The descriptions behind this worry does not echo strongly in me.
I grew up in a family without much money. I decided that the best solution to reduce expenses was to not ask for things. I didn't tell my parents about this because telling them might lead to them having more stress about money.
To give you some idea, everyone month or so we went out to dinner at a restaurant. That was so exciting for my sister and me. The restaurant? Burger King. Compare to the essay, where it says "we ate at McDonalds three times in two days" Jim Anthony's 6 year old is in a very different demographic than I was.
As an older kid, I might sometimes get a few quarters to play a video game (this was the 1980s), and I would spend 30 minutes watching others play, to make sure the quarter was worth it. I got my entertainment also by watching the screens and thinking about how it might be played.
I did get an allowance. It wasn't much. I didn't often ask for my allowance, since that would have been less money for the family. I recall I could get extra money for taking out the garbage or mowing the lawn. Perhaps not coincidentally, those are the two household tasks I now dread.
When I went off to college (full scholarship in a state school, including room and board, for doing well in school and on the PSAT - doing homework is free), I kept track of every single expense, down to a nickle used to make a photocopy. If any activity cost money, I avoided doing it.
I'm lead to believe that my viewpoint is not uncommon among those growing up without much money. It's not a fun feeling. My response still, when money is tight, is to shut down and do nothing.
Mind you, that's not the same as budgeting. Budgeting is spending for things that are worth it, and affordable. What I learned was to not spend.
Except for the parents mentioned in #11, I don't empathize with the comments.
Take #13. "It suggested an allowance of sorts, but it also required the children to cover the costs of some everyday necessary items, not just snacks, McDonalds or video games…more like clothes, shoes, haircuts, etc."
That wouldn't have worked for me. I didn't have the spending money for snacks, etc., and I would wear clothes and shoes until they had holes in them, and basically had to be ordered to get a haircut and new clothes. (See above, under "not spend money.") Actually, more like my mother had to drag me.
The essay starts with a strange observation about "blue collar", based on physical types. The entire essay can be seen as expressing a decades-old class-based upper-middle class anxiety.
Your experience mirrors mine to a large degree. I think most intelligent kids know their family's financial situation, and adjust accordingly. I didn't even ask for name brand clothing or toys because 1) I knew we couldn't afford them, and it would put stress on them, and 2) years of life in this environment made me not care about such frivolities. Kids aren't stupid, they learn proper spending behavior by what they see. I saw my parents buy bare necessities and working hard jobs. Naturally, I learned a hard work ethic and proper spending habits (barring a few years of excess in college when I started making actual money and felt it should be spent).
Right now we make good money (gotta love computing), and because of my habits the money fight is nonexistent in our family. If anything, I find myself constantly fighting to buy our kids less crap. I saw both kinds of kids growing up, and it's a really interesting thing to see how they are now as thirty-somethings. Many of the kids like me are in my boat now - even those who don't have education and professional jobs. Kids who got everything are now suffering in the current economy. It's a stark and obvious difference, at least where I'm originally from.
It's a nice life this way. I like getting a bunch of money for Christmas, and splurging on a tea mug and a set of digital calipers. Everything else is invested in the hope of early retirement. I hope my kids can see what I'm doing and do the same.
I think the key part of your comment is that kids learn by what they see their parents doing. All the tricks and schemes of trying to teach your kids the value of money will likely be useless if you, as a parent, don't have good money management skills yourself.
I think that holds pretty true for many things in life (i.e. the "teen pregnancy" gene), but definitely for money management. I also knew decently smart kids that didn't have a lot that now as adults go out and waste money at casinos and sports betting. They were a lot like us growing up, but their parents would spend anything extra on the lotto. So it definitely seems it has more to do with things we observe as children rather than actual income, education, and even learning from bad examples.
I had a completely different reaction (I related to this article very well. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-devel...). My family didn't just have a lack of money we also had regularity problems with it. Short cycles (6 months on and off) of being employed or unemployed and it causes me issues with relating to money to this day.
I learned that when you get money you spend it as quickly as you can on the nice-to-haves or mostly-nessicary stuff because money will literally disappear from under your fingers on paying bills and buying food.
My favorite holidays growing up were Christmas and Tax-refund day. That's how my family got our first, second and third computers.
When my dad was employed he used to give me a generous (for the 80's) allowance of $20/week, but it rarely lasted more than a couple weeks.
