The son also rises in China

This is interesting data.  From Persistence through Revolutions by Alberto Alesina, Marlon Seror, David Y. Yang, Yang You, and  Weihong Zeng.  As always, subject to replication.  However, this is entirely consistent with Gregory Clark's work.  And indeed, is almost a tailor made example for his 2014 book, The Son Also Rises.  From the Abstract:

Can efforts to eradicate inequality in wealth and education eliminate intergenerational persistence of socioeconomic status? The Chinese Communist Revolution in the 1950s and Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 aimed to do exactly that. Using newly digitized archival records and contemporary census and household survey data, we show that the revolutions were effective in homogenizing the population economically in the short run. However, the pattern of inequality that characterized the pre-revolution generation re-emerges today. Almost half a century after the revolutions, individuals whose grandparents belonged to the pre-revolution elite earn 16 percent more and have completed more than 11 percent additional years of schooling than those from non-elite households. In addition, individuals with pre-revolution elite grandparents hold different values: they are less averse to inequality, more individualistic, more pro-market, and more likely to see hard work as critical to success. Through intergenerational transmission of values, socioeconomic conditions thus survived one of the most aggressive attempts to eliminate differences in the population and to foster mobility.

It also is consistent with Sweden where a near 50-year effort to implement (non-violently) an equalizing agenda, overlaying a broadly egalitarian and communitarian culture produced less change than was anticipated.  After all those years, the same families keep rising to the social and economic top.  The researchers of this study assert that the mechanism is intergenerational transmission of values and I do suspect that they are a component, possibly a very significant component.  Values are a critical and causal variable in life outcomes.

But the other possibility is that there is more of a genetic component to these outcomes than we, or at least I, wish to acknowledge.  No Darwinian or science denialist here.  Merely pragmatically concerned about the implications.  

I think that we are eventually going to find a much more significant genetic component to desirable life outcomes than is comfortable to acknowledge but the saving grace is likely going to be that in terms of outcomes, the contributive variables are going to be so many, that the importance of sequence is going to be so large, and the role of risk and context so material, that genetics will never be determinative in life outcomes, will only explain a portion of variance, and that the effects will only show up in large data sets, rarely or never at the individual level.