... yeah. It doesn't matter how much personal motivation you have if the regime whose territory you live in systemically disenfranchises you and enables mass extraction of surplus value. Improving the livelihoods of people in that territory is usually the primary political argument leading to changes in political rule. "Follow me, and I'll get you better food and housing" is a very compelling argument even if the "how" isn't clear. Typically, new political regimes require a period of proving themselves, so they implement policies directly tied to improving social mobility such as socialized housing and healthcare, public infrastructure like transit and medical resources, and education/skill training/jobs programs.

Edit: the article is about a case study on the Meiji Restoration where an entrenched political establishment was replaced with one that promoted social mobility. Which makes sense. Established political regimes want to perpetuate themselves, which usually means establishing some mechanism of inheritance and protecting that mechanism. Shogunate Japan had what was essentially a caste system, where your occupations and expectations were defined by your familial relations. It offered very little social mobility. The period of transition offered the most social mobility because the opportunity for mobility was the best salary available. After the restoration was complete, mobility shrank again as the established regime needed to protect their "in-group" and its interests. Worth reading the article either way for the case study's specifics, but the headline is a little vague for the content.