Anytime I see the phrase "work hard" I laugh. Hard work by itself does not get people anywhere. If it did, school teachers would be wealthy.

I really do feel it's all about 'living below your means', but there's a threshold where one cannot meet the basic means.

It can be done but it requires sacrifices that not everyone will be willing to do.

For example, choosing a location “in the sticks” can certainly help.

That's empirically not true. There's tons of people who make all those sacrifices and still don't end up rich.

"Getting rich" shouldn't be our metric, as it's arguably an unreachable goal. Rather, we should aim for something definitely possible: Make our successive generation better off than what we had (in the context of each family unit). If that means giving them a better education (or giving them an education at all), or passing down some wealth in the form of inheritance or wisdom, or making sure they have stable upbringing that you didn't have then so be it. That is good enough in the grand scheme of things, and I would argue is the most moral view we can take on this game if we take a multi-generational approach to it.

Exactly - the goal literally cannot be “make everyone rich” especially if you define rich as “top X% income/wealth”. The benchmark has to be elsewhere.

And quick fixes often are counterproductive.

Why should labor sacrifice a comfortable existence when the elite could sacrifice their exotic united foods, quarterly first class trips to the Seychelles, and bi weekly shiatsu

Lack of supply, increasing demand. A system of government regulations designed to increase scarcity, while shuffling resulting gains to property owners.

It’s probably worth distinguishing between two conditions.

1) Literally anyone who works hard can become wealthy

2) Anyone who works hard and has the talent can become wealthy

The latter still represents opportunity shared by all. However, not opportunity that can be realized by all.