I'm only now getting my finances straight because I can afford to and I'm spending countless hours reading personal finance books and articles and I've had a friend that grew up learning the value of money and he showed me it's power.
Thanks for the pointer. It's quite insightful. For the record, I did not grow up in a poor family, though a couple of my relatives are like that Cracked article describes. I now perhaps have some understanding as to why.
Interesting. I grew up in an (upper-)middleclass household, but feel much the same. I always got enough allowance from my parents, we had nice holidays and nice christmas presents. I got through university and into my first job without ever having real money issues. However, I hate to spend money (and I hated to ask my parents for it - even though they would have had no problems giving it to me). I am the kind of guy how books the cheapest hotel in town, avoids a museum if the entrance fee seems unreasonable and drives the cheapest bike (per km) on the market, even though it is my main mean of transportation. Am I just a cheap person? Maybe. But I give reasonable amounts of money for charity every month, and I guess I am not cheap when buying presents. It's just this inner feeling that "cost efficiency" is the holy grail in life. Never ever will I order the expensive steak, no matter the class of the restaurant.
On the other hand, you hear all these stories of lower-class lottery winners, that are unable to keep a fortune at least for a decade or two - so I guess thats an aspect of personality deep-wired within us...
Wow thanks for sharing. My experience was somewhat similar. While my parents earned plenty of money they preferred to save it for things like college. They were very frugal and stressed out about money and I adopted an attitude of not asking for things. I also remember being actively discouraged by my mom when I spent my own money on ice cream at the pool because she thought it was frivolous.
I'm lead to believe that my viewpoint is not uncommon among those growing up without much money. It's not a fun feeling. My response still, when money is tight, is to shut down and do nothing.
Your writeup echoes my childhood really well and largely my approach to budgeting.
I will say though that I just remember it being a part of life and not something that was odd, or not nice. Even though we were poor my parents scraped and went into debt to send me to a private middle school filled with rich kids. So that was even more odd being the "poor kid" in the class and wanting to spend all my time at my friends' homes all the way across town.
I never had an allowance, but when I wanted to sell candy to my classmates my mom fronted me the 10 dollars for the initial outlay of candy. So in that regard my entrepreneurship started early as a result of just wanting to have some spending money as a kid.
Your experience resonates with me and I hadn't seen it into words until now. It's a fate that still drives me to work harder so my future kids wouldn't ever go through it.
I read that some investors have a word for it "PSD": grown up Poor, very Smart and Driven.
I agree that the article talks about more well-off families since kids whining is mostly a tactic to get what they want. If the tactic never works it wouldn't be employed.
Probably not a great idea to comment on the minor weight variations of 11 year old girls; their weight is significantly influenced by hormones. I read the whole article (my kids, both disturbingly skinny, are 12 and 14) but couldn't shake off the weird lack of empathy from that opening graf.
Teen and especially preteen girls tend to be really skinny until they put on their adult fat. I remember fitting into a size 0 at 12 and 14, same with my sister, we were both healthy.
Then I looked at my yearbook about last year and I notice something, many girls were very very skinny, just like I was at that age. Many seemed to have the same kind of body. They didn't have the more adult body I (and many others I'm sure) grew into. In an unrelated conversation I had with a friend, she was mentioning about how her body has changed since she was in high school.
The author says they were in the snack aisle and she was "begging for cookies". I read the reference to her weight as a clumsy way of implying that the girl's parents were giving in to her demands instead of teaching her what the snacks cost.
As a hook for the article I thought it was clumsy and unnecessary.
It's even more odd juxtaposed with the "a blue-collar type."
I think it's reasonable to say that this introduction suggests a middle class snobbishness towards the lower class. The worry is that by not teaching the kids correctly, the kids will end up in the lower class.
On the other side, it's also teaching people that they shouldn't want to be in the upper class, because then they would lose this important sense of money.
The hairiness of a hobbit's foot, his lack of shoes, the bright colors he wears and the pipe-weed he smokes are not very relevant to the War of the Ring. But mentioning it in the very beginning certainly helps to set the scene.
Don't be obtuse. What color was her hair? How tall was she? What was she wearing? None of that detail is present. This isn't scene-setting. It's a subtextual comment, and it's a clumsy and ignorant one. That's what bothered me about it: it's just bad writing. We get it, we get it: the author thinks lower-middle class families raise fat kids on junk food. Aha! There's one now!
