> Through the twentieth century, as aristocracy gave way to meritocracy, people learnt how to climb the greasy pole without access to these broad networks. Social mobility is largely a consequence of the structure of the economy, and not necessarily a consequence of networking. We are often told that, 'It's not what you know, it's who you know,' but maybe the people who found other ways to the top simply aren't as effective at sharing their secrets as the shmoozers.

I feel the "american dream" got that part right. Social mobility works best when you can start working locally to move up. That is, very low barrier to entrepreneurship. "Who you know" stops being a problem then, everyone can work their way into larger and larger networks.

For better or worse, I don't think we can get rid of "who you know" issue, because it's 100% natural. When you start a venture - whether it's a local shop or an Internet company or just remodeling your dog's kennel - you don't go to Global Employee Search Directory and look for potential co-founders; you just do it with a friend. Now, even the largest corporation, when you go all the way up to the top, is still a glorified version of neighbors building a common tool shack. So is almost every subgraph in the corporate ladder, if you zoom in on it.

So the problem, as I see it, is with an economy where most people have to effectively beg strangers for a job - i.e. employees (myself, I am such a person too). In this scenario, "who you know" at the lower levels becomes unfair to the larger whole.

I'm not sure what should be done about it, though.

(This is just some random thought I have, I haven't managed to sort them into a coherent whole just yet, sorry.)