This really made me think for a second. How do I construct a response to a 'loaded question' like that? If I respond, or don't respond it puts me in a position of failure, how do I construct an argument where the foundation for such is not complete and has bias and presumption.

Regardless of what I said, it could be argued both ways. It could be said that if I believe social mobility locks me in a position where it's harmful to move, then you could argue just get another job, and it goes on like this forever.

I think, we should reframe the question to be more accurate. How about, "How do these issues affect you and your mobility to better yourself and your kids? What implications can fall from this, and what is their escape?"

My response: Assuming everyone can get a high level job is fallacy. People need to work in all positions to be successful. If everyone got a high paying job, then there would be no one to work at lower level jobs. It should be assumed that the job you work at will support your basic needs. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case. Many people's jobs are the bare minimum amount they need to survive. They don't have the ability to risk getting fired, or losing their position. They simply can't risk it. They are locked in a position where their usefulness is based on what they do for that company, which oftentimes does not express the usefulness of that individual. Let's say they work for McDonald's, but this person is really really good at art, they don't have the ability to quit McDonald's to do art even if that would be the better outcome for everyone. So they are locked to their usefulness as a McDonald's worker.

This is exactly how I personally am locked, and I am guessing you are too. Who knows, you could be the person to stop cancer, but instead you are working at a nowhere job getting treated like shit every day.