IMO it has not much to do with how every social class are taught but rather the Mathew effect. Put aside those exceptionally smart or dumb ones, most people ar

IMO it has not much to do with how every social class are taught but rather the Mathew effect. Put aside those exceptionally smart or dumb ones, most people are more to less with the same capabilities and the class they were born to almost define who they will become. The reason is simple: upper class have maybe 10 times the resource a middle class have and in turn a middle class may have 10 times the resource a poor people have. So the upper class can easily have enough resource to develop themselves, and provision for the risks and still have lots to invest. For middle class, they have enough to develop themselves, a little bit surplus to insure themselves and/or to invest. For the poor people, what they have is barely enough to make ends meet, little or none for personal development or invest. So if everything goes well, the upper classes can get decent investment returns even if they do nothing actively. For the middle classes, it's not too bad, they can still get a piece of the cake, though not much. For poor people, they might be able to save a couple of bucks but nothing much. If things go side ways, the cut of the cake for the upper class at worst is slightly smaller as they are impacted but as there are already provisions for that so they don't really lose much. Sometimes their portfolios actually grows a lot because central banks print lots of money and the inflation skyrockets. For the middle class it really depends on how lucky they are. Lucky ones' asset grows, average ones are not impacted or lose little bit. If they made wrong decisions, they might become poor people. For the poor people, the best case would be their savings eaten by inflations. If other bad things happen, they might become homeless. Just take a look at statistics around the world, almost exactly the same story.