Some feel that the children of low income families are better equipped to deal with difficultiesposed by the "real world" when they grow up and they also believe the privileged children ofwealthy families are less fit to deal with these difficulties.The implications and veracity of thisargument seem self-evident,but in fact require closer examination.
The popular wisdom is that children of poorer families learn early on the value of a buck,and are thus naturally better suited to stretching moneywhen times get tough in adulthood.Inversely,the children of wealthy families,thoseborn with a silver spoon in their mouths,arebelieved to be completely ignorant of the value of money,having had everything provided forthem in their youth and oftentimes erroneously expecting the same situation in adulthood.Theyare believed to be prone to overspending and financial irresponsibility.This belief,thoughlogical,overlooks one key point which is,of course,education.
The basis of this argument is,of course,knowing the value of money,and the idea thatchildren of the poor know this,and those of the wealthy do not.Who though,is in a betterposition to teach their children the value of money; someone skilled in earning and keeping it,the wealthy parent,or someone who can not seem to acquire it,the poor parent?Bothwealthy and poor children are equally likely to acquire an education in money,whether it isformal,or in the school of hard knocks.Conversely,both children are as likely to ignore thiseducation.
A poor child may believe that one can get along,if not as easily,without wealth.A wealthychild may be well trained by a parent steeped in the knowledge of money management; the keyto developing this skill is education.