How do you define that though?
Do you consider someone working a minimum wage job full-time to be in this category? Someone making $15-20 an hour but without any real opportunity for advancement?
I don't understand the criteria.
Being a cashier for a fast food joint on night shift is absolute hell on your mental and physical health, it takes a ton of endurance, and is all around not very pleasant. But a lot of people have that endurance and the ability to power through it. Being a cab driver takes a ton of time and hours and puts your safety at risk continually...but a lot of people know how to drive and risks is something anyone can take (even if they, rightly so, would rather not to).
Building a web app in a cushy office (or working from home!) is honestly not that hard and rather enjoyable, but right now not that many people can do it, so it pays well. As tools become friendlier and the knowledge spreads though, it very well might end up paying less for the simpler roles than the cashier or driver is. (like in the dot com crash).
It's always been about being able to do what others can't. Education, connections, capital, they're all means to that particular end. Shuffling assets in a fidelity account to set up a 3 fund portfolio isn't rocket science and will make you a lot of money, but most people can't do it because they lack the capital.
Thus, the ability to "DO THINGS". Some of those abilities can come from hard work, some come from luck, some from who you know, some because you were born to rich ass parents.
I do think it can still be an equalizer, though diversity. If you can code but I can't, while I can do project management but you can't, then both our "do's" are valuable. What prevents THAT from working is that the amount of people who can do each will be different as will the demand. We're straight back at capitalism.
If what you're doing now hasn't presented an opportunity for advancing, don't keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
I know a couple people like this, and I know there are many out there in this situation with several kids to worry about. Maybe your aware of this and were referring to people with disposable income and savings, but those people don't really need to do something else because apparently things are working out for them better than the vast majority of people. I don't want to assume too much but this comes off sounding really badly.
Never-mind the fact that these low-paying jobs exist and someone will have to do them, therefore some percentage of the population will be in this situation, often despite working several jobs and dealing with a lot more than most of us have to on top of that. I don't see how anyone can have this view without also implicitly stating that some % of the population are necessarily just not good at doing things and deserve to live through that kind of struggle because of it.
2) Is it harder for parents, single or not? Yea. Yet these are the people you most often see make the change. They have the right motivation, moreso than singles their age without kids.
3) The fact that the low paying job exists, and will always exist, doesn't mean you have to be the one to do it forever. Or anyone else.
You get a job, you get experience, you move on to a better job, and someone with less experience takes over your old job. The world turns.
>some percentage of the population will be in this situation
Yes- entry level workers, kids, and maybe some people that are rebuilding their life. They're not meant to be careers.