Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because their lives suck now, and college would have alleviated that. That they didn't (have the chance to ) go is part of the point I believe. But yeah it was worded strangely.
College would have alleviated it for four years during college . I’m not convinced that the job market transforms quickly to absorb twice as many people in jobs we think of today as “college required”. I’m not sure what the correlation between income (or other life outcomes) is between “attended college” vs “would typically have chosen college but took another route” but I suspect it’s a lot smaller than between that…
As summarized by the Atlantic: "For most students, the salary boost from going to a super-selective school is “generally indistinguishable from zero” after adjusting for student characteristics, such as test scores. In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn’t, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers. Despite Harvard’s international fame and energetic alumni outreach, somebody like Mike would not experience an observable “Harvard effect.” Dale and Krueger even found that the average SAT scores of all the schools a student applies to is a more powerful predictor of success than the school that student actually attends.
This finding suggests that the talents and ambitions of individual students are worth more than the resources and renown of elite schools. Or, less academically, the person you’re becoming at 18 is a better predictor of your future success than the school you graduate from at 22. The takeaway here: Stress out about your habits and chill out about college."
To be fair, the Atlantic continues on to say that the effect is different for women (which they ascribe primarily to increased workforce participation rates).