The same can be argued for anybody. For example, Engineers who don't start their own companies are at fault when the company they work for goes tits up and they are unemployed at an advanced age and unemployable because of their outdated skillset.

The truth is, I think, nobody perfectly optimizes their prospects. People are people and people like to be in their social groups and compete in their social groups, which puts you on a track to a specific future.

Kids from middle-class families don't have to abandon their social circle to become white-collar workers, they can just be comfortable with their friends and "fail" and become a depressed white-collar worker in a not so cool company with only O.K. salary. There are numerous movies about people on this path.

When kids from an affluent background choose to stay comfortable with their friends, they "fail" and become spoiled brats. Usually portrayed as d-bags who don't live a fulfilling life and simply spend their daddies money on drugs and luxury.

When a kid from a lower-income background chooses to stay comfortable with their friends, they end up just as miserable but they also have survivability issues.

This is why "going to college" is such a monumental part in life: It gives you an option to change social circles and if you still fail, at least you can fail in a bit more comfortable house and car.

I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.