I always find it odd when people choose this as a metric for success. Why not "a person who went to a school you've never heard of, but has a job they enjoy deeply and that gives them purpose"?
Also, financial success is on-topic here, as this forum originated for Silicon Valley bros seeking wealth. In past lives, we were "greed is good" Wall Street bros. I'm sure some percentage of our earlier counterparts started out really loving spreadsheets, before the schemes.
Similar to why so many people want to get Google, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, etc on their resume. While there are a ton of amazing small companies they just do not have the same brand recongition.
I think the economic term for this is "signalling." Having associating with these brand name schools gives you instant credibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
Because by and large people go to university to have a better chance of making more money
Most aspirational people who are out to make mega bucks are trying to put distance between themselves and the time they didn't have that, and to setup the structures in their life so if they have kids, they can give that easy going life to their heirs.
Because when a person has a lot of money, it vastly increases the scope of available activities that they enjoy and give them purpose.
It's not odd. If your metric was "be as useful as possible to others" then making lots of money is an excellent proxy metric.
I disagree that the two types of people are "rich people" and "people with no money"; the latter of which is vanishingly rare in developed countries.
> You can make money convincing rich people you're useful to them when you're not.
You can, but I don't think this accounts for all or most or much movement of money.
You may live in a bubble