The March family's financial situation was a constant and genuine difficulty throughout the novel.
They could not afford the clothes or the social activities that their wealthier acquaintances took for granted.
This created social pressures and personal frustrations that Alcott depicts with considerable honesty and sympathy.
But the novel consistently proposes that the March girls' character is their most valuable and most enviable possession.
Their neighbors who had money did not necessarily have kindness, or honesty, or the courage to pursue their real ambitions.
The wealthy characters in the novel are not villains but they are often shown to be less admirable than the poorer March sisters.
What the Marches have is something that cannot be purchased and that their circumstances have actually helped to develop in them.
Character matters more than wealth.

The class politics of Little Women are more nuanced than they are sometimes given credit for in contemporary discussions.
Alcott does not romanticize poverty or suggest that the March family's financial difficulties are secretly a blessing in disguise.
The difficulties are real and sometimes painful and the novel acknowledges this with considerable directness and specificity.
What Alcott argues instead is that character — the moral and intellectual qualities a person develops — is the proper measure of worth.
This argument is directed simultaneously at society, which measures worth by wealth and social position, and at her own characters.
When Amy is tempted by the glamour of European high society, the novel watches to see whether she will trade character for status.
When Meg is tempted by the comfortable life that a wealthy suitor could provide, the same test is applied to her.
The novel's consistent conclusion is that character, freely chosen and deliberately maintained, is the one form of wealth that lasts.
Character matters more than wealth.