If you are hiring for start up, you do not care why they are dumb. Potentially you can save money by hiring non traditional candidates and paying them less, but any advantage you get this way will be short lived. Unfortunately diamonds in a rough are rare and finding them cost more than their value.

I understand the position very well, and I think most people with common sense do. Of course it's harder to become wealthy than it is to achieve other positions in life.

I just think it's a stupid use of "disadvantaged." It implies someone else has an advantage, in to quote you, "escaping their position in life." It's like saying a bad baseball player is at a disadvantage when trying to become a good baseball player. It almost doesn't make any sense.

Same goes with the idea that poor people are disadvantaged about making decisions wrt money. Of course they are, or they quite likely wouldn't be poor any longer. To use baseball again, or any skill really, the experts of course have advantages in deciding the best course of action, and typically have more ways to achieve it.

What I've gleaned here is that you consider poor people to be novices at the skill of acquiring wealth. I agree. For some reason people seem to think it's far different from rookies in other skills, because acquiring wealth is perceived by most to be a vital part of success, happiness, health, etc.

oh really if the US had a system like we have in the UK the house of commons would have eaten quite a few high profile US polticians (including some presdents) alive.

Id love to see Paxman interview sarah palin or Ted Cruz for example.