He also mentioned that her father was "tall and muscular". What's the secret inner meaning of that?
A few small details are enough to generate immersion. The fact that you believe they were lower middle class in spite of the fact that he didn't mention it suggests you created a mental picture. I did too - in my mind the man was black, white t-shirt, a bit of grease on it. That's how the mind works, and writers exploit it.
A blue collar worker is lower class by definition. As phrased above, the "tall and muscular" bit is part of the writer's observation/stereotype that the man is a blue collar worker. "He was big and strong and (therefore) looked like someone who works in manual labour".
That article indicates, from a single study, that being overweight without MetS brings a slightly higher risk of heart disease compared to non-overweight persons without MetS. While interesting, this hardly qualifies as being overweight = bad for your health.
> Dismissing a study based on it being single is idiotic.
I am not dismissing this study. It is interesting and has merit as a study.
> The study was based on 71 ,527 individuals, it is statistically significant.
I am not disputing the study or its methodology, only that drawing a final conclusion about weight and heart health from a single study is generally a bad idea. Meta analysis of studies on being overweight and obese (EDIT: by BMI category) have shown different conclusions on the impact to health. This is covered under that linked news story paragraph titled 'Mixed Results from Previous Studies'.
> Let me guess, you're obese?
Not at all, I'm not even overweight. (EDIT: By BMI, I don't meet those categories. BMI is a horrible metric).
A difference of 10^-100% is statistically significant with a large enough sample size. The question of actual significance is how relevant is the measured difference. Statistical significance asks how likely it is that the difference actually exists.
"Leading by example" is one of the best, if not the best ways to teach something to your kids. Kids watch parents closely whether they are 3 years old or 13 years old, even the rebellious types. They know what you are up to as a dad/mom and will follow your lead. When it comes to money, if you are responsible yourself, odds are that your kids will probably be good with money. Having said that, there are definitely a few ways to teach them the value of money.
We were always taught to respect money. Think before you let go of it. Challenge (not haggle) spending on something. My dad always said "if you don't respect money, it will never respect you". It is also important to show your kids that money does not come free and it has to be earned just like respect.
Overall, my goal is to teach my kids these important math/formulae:
It does not matter what you make but what you save.
(Cashflow IN > CashFlow OUT) = "Financially happy".
While growing up, my dad took me and my two sisters on a family vacation. At the beginning of the trip he handed us each $100 and told us we were free to spend the money as desired, but first we had to treat the family to a single meal.
I went first with a pizza lunch. When the waiter asked what we all wanted to drink, those $2 pops suddenly had a very real impact on my bottom line. Water would be fine for everyone!
My youngest sister opted for bagels the next morning, but it took a bit of convincing to get her to spring for cream cheese!
The other sister, being the sweetheart she is, sprang for a real meal and didn't give us too much grief.
Now we all look back and laugh at the experience, but it certainly had a very real impact in the value we place on a dollar.
As the story goes: I and a friend were walking down the street. A robber came up and demanded all of our money. I pulled $80 out my wallet, looked over to my friend and said, "oh, here's the $40 I owe you" while passing it over. The robber became so mad over this grave injustice, and demanded that my friend loan me back the $40 plus the rest of my friend's money. The robber then stole the lump sum from me. I now owe my friend $150!
In any case, I think you're missing part of the equation. Value isn't a stand-alone concept. It isn't "the value we place on a dollar" but in how much each of you values family meal time. Your youngest sister, at that time, placed a low value on it, compared to other possibilities that she could do with the money.
Give your child a monthly allowance that is 8-12 times lower than the price of something it really wants. Watch as the child saves up to be able to buy it or fails. Raise the allowance slowly as they get older, but never so high that they can buy what they want comfortably.
Let children be children, don't force them to work summers and holidays to teach them a lesson, that will come in its own time. They will have to work the rest of their lives anyway. It's better to teach them how to save instead.
Anyone ever tried giving monthly allowance of something like (allowance + $500) and then charging your kids $500/month in rent? In some sense it's silly to give them money that they'll give right back, but on the other hand going from rent-free with the parents to suddenly having to manage rent, utilities, etc. is a big jump.
I received no allowance as a kid. I was also expected to do a set of chores each week to contribute to the family. These were things like cleaning my room, washing dishes, and taking out the trash.
