A quantity of options does not mean every option. The barista in question is not likely someone who can just choose to switch to a much more lucrative job. They

A quantity of options does not mean every option. The barista in question is not likely someone who can just choose to switch to a much more lucrative job. They could pursue that direction, there's always room for improvement, but as Sam mentions, there's a compounding-interest here. So, someone starting at a lower point has to start with very small productivity decisions and persist as they slowly compound to become something more substantial. Also, while the economy isn't zero-sum, there are zero-sum aspects to it. We can't have every garbage collector suddenly become a high-end programmer or something or our system will fall apart due to piling-up of garbage. Any one garbage collector could better their lot, but until we have dramatically automated everything (and that's still a long ways off), we need people to collect the garbage. In short: we don't have a caste system, so any arbitrary working class person can rise to higher classes. But that doesn't change the system, it just shuffles where people are. We don't have an economic system that can function without a working class. If/when the working class gets paid better, then they can afford to invest in improving themselves more because they won't be desperate for every day's income just to survive. Some people will make poor judgments with such freedom, but others will thrive. So be it. I agree with your "who am I to say otherwise" quip as long as you aren't appealing to total-relativism.