You can get into a death spiral of excuse making to justify practically any situation. That is the type of thinking that keeps people stuck where they are; they're looking for rationalizations about why it's OK for them to be there instead of looking for a way out.
You don't have to go to school to learn how to make money (I didn't, and I know lots of other people who didn't, both in my field and out).
Obviously, you should do your research before you move to an isolated small town that has zero jobs, but I can guarantee you'll be much better off in Dallas, Houston, or Austin than you would be in any city in California.
I understand that some people may truly be anchored to an area by familial requirements, but overall it's a fairly small percentage of people. California is unlivably expensive, taking around 15% of your income (if you're lucky) on top of the fed's cut in tax, not to mention the highest rents in the country and some of the highest prices for goods. If you can't afford to live in California, move somewhere else; don't forcibly take money out of the pockets of people who've been successful in CA despite the heavy government controls to subsidize your COL. If people actually did this, CA would quickly realize it has to compete and become affordable again. As it stands, they know they can do whatever they want and people will stick around, so they do.
Compassion is very important. I don't think true compassion is compulsory and I don't think redistribution is very compassionate at all. In fact, I think it's pretty selfish; the advocates are simply saying "there are more of us than there are of you, and we don't think you deserve all that money you make; fork some of it over for us or we'll hurt you".
Compassion should be voluntary and issued based on an individual's judgment of the circumstances. This allows the "compassion market" to actually function and ensure that those deserving of the most compassion receive it (i.e., no more welfare queen stories). Endless "compassion" without expectation is not compassion at all; it is dependence. Do we really want our people dependent on the state for their existence? We can already see how that growing dependence has eroded state sovereignty in the latter half of the 20th century.
It is the responsibility of the family to ensure the individual's success, not the state. Government must ensure that the framework to host a successful economy is in place, but it's not their job to actually replace the economy. This was well-understood until about 100 years ago.