I wonder to what extent this sort of pattern is prevalent in contemporary Western class systems.

I believe having a lot of money is useful in many ways; far beyond merely being able to buy a larger car or spending your holidays in a more exotic location.

Imagine that your would be born in a family rich enough that your parents could and would simply give you as much money as you make at your job today. And there would be no worry that you will run out of resources in a year, or even in twenty years. Essentially, you could have a private "basic income" in a country where other people don't... and they would all have to compete with you. How large advantage would it be?

Instead of having to spend 8 hours every day at work, most likely spending your mental energy on fulfilling someone else's dreams, you could spend all this time and energy on your own dreams. You could freely do your own project at your own pace; and if the project fails, no problem, you can learn from your mistakes and start another project; and again, and again, as many times as necessary. No worry about paying your bills. If you want to learn something, you have as much time as you need to learn it; nothing will interrupt you. If you want to travel to conferences and meet people, you are free to go for as long as you need. You don't have to carefully count your remaining vacation days.

Even if you would decide that having a job is the best way to learn and practice your skills, unlike the less rich people you would be completely free to optimize for this goal. Your could choose your job regardless of the salary. If you would find out that the job is not exactly what you have imagined, or if your boss later told you to do something that you don't wish to learn and practice, or if you would simply feel that you have already learned enough and want to try something new, you would be free to leave without any worry that maybe you won't find an equally paying job soon enough. (Read more here: "Yes, rich kids already won the career game. Here’s why.".)

If you were in such situation, the largest risk to your career would probably be the temptation to spend all your days just doing sex and drugs. But if you could maintain a balance; if you would have creative and intellectual goals and some willpower, you could probably have more sex, more drugs, and yet a better career than Pete the Salary-Peon. From his point of view, you would be better educated, better groomed, more relaxed, more popular, more assertive, and you could accomplish incredibly more in your free time.

And I am really simplifying it here, because class isn't merely about money. It is also about power, contacts, and learning from your parents the skills to maintain the power and contacts. For example, if you would decide to write a novel, your advantage would not only be having all the time necessary to write, and having an opportunity to attend all writing seminars you believe could benefit you, but as soon as you would write your first semi-decent novel, you would immediately get your book published and positively reviewed in media by people who owe your or your parents a favor. Your chances would be hundred times higher than the chances of an equally gifted middle-class writer. And please note that I am assuming here that you would also have some talent and do a lot of work, not just that your parents would buy you a fake fame (although even that would be an option if you would choose so), but you could simply follow your dreams directly, all the time, without any artificial obstacles, without fear; while your competitors would have to carefully choose their trade-offs, and spend most of their energy somewhere else.

I think being rich usually kills motivation because very few people have positive dreams, people are usually motivated by necessity. Take necessity away and you got yet another lazy upper-class cokehead "party animal", with few exceptions. There is a very fine line of middle-classery to walk, to be rich enough to throw resources at your goals, but poor enough i.e. "staying hungry" enough to actually have goals.

For one, this is a very complex claim, that I think is in some ways contrary to the evidence (mental and physical health correlate positively with socioeconomic class). But besides that, just on a sort of ideological ground, I have to disagree with it. People often claim that things like war and death are necessary. Let it be known that neither is scarcity a necessary evil. But that doesn't mean that we can't experience challenges, continuously improve ourselves, and live by our own strength.

What you say about the soft skills are true for class but not money. As they are not the same thing. For example people who have class but not money are librarians or schoolteachers. Growing up as a child of librarians or schoolteachers would mean limited means but having all the right soft-skills. I think I may be using "class" a bit unusually here, largely I mean "a culture of intellectualism" because working-class culture does not have much of that. People who buy their kids books for Xmas. People who are used to their kids demanding books for Xmas. Basically I mean a "body person" vs. "head person" dichotomy here, as virtually all working-class people tend to be body people, sex, food, fighting, sports, and while many rich people are body people too, there are more head people and thus it gets associated with class - but not necessarily with money.

I would agree with this but use different words, note the risk of generalizing from a small amount of anecdotal evidence, and rip out all of the causal implications because I don't actually know what is doing what there.

Basically my point is, having soft skills from class / intellectualism but retaining the motivation of low money seems to be an ideal combination, which I would roughly define as librarian parents or philosophy professor parents.

Once again, I disagree with this final conclusion on ideological grounds. Scarcity is not necessary.