Posted by Balvenieman on January 17, 2010, 2:54 pm
>So they just run to their parents every time they want something.
But that has been the case since before human beings existed.
That's what cubs _do_; the behavior is universal, ubiquitous and
irrelevant. However, if the anecdotal evidence of the "perfect
generations" (i.e. those born before WWII) is to be believed the
practice has accelerated markedly among human beings and with increasing
success among those of us born during or since WWII but, I remind you,
those are just stories that old people tell.
>That gives them an unlimited supply of stuff, they don't have to worry
>about it they don't have to be concerned about whether to buy this or
>that, or to wait while they save for something.
Nah. You're assuming that parents abrogate their obligation to be
the exclusive arbiters -- with diminishing influence over time, of
course -- of their _dependent_ childrens' "wants" and "needs" and the
primary determinants of which, if any, of those get met.* No doubt some
do but our culture already has determined killing them and their progeny
to be inappropriate regardless that doing so is the only meaningful
remedy that will result in a "better" society. That determination is
based on pure sentimentality, IMO, but I guess that's just me....;-o
>The alternative to an allowance usually isn't "getting paid for work" but
>just getting things as demanded.
Well, I'm as pessimistic as the next old fart but must confess that
I don't have access to a large-enough sample of parents and their
children -- with or without allowances in place -- to have a clue what's
"usual". Hell, back when DW&I were unendingly being Little Leagued,
baseball camped, swimming teamed, ballet classed and drama clubbed (by
the same kid) I don't think either of us knew or gave a rip about
"usually". Based on the evidence, we dragged up a kid with the same
mindset; surely, we were not the only ones....
*No, the existence of a need does not require or even imply that
NBbbb7653+*9 (Mr. Kitty typed that part but he knew what I meant) it
"must" be met.
--
the Balvenieman
Running on single malt in U.S.A.
USDA zone 9b
Posted by Coffee's For Closers on January 17, 2010, 5:16 pm
balvenieman@invalid.net says...
>
>
> >Well no. One reason for having allowances (and no, I don't know when they
> >started happening, or when they became common) is that it teaches the
> >child about money.
> >snip<
> >It helps them to learn about money, and it gives them a
> >certain independence.
> Not hardly. Sounds nice but the delivery of free (unearned) money
> is no more effective in teaching youngsters "about money" than it has
> been for the entire dependant entitlement class that you're now helping
> support, if you have a job. What gives money its subjective relative
> value is whatever a person has to do to get it. IMO, step one of "to
> learn about money" is to _earn_ it. IME, pre-school ages is not too
> early to start.
The people with the entitlement attitudes aren't just the welfare
recipients.
There are plenty of employed people who belive that, they should
be paid simply to be physically present in the workplace. After
all, ten minutes of goofing off gets the same pay as ten minutes
of working, when on an hourly wage. They can cause problems for
other people who actually understand the connection between
productivity and revenue.
I have actually encountered people who got hostile towards me for
choosing commission-based jobs. The whole concept struck fear in
their hearts.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Posted by Coffee's For Closers on January 17, 2010, 5:16 pm
In article
et472@ncf.ca says...
> One reason for having allowances (and no, I don't know when they
> started happening, or when they became common) is that it teaches the
> child about money.
>
> They get some money they can spend, they choose what to spend it on, but
> have to live with the results. If they want something more expensive,
> then they have to deal with that, saving up (all of their weekly allowance
> if they want it fast, a percentage of their weekly allowance if they can
> live with getting the item slower). It can cause them to get their first
> bank account (and if you did that early enough, the concept of
> "interest"). It helps them to learn about money, and it gives them a
> certain independence.
>
> Otherwise, they are just asking the parents for this and that, and
> certainly aren't paying attention to what they are spending.
OTOH, I have encountered people who acted like they never heard
of saving up for something.
They absolutely assumed that, everyone spends every dollar before
their next paycheque. Some became hostile and condescending,
telling me that I was stupid for thinking it was possible to do
otherwise.
They also reacted negatively to the idea of a, "rainy day fund,"
and couldn't understand why someone would prepare and save for
something bad. If they had, say, a car breakdown, they would
have been on the phone to mommy and daddy for help.
Those were people who had grown up in the 1970s and 80s, often
with middle-class backgrounds. So, I would expect that most or
all of them had received an allowance as children.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Posted by Balvenieman on January 17, 2010, 10:06 am
>Does anyone know when no-strings allowances became common?
Although, I've seen some on teevee, I never have known an actual
living human being who had such an allowance. I came up in the '50's and
early '60's. AFAIK, if I or my peers had any money, we had earned it. My
wife and I brought her son up in '70's and '80's. AFAIK, if he or his
peers had any money, they had earned it.
--
the Balvenieman
Running on single malt in U.S.A.
USDA zone 9b
XML site map