On "a priority that makes sense given the choices they and their children (likely) face." you nailed it but likewise you are creating a self fulfilling prophecy for them that will forever keep them in a cycle of mediocrity. Basically you are teaching a slave mentality along the lines "better a mediocre but comfortable life rather than chance a great life at the downside risk of a bad life". Does that make sense rationally, sure great lives are a zero sum game but likewise I'd say if you are "rich" you realize your "poor" competition isn't even trying to compete hence your likelihood of winning is vastly better than it should be simply by virtue you are willing to try. If the game rigged in your favor, you are a fool not to capitalize on that and THAT is what the "rich" rightly teach their children, "go for it and ask forgiveness later as chances are you will succeed"
I do not think that it is “chances are you will succeed”, but rather that they have insurance in familial resources. Bryan Caplan makes this point well (sorry I can’t find the link): risk taking isn’t risky when you’re insured, but is irresponsible when you aren’t.
I think it is wise for most people to shoot for the low variance, acceptable expected payoff. For example, one of my hobbies is acting. I’ve met a number of people who are trying to make it in Hollywood. Most of them will fail, and would be better off giving up the dream, leaning in to their real job, and saving a bit. As much as I would like to have tried being the next great American actor in the early 2000s, I’m glad my parents suggested that was a bad path, and I’m glad other people’s parents do the same.
On "a priority that makes sense given the choices they and their children (likely) face." you nailed it but likewise you are creating a self fulfilling prophecy for them that will forever keep them in a cycle of mediocrity. Basically you are teaching a slave mentality along the lines "better a mediocre but comfortable life rather than chance a great life at the downside risk of a bad life". Does that make sense rationally, sure great lives are a zero sum game but likewise I'd say if you are "rich" you realize your "poor" competition isn't even trying to compete hence your likelihood of winning is vastly better than it should be simply by virtue you are willing to try. If the game rigged in your favor, you are a fool not to capitalize on that and THAT is what the "rich" rightly teach their children, "go for it and ask forgiveness later as chances are you will succeed"
I do not think that it is “chances are you will succeed”, but rather that they have insurance in familial resources. Bryan Caplan makes this point well (sorry I can’t find the link): risk taking isn’t risky when you’re insured, but is irresponsible when you aren’t.
I think it is wise for most people to shoot for the low variance, acceptable expected payoff. For example, one of my hobbies is acting. I’ve met a number of people who are trying to make it in Hollywood. Most of them will fail, and would be better off giving up the dream, leaning in to their real job, and saving a bit. As much as I would like to have tried being the next great American actor in the early 2000s, I’m glad my parents suggested that was a bad path, and I’m glad other people’s parents do the same.