Then the problems you highlight are all about redistributing money and status.
Take that nice study about how many words (both frequency and quantity) are heard in childhood.
One problem with the study was that those with the most home time with their kids tended to have the least amount of interaction. They'd face the young children away from them in strollers instead of towards them. The adults expected them to be quiet and not interact. Instead of discussing problems and solution, the power structure was very much one of "shut up and just do what I say." The kids would be expected to be outside and play instead of inside interacting with adults. And if the adults were outside, the adults would talk and expect the kids to be off by themselves.
Above and beyond a reduced code on the part of less-educated parents, a smaller vocabulary and simpler syntax, the interactional styles were completely different. This has nothing to do with money. It has nothing to do with status. It has to do with traditional child-rearing practices and attitudes.
Low vocab and diffculty reading in elementary school --> poor high school outcomes --> low education --> low income --> low vocab and difficulty reading in elementary school ... Strip away the 5-15% of economic differences that reliably go back to race in many studies and you're left with the 85-95% of the differences that aren't.
That's not income-based. It's not status based. In fact, one of the most well-spoken little kids I've ever seen was the son of a part-time cook at a restaurant. She was a single mother, well below the poverty line, and educated. Her son was biracial in the early '80s in a town that was 98% white. She was poor, low status, well educated and the kid started school reading well and stayed at the top of his class. But the "prediction" had to be that he started school behind his white peers. The prediction was false. We loves us our confounds when they feeds us our confirmation bias on a silver spoon.
= new reply since forum marked as read