What I mean by it is that sense you've got something in reserve that can be pulled out to meet a crisis, and an awful lot of people don't have that.
If you're talking financially, you're right there. But it doesn't necessarily make you "working class". For instance, plenty of folks have put all their money into buying a house or starting a business and then find that a small glitch in their jobs or in interest rates leaves them screwed. Vice versa, plenty of low-income people stash money away, or have luxuries they could cut back on in times of trouble (even if it's just cigs or trips to the pub) - or choose to spend on luxuries instead of saving money for an emergency, which brings us back to values again.
Or were you talking metaphorically there, as in having some capacity for action to deal with a crisis? If that's the case, then you're dead right on that too - but capacity to deal with a crisis again comes down first to native intelligence and secondly to values. And I don't think any of that has anything to do with whether daddy had lots of money, unless we're talking about hiring better lawyers or something.
Bill Gates ... Luck had nothing to do with it
So Gates got to be the head of the largest company in the world because it's the birthright of everyone in his position, yes? He had a good start with rich parents, sure, but a good start with rich parents doesn't automatically make people billionaires before they're 40. Partly he worked hard for it, and partly he just got lucky in that his company was contracted for MS-DOS and no-one else had an alternative to Windows running in time to compete with him.
I'm not saying that nepotism doesn't happen, but where it does, I think generally the people involved *aren't* the high-flyers who eventually end up with power. They're comfortable, yes, but they're not the next generation of "wealthy-and-powerful".
As far as education goes, I'd say it's a limited benefit in Britain at least. Where I grew up, there were several fee-paying secondary schools in the area. The comprehensive nearest us had a lousy headmaster and was pretty crap. While I was up there (at a different school), they got a new headmaster who sorted the place out, and Ofsted started making sure things were run properly. The fee-paying schools are now in the crapper because the comprehensives have better teachers, better class sizes and better facilities, so people *choose* to go to the state school.
What you need with education is the *values* to make the most of it, and that's passed down from your parents. If your parents don't value education, chances are that you won't either. Is that a class thing as in socio-economic class? Possibly, but if it is then it's a class thing in the other sense of the word as well! That's most clearly shown by the sterotype of Asian immigrants wanting their children to achieve the best they can, where their children outperform other ethnic groups (including often the "white British" ethnic group).
I guess the easiest way to show what I think is with a table. (Let's see if Mudcat can do this...)
Low intelligence, High intelligence, Low intelligence, High intelligence,
taught no values taught no values taught values taught values
HIGH-INCOME DADDY Playboy/girl - no Playboy/girl Well-off with High-flyer
need to work initially, maybe job in daddy's
high-flyer later business
if they learn from
mistakes
MIDDLE-INCOME DADDY Failure - not May have enough Probably High-flyer
enough safety net safety net to be a comfortable
success if they
learn from
mistakes
LOW-INCOME DADDY Failure - no Failure - no Probably High-flyer
safety net opportunity to comfortable
learn from
mistakes
If you want a soundbite summary, I'd say a well-off family can get you out of failure, but it can't make you a success.
Graham.