You've read a great deal into my comment that wasn't there. Not blaming you, written comments aren't the best means of communication.

Most high schools, including one I went to in a very poor blue collar ex-fishing town, offer tutoring, clubs, athletics, and access to the "computer lab". The issue is that, in general (there are exceptions of course), kids who's parents didn't put much emphasis on eduction, and who didn't expose their child to the concept that they can do anything, be anything, that their potential is limitless, weren't at all interested in taking advantage of those programs. They'd rather hang out with their friends and/or get into trouble. The problem isn't that the schools aren't offering those types of supports, the issue is that the parental and culture influences drive the kids away from those educationally supporting offerings.

By the time you hit high school, (again, in general), you're either focused on education, or you're not. I think parents play the largest role, with the societal obsession with sports, hip hop stars, and anti-intellectualism playing a smaller but significant role.

Part of it also is that some people are smarter than other. Some people are better at math, or computers, or art, or football than others. Some people simply work harder than others. People tend to gravitate to things they enjoy, especially for after school elective programs. Your average 90 IQ kid isn't going to want to spend afternoons struggling to succeed on the debate team. Doubly so because everyone who's not on the debate team tends to make fun of the kids who are.

I'm not suggesting society needs misery or unhappiness to function. I have no idea where that came from. I'm just suggesting that there will always be a wide range of salaries based on supply, demand, how replaceable you are, etc... Both of my divorced parents probably gross about $30k/year each. They're both very happy, and not miserable at all. If I could no longer work with computers I think I could be quite happy as a baker or a motorcycle mechanic, making 1/10 of what I make now. I don't want people to be unhappy, nor do I think there's any societal requirement for misery. All I said was I don't see how everyone can make $100k/year and work in cushy offices.

In addition to my time at the blue collar high school, I also attending Phillips Academy at Andover, one of the best private prep schools in the US. Was the quality of eduction there better than the blue collar school? Absolutely. The teachers were amazing, the resources were amazing, etc... If you made every high school like Andover (ignoring the factors that make this impossible - lack of teachers of that skill level, break-down in the culture, cost, etc...) would that make everyone rich and successful? Not a chance! Yes, some kids would do very well, and would be better off than otherwise. The vast majority would flunk out due to not being able to keep up, or not being willing to put in the time/effort (again goes back to a combination of innate traits and abilities and parental influence during childhood). Obviously you can't have them all flunk out, since all the schools are now like this, so they don't fail, they move along, but they aren't keeping up with the teaching (assuming the teachers stay at the pace of the kids who are really getting the most of out this), so they don't pay attention, and they get bored, and they get nothing out of it, and end up just distracting the kids who are trying to learn. Oh wait, that's already what happened in every high school where the teachers don't cater to the lowest common denominator.

Anyhow, this is turning into a rant. I think that offering great education at the college level, or even the high school level will actually help a very small number of people. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but we shouldn't expect massive changes.

Artificially inflating the wages of low skill, easily replaceable jobs, such as street sweeping devalues money across the board, and helps no one.