviously can't deny that the supporting links exist. The article does indeed talk about the things you claimed it didn't talk about. You can remain unconvinced, but the claim that "It's looking just at the moneyed class" seems plain false. The issue (1) may be geared towards the moneyed class, but nonetheless (2) is broader.

The fact that you remain unconvinced doesn't mean the article is extremely misleading.

The thing that I consider extremely misleading about it is that it appears to be making the case the you basically have to be at least somewhat privileged in order to be a successful entrepreneur. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but after reading it again, I can't see another way of interpreting it.

> The article does indeed talk about the things you claimed it didn't talk about.

Not entirely. It's not talking about entrepreneurs who start with nothing. No job, no nothing. There's a lot more of those than people think.

> The issue (1) may be geared towards the moneyed class, but nonetheless (2) is broader.

That's fair. I perhaps leaned a bit too far over my skis here.

> The fact that you remain unconvinced doesn't mean the article is extremely misleading.

The fact that I remain unconvinced means that I don't think the reference counters my opinion that the article is extremely misleading.

I'll admit that, like everybody, I am reading this through the lens of my own experiences and worldview, but this read to me like essentially a propaganda piece intended to discourage people who aren't part of a particular class from even trying to start their own business. That's what rubs me the wrong way about it.

> It's not talking about entrepreneurs who start with nothing. No job, no nothing. There's a lot more of those than people think.

How many is "a lot more", and how "successful" are they?

> it appears to be making the case the you basically have to be at least somewhat privileged in order to be a successful entrepreneur. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but after reading it again, I can't see another way of interpreting it.

I'm baffled why you can't see another way of interpreting it, because I already explained another way of interpreting it: "Note that my quote above says the chances of becoming an entrepreneur drop quite a bit, but it doesn't say the chances drop to zero. So of course the number of non-privileged entrepreneurs will be greater than zero. It's all about the odds."

> this read to me like essentially a propaganda piece intended to discourage people who aren't part of a particular class from even trying to start their own business

Wow. I think that's more projection coming from your own mind than from the article. Perhaps the biggest problem with this conspiratorial interpretation is the motive: why would the article author want to discourage entrepreneurship? That just makes no sense to me. And it's certainly not an advice column.

Again, I think the motive for the article is fairly clear, even stated explicitly: to poke holes in the hero worship of rich dudes.

[EDIT:] Here's another article by the same author, about Andrew Yang’s basic income plan: https://qz.com/1687957/the-case-for-andrew-yangs-ubi-plan "Yang’s freedom dividend would give Americans greater agency to leave codependent relationships, professional or otherwise, and operate as the CEO or entrepreneur of their own lives." Does that sound like someone who wants to discourage entrepreneurship?