> What exactly is inconsistent about this?

Assuming invariance of scale between how growth works between a family's height and how a company worth a billion(s?) operates relative to the environment. It's the same error Paul makes when he has the politicians calculate the log base and form that connection about exponents in their minds.

This is the level of detail I am asking for. “Subpopulation height increases because of the physical and understood processes of maturation and growth”. You could easily go into the biology involved, model the genetic, environmental, and random variance.

You will note that PG does not provide such a mechanism for how a $100m company grows into a $10b company (thus producing $b wealth for founders).

Just to be clear. I am not saying at the object level that such growth is impossible. I am saying that at the meta/causal level, PG did not adequately characterize it it.

Your analogy does not apply. Billionaires are growing faster than anybody else in the global economy. The impoverished are growing slowest. If you want to apply this to your family then the adults would be growing by 15% every year, while your kids growing the least (and your teenagers would be shrinking).

If we take this analogy further, your kids would be the ones working the hardest to bring the food on the table required for this growth, and the adults would consume like 90% of it.