[intopieces]

Hard work is one foundation of success that most successful people exhibit. However, I think we can agree that it's possible to be successful without working hard (let's stick to one definition of success: monetary) and it's possible to unsuccessful while working hard. The fact that the "best" people you know are all hard workers is selection bias at work: the people you're classifying as "best" are people who are already "successful" enough to be in your group of people.

[derekp7]

I have a definition of success that is a bit different. To me, being successful is when you take a series of actions with the intent of reaching a goal, and you achieve that goal or a positive outcome. The measure of success is how well you achieve your goal, and how important that goal is to you.

[Turing_Machine]

Sure. People who (e.g.) pick crops by hand almost certainly work much harder than the people the OP was talking about, but they're never going to get rich.

People with that background have gotten rich, of course, but almost always by leaving that line of work and doing something else.

[intopieces]

>People who (e.g.) pick crops by hand almost certainly work much harder than the people the OP was talking about

The way you phrased this, it sounds like you find this fact to be obvious. The question, then, is why does American culture look down on poor people like they are lazy? Everyone here seems to have respect for the people who work menial jobs, but the policies we have made constantly punish lower income, working adults. Where is the disconnect? What are the people who disagree with you 'missing'?

[LesZedCB]

Yes, like you say, only allowing that one definition of success is exactly the moral framing that the author is talking about! I would say that any person is successful if they feel like they have been successful. Additionally, they should not need any external validation of their success, and somebody else's diminution of their standard of success is oppressive.