Beyond these, however, I could perform additional chores in exchange for small amounts of money. My mom and I agreed on a price sheet. By doing a few of them I would have the equivalent of $10 a week or so. If there was, say, a computer game I wanted, I could do additional chores for a couple of weeks to earn the money for it. They encouraged this by helping me open a savings account early on.
Every now and then I approached my mom to renegotiate the prices (effectively to ask her for a raise). If I had been doing a good job, she would usually agree to small increases. Sometimes there were items that seemed too big for the return, and I would negotiate an increase by explaining this.
My first part-time job was at 15, but I helped where I could before that for odd money here and there. I paid for my first car with savings from that job, and I also paid my way through college (with some help from my parents for room and board).
I have never been afraid to negotiate on salary.
I feel like more than any of my friends growing up, and more than many adults I know, I understand the value of money, and I give a lot of this credit to my parents.
I really depends on the personality of the kid and their environment, too. I had a good friend whose parents paid him for chores. They paid pretty good rates (like $5 for cleaning his room or a bathroom or $10 for shoveling their driveway). When he was in elementary school he worked really hard and had lots of money. Combined with generous gifts from his parents and grandparents on special occasions, he always had the very best stuff. Then, in 8th grade or so, he realized that he had enough toys. He just stopped doing any chores. If he wanted something big, he'd just put it on his Christmas/birthday list. His parents didn't have a recourse since they'd set up a system that involved rewards for every household task.
Like I said above, it depends on the kid's personality and the family's economic situation, but I think that an allowance along with an expectation of age-appropriate daily and weekly chores works better than paying for individual chores or hours.
Well, I think I addressed that. I had chores I always had to do that paid nothing (cleaning my room was not negotiable, for instance). The money I earned from doing additional chores was not that much--a couple bucks plus or minus, depending on the difficulty.
My parents also didn't buy me much. I paid for many of my own toys after I was old enough to do chores. For example, I bought my own NES and every single game I owned for it. Each game represented perhaps a month or two of savings. Although I had fewer games than most kids I knew, I definitely valued them more. (Or tried to. I still distinctly remember the joy of buying the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles NES game and the subsequent crushing disappointment of actually playing it.)
Christmas wasn't a lavish present shower that it is for a lot of kids. My parents didn't have a lot of money, so I'd usually receive a few action figures, maybe a small vehicle for them, a book, and some socks.
Perhaps I'm just using you as a substitute for all those kids that told me, "I don't get an allowance, I have to work for my money," and then finding out that their dads paid them $40/week to mow their lawns and clean their rooms.
I think this is about providing positive vs. negative incentives. My parents have never really given me any kind of regular allowance through my childhood, and very little irregular allowance (less than $50 a year) -- probably because they were poor when I was young. They got better during my teens, but that didn't improve my financial situation. They did require doing lots of house chores, though, and I would have been yelled at and punished if I didn't do them, with no reward for good behaviour.
When you was positively incentivized to do more work, I only grew up a barrier around me, and learned to totally ignore their rules, punishments, screams and their authority as a whole. Also, now I really detest the chores I was tasked with most often (vacuuming, surface cleaning, dish washing), while have no problem with ones I never had to do, like laundry or ironing.
Getting paid for household tasks suggests that the household tasks are not part of your obligation to the family itself -- that if the child didn't really want the money then they could just quit helping to mow the lawn or wash the dishes.
Getting an allowance suggests that the money is theirs to do with whatever they want. For instance, my son (11) gets an allowance but he almost never spends it. It suggests that the child's finances are (at least partly) separate from the family's. And it represents "free money" earned without working for it which may or may not be a message you want to send.
The article described putting the child in charge of a portion of the family budget. The implication is that the family operates as a commune (which most families do) and the income may be earned by the parents, but is to be spent on everyone (as needed) and puts the child in charge of a piece of that. It happens to be the part that the child cares about (McDonalds and video games) because that is age-appropriate. An older child might get a larger budget and also be responsible for paying the electric bill -- assuming that they can influence it by helping to turn off lights and minimize wasteful use of electricity.
Speaking as someone who lived happily for many years in an income-sharing commune (not all modern US communes are full-on income-sharing), this is a lovely way to explain the "control of a few budget lines" system.
My plans for my own daughter are for her to understand the total family budget (and retirement plan), perhaps giving her control of a few line items would be a good entrée into the overall much more complex budget.
