I am not implying that we've achieved perfection. My point is that America has equal opportunity.
I know it says it has. I know the worker can (in certain fields) rise to become CEO but I have doubts about how equal the equal opportunity is in a land where money talks and those who have it will use it to ensure they and their progeny keep it.

Until attitudes change things will be "unequal".
Didn't you just say you have equal opportunity and now you say unequal. In any cases I dont think anybody expects perfect equality - they are just looking for a fairer opportunity and less loading of the dice to favour the status quo result of years of inequality.

Oh, so what you're implying is only the lower classes sweep floors or bag groceries?
If you want to put it in such harsh terms - yes I am or yes they should.

A janitor in the Post Office where I work used to be in Marketing and yes, has a degree.
And how long do you expect him to stay in the janitor job before he quits for a better job. Staff turnover is a factor for employers to consider when hiring.

What is wrong with taking a job you are overqualified for?
Okay here are a few. The disadvantage to the employer is janitors keep quitting for marketing jobs and the company keeps having to find replacements. You know the importance of stable workforce yes. The disadvantage to the employee is it can adversely affect his chance of getting the executive job and pay negotiation when his last job was janitor. And when you are busy spending all day sweeping floors you are not going to be attending many job interviews are you. And if you do how long before they fire the janitor because he's not there and now he had "fired janitor" on his resumee. Steelish it is not as simple as you make out. From a business point of view you want to use human resources in the most efficient way which means putting round pegs in round holes and when the square peg comes along you don't give him the round hole job.

You choose not to take a lower paid position because you feel your educational level is above it...so be it. That is your choice. It's not that I have no sympathy for them,
The problem is you can get into a downward spiral. I am not saying people should not take lower jobs but you are going from executive to sweeper which is something different and the fact is employers won't hire you because they know you won't stay. Most people take temp employment or some sort of self employed work. That is okay but you are almost advocating career change from executive to sweeper.

So you never did chores around the house when you were a kid to get a weekly allowance?
No. I helped my mother volountarily or was asked to if she was especially busy but I never had "chores" assigned to me. My chores was my homework to get the grades to go to university. Never had a weekly allowance either. Our different backgrounds maybe explain our different outlooks. You are of the - finish the sweeping or you dont get any supper - category. I come from the - can I help you peel the potatos mom - category. I offered and was not coerced because I was taught helping others who need help is the right thing to do.

Ooooo. More snarkiness
Well be fair you can't have it both ways can you. Or maybe in bdsm you can

Even the financial aid ones have to be earned through grades.
The problem with scholarships is they do not (I think) say everybody who gets 80% qualifies for scholarship. They say there are 10 scholarships and we take the top ten. So if 12 get 80%+ grades 2 are going to be disadvantaged and miss out on college even though academically they deserve to be there. I dont know the grades and places available but I do think not everybody who has the academic ability gets the financial ability.

BTW - Your analogy is lost on me
I chose 30 years because thats about what a generation is in terms of workforce. A newborn baby will not enter the workforce untill early-mid twenties then a few years job training before he is fully productive at suitable level. Another 30 years later he is hitting retirement. Your idea that we rely solely on education means if you implement change today the results will not take effect for another 30 years. If you go to the voters and tell them they will never see the benefit of your policy but their children will - few will vote for you.