I remember an extremely enlightening episode of BBC Thinking Allowed (which I’m sure I must have shared somewhere at the time). Basically, a study found

I remember an extremely enlightening episode of BBC Thinking Allowed (which I’m sure I must have shared somewhere at the time). Basically, a study found that one of the big differences in middle class vs working class ‘success’ was the general refusal of the latter group to get involved in anything that wasn’t obviously ‘meritocratic’. Using a parents’ network to get work experience was seen as ‘cheating’ and the myth of the ‘self-made man’ was pervasive.

Having grown up in a middle class household within a working class area, I’ve seen first-hand how this works. I just didn’t have the means to express it until it was framed in this way.

That’s why a recent article in The Guardian about the ‘glass floor’ created by middle class parents annoys me. It assumes that parents ensuring their offspring do better than a given minimum isn’t a *good* thing. You can call it ‘resource hogging’ all you want on a macro level, but on a family by family, micro level, it’s charity beginning at home.

http://http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/26/well-off-families-create-glass-floor-to-ensure-childrens-success-says-study

An example would be that I’m entirely in favour of 100% inheritance tax. I don’t see why financial capital should cascade down the ages. But passing on knowledge and contacts? Some systemic social justice issues nonwithstanding, I can’t see why (or how) we’d ever want to get rid of *that*.