I personally use the same system as another HNer mentioned; kids have to do a basic set of chores regardless of money because they are part of the family and they have to contribute to it and then they get some money for extra work.
I remember as a child the first time understanding the gravitas of significant amounts of money. My parents had helped me save up with chores, birthday money, etc. to the point where I could now afford the thing I always wanted: a Nintendo 64.
I remember going to Toys R Us to buy it and when I got there, for the first time in my life, I wasn't so sure about spending the money. There was so much effort tied to it that, even as a child, it struck me that I was trading all of this time and effort for this one product. My mom made me count out each $20 bill, teaching me that money was not some nebulous idea (looking at you credit cards). Every $20 bill I counted made me think more about what I was doing.
I eventually bought it, but because all of the time spent saving up for it, I took good care of it and found it to be the most beloved console I ever owned. I feel that this experience definitely helped me understand the value of money relative to my efforts.
Oh, and my mother bought me Starfox 64 specifically to nail the point home. If you are reading this, mom, I love you.
Teaching kids about personal finance is important, but making your kids pay for large expenses isn't a good thing. I've seen so many kids start out life having to pay for their own car, insurance, and college. Most of them drop out of school before graduating (no degree and student loans). There's nothing wrong with helping your children get started in life by paying for the things that will financially cripple them.
Well, if we're trading anecdotes, several kids I know whose parents paid for their car, paid for college, etc. did not value these contributions and drove recklessly and wrecked their car, did poorly in school and dropped out, etc.
Not being able to pay when faced with a large expense is one thing; most parents would help out if their child was in that situation.
Not valuing the expense is definitely another, and it's a difficult lesson to learn later in life.
I might be weird but really I do not understand giving your child money. I never got money as a child, ever. I just got things on birthdays and Christmas, that was it. We went without a LOT mostly because we didn't have a lot of money. This taught me to really value the things I do have, and not to expect anything. I also never got into the consumer culture.
The most common reason I have heard is that there are psychological benefits from a child having a sense of responsibility and ownership of the money, as well as learning the value of the money.
There is also the fact that, in some cases, a child better knows how to spend money to make himself happy then his/her parent. Obviously this is not true for every type of expenditure, but if you are going to spend $X to buy your child luxieries like new toys, it seems reasonable that your child would be better informed in how to spend part that money. Or, you can decide what you think (s)he wants, and buy it for him/her on arbitrary dates such as Christmas or birthdays.
Did you never get cash for birthdays or Christmas? I had a sizable number of friends growing up who claimed to "get no allowance", but they spent a shocking amount on frivolities. Turns out their annual gifts-received line item was significantly more than the pittance I received for allowance, annualized.
Not saying that was your situation, just remembering my annoyance at my friends dishonesty/innumeracy.
>Did you never get cash for birthdays or Christmas?
Nope, never. I never had cash, ever. Not ever a dollar until I started worked at 16. Actually, that's not true, a couple times I went on a field trip to a big city and I got $20 to spend there. My grandparents gave me savings bonds once in a while on birthdays which I still have, but I never cashed them in. The rest of my relatives were much poorer than us. A couple had their power shut off. They certainly weren't giving me money.
Even if I did have money, I don't know how I would have the ability to ever spend it. My parents hardly even went out shopping unless they were going out for something specific they needed. When kids have cash do they just get taken to the store once in a while to browse or something? Do people just go to the store aimlessly to look for things to buy? Do kids so "I want X" and get taken to the store?
Why shield them from the hardships of life? Put them to work early, like during summers or on the weekends. It's like most things in life, you can tell them "it's hard to [earn/do/learn] X," but the actual exposure to X develops a different level of appreciation.
Earning money is one thing. But teaching someone how to budget has drastically better chances of using their money more effectively.
Besides, once they get old enough to work (maybe throw in chores) they'll already have plans on what they want to do with the money that goes beyond drinking, games and consumer goods.
The key is to require the kids to make purchasing decisions.
Our kids (ages 12, 11, 9 & 8) are required to purchase all of their own school supplies, clothes, activities, etc. They earn the money from us and can earn a lot, but they have to complete their chores without us asking and turn in their peg slips (like a time sheet).
They then have to decide, do they want the $80 jeans or the $20 jeans? If they buy the $20 jeans then they can make more trips to the skatepark.
>> They then have to decide, do they want the $80 jeans or the $20 jeans? If they buy the $20 jeans then they can make more trips to the skatepark.
