The US does indeed have tons of opportunity, I'm a high school dropout, who is now an engineer. Thats an American success story. But I'm luckier than most because I got real lucky in the intelligence department. For a long time, I thought I was an average guy, no smarter than anyone else, then I went out and did complex system design, and then had to write the training material and train the users when I was done, and only then I could see something I hadn't before. I'm frankly smarter than half of the population (and so are basically 100% of the people who use hacker news). People like us will find some form of opportunity when there isn't any obviously available.

I'll rebut your answers:

Example 1: to make use of that free MIT education, you must be of above average intelligence, more importantly, you must have time not consumed by meeting your daily essential needs.

Example 2: you must have some product to sell, one that you can make and sell in volume, there are other sites that allow handicrafts, but its hard to make a living off of handicrafts, and its a big leap to go from individual production to serial production in a factory without capital.

Example 3: you must have talent for doing something worth watching, otherwise it doesn't make money.

Example 4: same as example 3, though, perversely, if you're really really bad, you can actually make money, but being that level of awful is a talent unto itself, and most people are not willing to subject themselves to that level of humiliation.

We have massive issues with access to the legal system by the poor, we've extended the cult of personal responsibility to the extent we now just blame the poor for being poor. We also treat debt like a sacred obligation, if your wealthy its easy to discharge debts thru bankruptcy, not so much if you're poor.

I wrote a huge paper about this with a friend of mine last summer. Please take the time to read it, and I think you'll understand more about why I feel so passionately about this.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bfu3pw1pid_2HcDYeAlSyj21...

Talent is way overrated. Talent is good for 1%, the rest is training to upgrade your skills. Of course, if you never try, failure is 100% guaranteed.

BTW, I know some very successful people who aren't that smart. Being smart just means you learn faster. Not being smart doesn't mean you can't learn skills that are in demand.

No, you don't. I was involved in competitive ballroom dancing when I was young. I have way below average talent at it. I only learned the stuff very slowly. But over time, with a lot of time spent practicing, I actually did get tolerably good at it.

Then there is singing. Neil Young, Stevie Nicks and Astrud Gilberto are talentless, but hugely successful, singers. I remember the scorching reviews Nicks got when she burst on the scene, with her "raspy", "unpleasant" voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uEy-n4IsU

P.S. I love all three of those artists' works.

P.P.S. Fred Astaire can't sing, either, but his songs are marvelous. There's that famous early review of him: "can't sing, can't act, balding, can dance a little".

Gilberto is quite talented, both in delivery and as a composer, but her delivery is amazing, and she has songwriting skills, mostly, she had the advantage of being pretty, and a very capable singer, and someone who was novel.

Neil Young is a talented songwriter, and a master guitar player, his vocal skills are secondary to his skills as a songwriter, and guitarist.

Nicks does have an unconventional voice, but with a phenomenal power to her voice. That's just natural.

And Astaire? No one would call him a great singer, but he was one of the best and most talented dancers of his era, the same goes for Gene Kelly, while they were stylistically very different, they were fantastic dancers, their singing abilities were secondary to their abilities as dancers.

The key for all of these, if you have a radio face, and a great voice/talent, you're probably not finding commercial success (not in the modern era - thought there are exceptions), if you have an average voice/talent and a really pretty face/body, you might find commercial success. If you have an average voice/talent and an average face, you're more than likely, not going to find success.

All four examples you listed had something extraordinary about them.

Giberto, Beauty - and an average talet, Young, an extraordinary talent and an average face, Nicks, a unique voice, and an extraordinary face. Astaire, a multi-talent, and a handsome man too.

They are not talented singers, but they were able to compensate for that.

Fred Astaire, handsome? I don't think so. He's short and very thin. But he is very elegant and charming, which more than made up for it. He is very aware of his body language and uses that to maximum advantage. If you passed him on the street, you'd never conclude he was handsome.

P.S. I've encountered a few hollywood celebrities off camera. The surprising thing is how ordinary they look without the hair, makeup, lighting, costume, etc.

> a phenomenal power to her voice

Oh come on.

> a unique voice

You may not remember her early reviews - "raspy", "unpleasant". I do. Her first album was a complete flop. The only reason Fleetwood Mac took her on was because the band was on the ropes and Buckingham demanded they give his girlfriend a spot.

> had something extraordinary about them

They all worked their ass off, which you confused with talent.

When I eventually got tolerably good at ballroom dancing, people who didn't know me called me "talented". ROFL.

But I find it interesting that two of the people you highlighted as having no talent are known for being songwriters as much as performers, or actors as much as dancers. In any case Nicks songwriting talents helped propel the groups success, and her vocal abilities were a pivotal component of their sound, and quite arguably a driver of their success.

Incidentally, most great male dancers are shorter, its an aid in becoming great at dance. Both Kelly and Astaire were under 6', 5'7 and 5'9 respectively - yet both were considered handsome men by the standards of their time, in part yes, because of movie magic.

And yes, I grew up near Los Angeles, when Angelia Jolie steps out to Starbucks, she while pretty, does not look like a great actress of the screen, she looks like a nice looking woman stepping out for coffee.

A singer with great range and control would be Whitney Houston. You won't see Nicks covering her songs, either.

A singer with natural talent is Karen Carpenter. She had little training, yet became a much loved singer.

    x + 3 = 5

If, instead, she wrote:

    _ + 3 = 5

Agreed, Abstraction for example, is really really hard for most people, like harder than most technical folks realize.

How do you know this?

Regardless, they apparently believe that there is opportunity in America, and you don't.

How do you draw the conclusion that I believe there is a lack of opportunity? My parent comment says I believe there is tons of opportunity, if you have the right innate skills.

If you'd read the document I linked, you'd see that my concerns have nothing to do with a lack of opportunities, but rather that we don't provide sufficient tools to people to take up those opportunities. Furthermore, we put structural barriers in front of people based on their income level to achieving a modicum of financial security.

I know personally many immigrants to America arriving here with nothing, not even knowing English, and yet becoming successful businessmen, and many became independently wealthy.

As you requested.