Sure, saving money isn't the best strategy, but it sure beats "spend every dime the minute you get it" which is what children are naturally inclined to do. Teaching kids to save money is the first step towards financial literacy.
It is a bad step as it is usually taught, though (that is, as and end goal itself rather than, for example, as a means to better investments). Any astute kid is going to look at the “compound interest” argument as laughable. It only works if there is sustained, substantial additional contributions over a lifetime. This is especially true for people in lower income brackets. Try convincing a kid with even modest arithmetic skills that saving $2 (or $20, or even $200) and letting it compound is “smart.”
> It only works if there is sustained, substantial additional contributions over a lifetime.
That's literally how I was taught about compound interest: saving money means making weekly/monthly/annual contributions. And that was a regular (non-honors) class in an inner-city middle school.
> Try convincing a kid with even modest arithmetic skills that saving $2 and letting it compound is “smart.”
No, that's idiotic. I think you're beating on a straw man.
And what, it's down, adjusted for inflation, 40% on a 1-year basis while the dollar is down 8.5%. Literally the worst inflation hedge. If you'd bought US Series I savings bonds you'd be dead flat in real dollar terms. That's an inflation hedge.