What seems important is the willingness to let your kids make mistakes. When I was a kid, my parents had a set budget for each of us for clothes. My sister was super interested in clothes from an early age so they just gave up and handed her the money. She'd shop sales and make extra money to get everything she wanted. On the other hand, my parents basically dictated the clothing I would buy. (Every fall I got three pairs of Levi's jeans, four new shirts, two pairs of dress pants, two dress shirts, one pair of shoes.)
I never got the chance to buy one pair of $100 jeans instead of three pairs of $35 jeans and then have to figure out how to get through the week with one pair of jeans that fit. I learned to handle money in other ways, but I think my parents missed an teachable moment.
Requiring them to purchase school supplies seems counterproductive, unless they really value them. If my brothers were given a choice, they'd buy the shoddiest possible equipment to save money for fun stuff, and if you were to force them to buy better things, you haven't really gave them the purchasing decision, just faked it.
That seems like a great way to learn that you get what you pay for. Letting kids make mistakes (especially relatively minor ones like that) is always good.
The problem is that kids often under-value their education. As such, they would allocate less of their money to school supplies then they should. They may not realize this mistake until they realize the value of education, by which point it may be to late.
Do you think an expensive pencil performs better than a cheap pencil? What about folders, glue, notebooks, graph paper, etc?
When we get into electronics, the school list specifies which graphing calculator to buy. Will my kids find a used one on ebay? Probably. Will a used one perform worse?
It is an interesting concern, but we haven't had a situation where their frugality has gotten in the way of their education. One of my kids likes fancy mechanical pencils, another one uses wooden pencils until they are nubs. It's their choice :)
Pencils, folders, and such, not that much (though the cheapest paper is usually to thin to withstand the treatment), but I've seen math compasses literally fall apart after a month or two of use, dented rulers, pens which would spill to clothes, etc.
It's not that you need to buy expensive stuff, but the cheapest of the cheapest is usually only good for occasional use, not daily school work.
Absolutely agreed. I've had a job since I was 15, yet I spent all my money (and then some) well into my 20s. It was disposable money and I didn't appreciate budgeting (though I understood the concept well).
I was speaking more to the 10/11 year old, but I don't think 6 is too young to get a little lemonade stand going. It reminds me of a kid (about 8 years old) that was selling lemonade on a really dead street shouting "get your lemonade." The first thing that came to mind is that this kid will appreciate how hard it is to make a sale before he's a teenager.
My guess is that most kids would rather play than sell lemonade, so he was probably pushed by his parents to do this.
> so he was probably pushed by his parents to do this.
Or maybe he was just entrepreneurially minded.
When I was 6-10 I sold lemonade probably once every week or two during the summer. I liked to make money, and it was fun especially with friends; my parents never pushed me to do it.
Age 9/10, in the winter before it snowed I used my saved money to buy a new snow shovel and for card stock which I used to make business cards. I walked around and gave them to neighbors, when it snowed I would usually get a couple calls and then would pick up a few more walking around.
> It's like most things in life, you can tell them "it's hard to [earn/do/learn] X," but the actual exposure to X develops a different level of appreciation.
How about just making/letting kids work, and not make such a big deal out of how hard it might be? (work in general; some people think that 'kids should be kids', but I'm not so sure that is optimum. Maybe it would be great if no adult had to work, either, but that is impractical.) No wonder how many people have such a hate-relationship to work when we try to shield children from work\* all the while complaining about work ourselves.
People say that you should do work that you like, work that gives you a purpose etc. But who can blame them for having a hard time with that when all they've heard growing up is how miserable work (in the general sense) is?
I don't know psychology, so this is just a theory I have.
I agree. You don't have to mention how hard it is, but through the exposure they will naturally realize that it isn't easy and will give rise to a sense of hard earned money.
I'd rather teach how to earn money in an enjoyable way. "This is work, it's unpleasant but it earns you money and keeps you alive and we all do it because we have to" is not really the message I want to convey.
And when they're 24 and still at home because "working at the local gas station just isn't what fulfills [their] passion", you might wish differently. An easy environment rarely creates something worthwhile. Steel, and all that.
Well sure sometimes work is necessary. But too many people never question it. That is what I worry about. Working at the gas station will only get you through the day, it will never set you free.
I think there will be enough opportunities for the kid to learn about having to work (like household chores, school homework).
And actually even setting up for enjoyable work will probably have some less enjoyable aspects.
