Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared to deal with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some feel that the children of low income families are better equipped to deal with difficulties posed by the "real world" when they grow up and they also believe the privileged children of wealthy families are less fit to deal with these difficulties. The implications and veracity of this argument seem self-evident, but in fact require closer examination. (58words)
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, are believed to be completely ignorant of the value of money, having had everything provided for them in their youth and oftentimes erroneously expecting the same situation in adulthood. They are believed to be prone to overspending and financial irresponsibility. This belief, though logical, overlooks one key point which is, of course, education. (100words)
The basis of this argument is, of course, knowing the value of money, and the idea that children of the poor know this, and those of the wealthy do not. Who though, is in a better position 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? Both wealthy and poor children are equally likely to acquire an education in money, whether it is formal, or in the school of hard knocks. Conversely, both children are as likely to ignore this education. (101words)
A poor child may believe that one can get along, if not as easily, without wealth. A wealthy child may be well trained by a parent steeped in the knowledge of money management; the key to developing this skill is education.