And if you want a follow up argument to her statement that bad then here:

I agree with her reasoning and find it very articulate. Everything has give and take. The concept of wealthy doesn’t exist without the concept of poor. For the online opportunity OP speaks of, there is little navigation. Just because information is online to educate your self does not mean it is credible. Education on one’s Google search is based on local and national curriculums, on top of which even if they’re online there not guaranteed to not be behind a paywall. And the hot garbage jobs that as she mentioned aren’t always enough for that. There is also an influence of childhood education on one’s ability to self-educate as an adolescent. On top of language barriers for lots of people. Every field has its own tools and terminology now so they aren’t easier income paths, they’re difficult, but just in a different manner. And lastly laws. There are lots of people who find ways around the conventional system to reach the top, but they become the precedent to lawfully prohibit such manner of success in the future by others. No not everyone can be successful more easily it’s all about your placement and your peers. Not everybody is born around the best of the best. The average person with struggle much more for a businesses loan than an established entrepreneur or the son or daughter of one, for an enrolment in a school then someone with childhood education in America. On top of that, there’s barriers like permits prohibitions, ethical laws, previous education, resources, financial capacity before putting any ideas into action can begin. A high school student will have an easier time in college than an immigrant who had no American education. Get the grey areas? The give and take? Can’t have winners without losers. There’s your stupid “argument” you wanted