Agreed. I got really caught up in the "be your own boss" mentality and career path until I realized that I hated the business side of things, didn't like collecting money from people, and would rather spend time increasing technical abilities rather than learning business stuff. In the end, the corporate route (despite its obvious issues) made me happier. But, I also put in a lot of hours at lesser jobs along the way to get me to this point. No gas stations, but plenty of other jobs that are just a paycheck. Didn't make me happy, but they did pay the bills while I was getting a degree.
I simply pay my kids for the work they do, they store it in a bank, and then I let them spend it. When they get older they will need to put aside some money for saving, some for spending, and some for giving away (their choice on the breakdown but it needs to be something in each).
I wouldn't set it a fixed amount to the giving but I would hope to encourage it. I make giving a routine part of my life and I would encourage it in my children too.
Responsibly managing your money in my world means: spending it wisely, saving and investing it wisely, and giving it wisely.
I take a much more spiritual tact on the whole thing. I think giving is good for the giver first and then helpful to the people receiving it (particularly if they aren't just giving it away but investing it in something useful for others). That's been my experience and reflects Biblical teaching on the subject.
i dont think its a great way - teaching indirectly via worrying - but it has some value in that they know spending it has to be done with some thought because there is only a finite supply and we like a nice warm house.
i try to counteract the negativity of 'not spending by worrying' by occasionally making small purchases that are purly for enjoyment - a toy, a dinner out, a weekend at the beach.
Same way I was taught. You don't get shit unless you do something for it.
When I was a kid, my dad hired me to do jobs on the clock around the house for $10 an hour, or whatever minimum wage was at the time. We had a set schedule, we had a fake tax schedule. We wrote everything out, calculated it, pretended to invest it into things like real estate etc.
When I was younger I used the money I saved up, around $15,000, to buy the shack outside our house. My first "investment". Rules were it was completely mine and my parents couldn't touch it. Insulated, spacious, my own little lofty apartment type. It was great, during high school I basically turned it into a smoke shack.
I kept it until college, at which point my dad pulled out the original $15k I gave him for it and used it for my college fund and said "you now know how to value money". He wasn't a man of many words, so when he says something like that it really means a lot.
I was taught this from a super young age, I didn't even bother to beg or throw a fit about anything because I knew my dad would just stare at me until it was over, and if I didn't have the cash, I didn't get the cookies.
I grew up in a family without much money. I decided that the best solution to reduce expenses was to not ask for things. I didn't tell my parents about this because telling them might lead to them having more stress about money.
To give you some idea, everyone month or so we went out to dinner at a restaurant. That was so exciting for my sister and me. The restaurant? Burger King. Compare to the essay, where it says "we ate at McDonalds three times in two days" Jim Anthony's 6 year old is in a very different demographic than I was.
As an older kid, I might sometimes get a few quarters to play a video game (this was the 1980s), and I would spend 30 minutes watching others play, to make sure the quarter was worth it. I got my entertainment also by watching the screens and thinking about how it might be played.
I did get an allowance. It wasn't much. I didn't often ask for my allowance, since that would have been less money for the family. I recall I could get extra money for taking out the garbage or mowing the lawn. Perhaps not coincidentally, those are the two household tasks I now dread.
When I went off to college (full scholarship in a state school, including room and board, for doing well in school and on the PSAT - doing homework is free), I kept track of every single expense, down to a nickle used to make a photocopy. If any activity cost money, I avoided doing it.
I'm lead to believe that my viewpoint is not uncommon among those growing up without much money. It's not a fun feeling. My response still, when money is tight, is to shut down and do nothing.
Mind you, that's not the same as budgeting. Budgeting is spending for things that are worth it, and affordable. What I learned was to not spend.
Except for the parents mentioned in #11, I don't empathize with the comments.
Take #13. "It suggested an allowance of sorts, but it also required the children to cover the costs of some everyday necessary items, not just snacks, McDonalds or video games…more like clothes, shoes, haircuts, etc."
That wouldn't have worked for me. I didn't have the spending money for snacks, etc., and I would wear clothes and shoes until they had holes in them, and basically had to be ordered to get a haircut and new clothes. (See above, under "not spend money.") Actually, more like my mother had to drag me.
The essay starts with a strange observation about "blue collar", based on physical types. The entire essay can be seen as expressing a decades-old class-based upper-middle class anxiety.