> And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivor

> And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc. Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs. Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money." I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.