> My intuition is still that a much higher fraction of billionaires are business/management types than the general population of people at their intelligence level.

It can be true that business types and engineers are over-represented among billionaires.

It also depends on how you define "engineer." Nobody makes billions as a line engineer (but nobody makes billions as a line "manager" either). But in my experience once you get a degree in engineering, that totally shapes your world view and how you approach problems even if you go on and do other things. So I think those people should count too.

Using a relatively narrow definition, out of the Forbes 25 you might count Charles and David Koch (BS/MS in ChemE/MechE), Jeff Bezos (BS EECS), Larry Page and Sergey Brin (BS CS), and Mukesh Ambani (BS ChemE). These guys all made their fortune at companies related to their engineering discipline. Broadening the definition, you can also throw in there Larry Ellison (no degree, but worked at Amdahl and Ampex as a programmer on databases), and Bill Gates. Finally, you could throw in Michael Bloomberg (BS EE--went straight into finance) and Bernard Arnault (BS CivE, worked as a civil engineer but made his fortune elsewhere).

That's disproportionate, considering that only 1-3% of the population is engineers.

Ahh, this is very interesting. Thanks much.

> "My intuition is still that a much higher fraction of billionaires are business/management types"

It's both. Nobody becomes a billionaire doing engineering all day, but a great many become billionaires by doing business with an engineering background.

If you look at the major industrialists of our era (and before), many of them come from technical backgrounds, and have done their time in the trenches. When Ford hired the first all-management CEO (i.e., did not rise through the ranks in the auto industry) it was a Big Deal.

Same with Intel, when they hired their first CEO who didn't rise through the ranks as a process engineer.