There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.
Many of us here probably earn less than your average tradesperson. If you are in academia, music, the arts, etc, you will earn less than many/most people, at least for a time. This generalisation is pure nonsense.
It also reflects a rather naive enlightement, blank-slate, view of human nature - where everyone starts on the same level playing field, and so if you end up with less than some other people you don't 'have your shit together'.
There are different starting points:
If you are born into a fucking terrible environment with alcoholic, drug-fucked parents, you are going to struggle. You are going to need welfare. More to the point, your parents will be the recipients of the welfare - but the welfare is for you.
Do we condemn you if you are born into a shit family, before you even have a chance to rise up? Or do people think that strong people are going to overcome the odds, no matter what point they begin from, and that welfare is thus redundant?
A way into this question might be to look at what environments people here were born into. If they are all pretty stable, moral, plentiful ones, then it might be worthwhile considering how things would have turned out had these environments been impoverished - at the fault of parents or not (i.e. place of birth, accidents, etc).