Is it a good idea to teach children that work is linearly related to income?
I think that is the wrong approach. You certainly need to teach the value of work, but you cannot tie it to income levels as a hard and fast rule. If you do, how do you then explain athletes making millions per year and only 'working' half a year, at most. And, then comparing that person to a person working hard in a factory, 40-50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, bringing home $50K per year? I've always taught my kids to work hard and with integrity. And, most importantly, you better enjoy the work you do because no matter how much money you make, if you dread getting up in the morning to go to work, your money won't make you happy. I've never focused on the amount of money they should be making. "Completely linear?  We don't do that. Our daughter has a fixed allowance, and we expect a certain amount of help around the house as being part of the family.  We don't make any explicit ties between the two, and we don't seem to have any problems. We bought an eBay lot of Polly Pockets and divided them up into $5 bags.  (This is a better deal that what we could get in the store new.)  Her allowance isn't enough that she can ""buy"" one every week. After sensing her frustration we gave her the opportunity to earn some more money by doing extra work.  It happened to be cleaning up after our dogs in the back yard, a chore we had neglected for quite a while.  She stuck with the job, and truly earned that money.  (She'll be six in January.)  What's more, it was a good deal for me.  It needed to be done, and I didn't really want to do it. :) So, for now this seems like a fair balance.  It prevents her from getting the idea that she won't work unless she gets paid, but she also knows that working harder does have its rewards. We still have time to teach her the idea of working smarter. (This isn't a formal study.  It's just my experience.)" "I don't know if it counts as a formal answer, but Dale Carnegie has  always preached that income is related to how well you treat and get  along with other people. His observation is that the highest paid  people are those with the best people skills, because the ability to  manage other people has higher value than singular ability.  Conversely, people making minimum wage often work ""harder"" than people  making more money.  The old saw about ""work smart, not hard"" is a bit trite. In many  fields, efficiency is valued over ""hard work""." As a parent I think you absolutely have to teach them that income is related to work because (for most people at least) it's a more fundamental principle than budgeting, investments, interest, etc. Once they've learned that the primary source of income is work, then you can start teaching them what to do with it, i.e. how to budget, economise, save, invest, etc. Get a copy of Capitalism for Kids - finally back in print (after being out of print for years). It's a great introduction to being an entrepreneur, aimed at young people. Six years old might be a bit early, though - but definitely before the teenage years. "My family instilled in me early on that hard work was important, and the output of that work was its reward. My grandparents really made in impression with me about telling the truth and being fair (probably after I was busted for lying and cheating about something) -- I remember my grandfather talking about the solem trust associated with shaking hands over something. I remember opening a savings account at school on bank day and being really excited about the interest accruing... but my folks never really allowed us to spend it on toys or other stuff. I didn't really think about money at all until I was probably about 10 or 11, when I started watching ""Wall Street Week"" on PBS with my dad on Friday night and bombarding him with dozens of questions. Then games like Sim City really got me going... my grandmother was always amazed that I was talking about bonding construction projects. I think that before 10 or so, kids needn't concern themselves with money, but should understand responsibility, the rewards that come from working hard, and the consequences for not doing so."
&gt; Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.  * Most rich parents have children who become rich people.   * Therefore: Most rich people are the children of rich parents.   Is guilty of the same logical fallacy as:  * Most rapists are males.   * Therefore: Most males are rapists.   You're claiming the data suggest something that it does not. Stats don't lie, but people do. "It depends what you mean. Finance Independence and Retirement Early (FI/RE) are two overlapping ideas. If you plan to retire early and spend the same amount of money every year (adjusted for inflation), then you need to save twenty-times your yearly spending to satisfy the 4% Safe Withdrawal rule of thumb. Carefully notice I say ""yearly spending"" and not income.  I'm unaware how it is in Pakistan, but in America, people who retire in their sixties tend to reduce their spending by 30%. This is for a host of reasons like not eating out as much, not driving to work, paid off mortgages, and their children being adults now. In this type of profile, a person needs to save 17.5x yearly spending. This numbers presume a person will only use their built assets as an income source. Any programs like a government pension acting as a safety net. If you factor those in, the estimates above become smaller." "My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from   regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages   involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social   security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in   the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any   kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive.  If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than   a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all   taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a   form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work   (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will   deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under ""Unreimbursed Employee   business expenses,"" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to   carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding   of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social   Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this   is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you   will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into   even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will   probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is  A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside   of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a   certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be   withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional." "This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an ""empire."" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it.  As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way." "idea that somehow people will take a lower income job and automatically grow into a higher paying one.  It doesn't happen automatically. But it does happen all the time. It's climbing the corporate ladder if you will.   ""leads to trying to have a workforce that's minimum wage with little room for growth""  Simply untrue at most successful companies. If you provide value, they pay you what your worth or you jump (if you are smart enough). I see it all the time.   Minimum wage may or may not have kept up with inflation, by that's like saying working at McDonald's only affords me such and such lifestyle. Defined circumstances are required to solve the problem. Inflation isn't directly solved by upping the minimum wage so move on to a better solution.   ""Jobs a worthy cry but can't be only metric to ensure people have opportunity to live decently"".   Jobs are the opportunity. Where there is specific abuse in the workplace denying people equal job opportunity, we fight it. If you don't pay me enough, and I am forced to work for you... that's called indentured servitude which is an abuse and illegal as humans are property in such a case. But if you force me to pay you more than I want to, somehow that's okay? Goes both ways. Leave to a company that pays you what your worth if I don't pay you enough. This is how the most people grow over time to better salaries and more prestigious titles.  ""Lots of college grads with low paying jobs""  Define ""low paying"". I'm a college grad. Wife is too. Lots of people I know are. What $ we make varies greatly from person to person based largely upon the opportunities we created/took not because of a mandated min wage." "Over-simplification of the problem.  To get a well paying job requires a degree these days.  Not everyone has the money to pay for college without a loan.  Does that mean they shouldn't be able to get a well paying job?  That isn't including production increasing and school prices increasing while wages stagnate, exacerbating the issue.  Real responsibility would include our responsibility to nurture and build a great nation, education, and value for EVERYONE, not just ourselves and those we decide ""deserve"" it." Absolutely this.  Encouraging education is good.  Encouraging education by offering private institutions blank checks someone else (the student) is responsible for paying down is bad.  At this point, regulate the price of college tuition, and make federal student loans federal student grants. &gt; Just because you had 1, 2 or a dozen children, why should that be considered in what your unskilled labor is worth?  1 child per person or 2 per couple should be factored in to what unskilled labor is worth.  The reason is that we need unskilled labor to wash dishes or dig ditches.  Since the system needs them, the system needs to support them.  Support would mean that they can get a modest living working a full time job for their entire lives.  A modest life would include one where basic needs are met and normal human experiences are available.  This would include food, water, shelter, clothes, health care, some entertainment, retirement, and a child to replace them after they die.