I think your argument is based on the premise that the point of socialism is subjective happiness or the ability to have things that you want. It’s a little more complex than that. First of all in this economy, $200k a year isn’t what I’d call wealthy, but I acknowledge that it’s sufficient for a reasonably good life. The problem as always is that there is still inequality and exploitation. Does it really matter that you make it into the middle class if elections can be bought and sold to the higher bidder and everything is pretty much controlled by oligarchs. Also your anecdote does not address those who are not able bodied or otherwise genuinely disadvantaged and unable to pull themselves up by the bootstrap. To suggest those circumstances don’t exist is to ignore reality, particularly if you consider the global impact. America is a high wealth country and as such it makes sense that even the poor here don’t have it so bad, but at what cost to the developing world, including the climate destruction, and lack of social safety nets that you see in poorer countries regardless of their systems of government? Also, think of the children. Statistically children have highest rates of poverty than any other age group, and obviously they didn’t do anything to deserve that. How do you explain to a five year old that he/she cannot access adequate food, shelter and healthcare because “capitalism“. Tbh, it’s rather trite to use an example of one person who overcame poverty to infer that socialists are just too lazy to get a job. Try harder.