If you research this I think you'll find that starting with capital correlates strongly with having a financially literate family who can provide useful guidance.

Giving capital to people who are not financially literate will likely end up with that capital quickly moving out of their hands to people who are financially literate.

Financial literacy is useless if you can't teach folks how to survive when there isn't quite enough money. Teaching how to invest is useless if the person remains poor for the next 10-20 years, and if trends stay the same, they probably will be.

Financial literacy should include this stuff, plus how to get help if you can't make rent, are going hungry, or are homeless.

“ when there isn't quite enough money”

But is it obvious there isn't enough money? My in-laws, immigrants with almost no skills and mext to zero English, work at Walmart. Their income sucks (<40k combined [1]), and they have zero financial skills (they grew up in communism).

The one thing they know, however, is that my wife is very sharp. therefore, they have given her full access to their all their accounts.

Result?

They’re contributing to a 401k despite always blowing money on flashy iPhones (they’re fairly irresponsible).

They also bought a modest house (ill admit we did lend them the money for a 10% down, which they've paid back) since rent had become more expensive than a mortgage.

They’ve been in the US for just five years and, with very little material help from us, have a reasonable shot at retirement income [2].

The big difference with many others is that my wife took a chunk of their financial autonomy with automatic withdrawals so they wont blow too much money (lottery tickets, booze, fancier iPhones, etc)

[1] Note, they don't have to take care of anyone but themselves with <40k

[2] retirement means selling the house and coming to live with us as soon as either of them can no longer work.

Moreover - as you go up the capital spectrum you see an increasing emphasis on teaching financial literacy to children (just look at the marketing materials of private banks an wealth managers purporting to help educate the next generation)

The bankruptcy rates of lottery winners seem to suggest that knowing how to have money is important to retaining money.

Better than nothing?

I still remember my grade 10 business teacher (mandatory class) urging us to start contributing to our retirement and showing us the graphs of how impactful it would be to start early?

I remember that the social studies teacher brought in a friend to "help" with the financial literacy portion, in 8th grade.

We got told to bring our parents into a car dealership for extra credit.

And sure, that's all well and good. Did they also teach you how to contribute while you are low income or if you wound up not actually working because you were taking care of a spouse, child, or parent? Probably not. I'm gonna guess that statistically, you are more likely to be the poor person that can't save.

Rate of return trumps initial capital for any long-term horizon. Do the math of that:

$100 initial capital invested at 50% annual returns becomes $330K after 20 years. This is like a successful startup on its growth curve, or some of the very best hedge funds (eg. Medallion). It's less than most cryptocurrencies (eg. Bitcoin has returned about 70% annually over the last 7 years).

$10K at 20% annual returns becomes $383K after 20 years. This would be a very good active investor or someone who hits a hot company. Most FAANG stocks have returned about 25% over the past 10 years.

$100K at 7% annual returns becomes $386K after 20 years. This is a typical index fund return.

$250K at 2% annual returns becomes $371K after 20 years. This is a typical high-yield savings account return.

$1M when you lose 5%/year becomes $358K after 20 years. This is typical of somebody who holds mortgages or student debt where their asset value & income isn't increasing, or someone who has credit card debt equal to a quarter of their net worth.

Most people underestimate the power of compound interest and exponential growth, which is one of the things that a financial literacy course really needs to teach.

> holds mortgages or student debt where their asset value & income isn't increasing

This is generally uncommon, at least for mortgage debt. If you take care of your house, it usually is an appreciating asset, and makes the debt financing worth doing.

> or someone who has credit card debt

... or a car loan. Very common. Almost nothing that people pay for with consumer credit is an appreciating asset. Though of the two, perhaps a car loan is justifiable if it enables you to get a (better) job and earn more money, even if the asset itself depreciates rapidly.