Giving Your Child An Allowance - Does It Really Send The Right Message?

Author's Note: Before I discuss my views on allowances let me go bar my front door, pull my shades, and shut off all my lights. I need to hide from those who will want to tar and feather me.

Ok - here goes:
I don't believe in allowances, and I don't believe kids need allowances in order to learn the value of money or importance of managing it wisely. In fact, particularly today, I believe that too much money when kids aren't old enough (or willing) to work for it can create problems that would not otherwise have arisen.

Does An Allowance Really Send the Right Message?

When my kids were young I dealt with the money issue the same way my own parents did: Parents covered all necessary expenses, school events and needs, special occasion needs (like birthday gifts for parties) and a limited amount of entertainment expenses (the occasional movie or tickets for a trip to an amusement park, baseball game, etc.). The entertainment expenses were kept limited, and parents explained how only so much money could/should be spent on entertainment. Aunts and grandmothers often sent money at birthday times, and children could save. Sometimes grandmothers would hand a grandchild a couple of dollars just because they thought it was a nice thing to do. School promotion time brought cards with a few dollars in them. Kids were encouraged to save up their money to buy something worthwhile, and for some reason that's what usually happened.

Christmas and birthdays offered the chance for kids to have "one, big, gift" and a bunch of smaller ones. It was always made clear to kids that they should choose their "one, big, gift" wisely. During non-special times of year adults would buy the occasional small item for children just because it’s kind of nice to get a little toy or activity that's new and different, but kids understood there was a limit to the number of toys/activities bought in any one week and a limit on the amount spent.

Kids were told, "We'll cover the basics, but if you want to do something to earn a little extra spending money we'll help in any way we can." It was generally established that even before a kid gets to be of working age there are often little jobs s/he can do. At eleven I went to the store for neighbor-mothers with babies and was given fifty cents each time. There were also times when the young mothers would give me fifty cents for pushing their baby (in a carriage) back and forth near the house for a while, so they could get some work done. I was thirteen when I began babysitting.

Because I was a reliable and sensible babysitter more and more neighbors requested my services. It wasn't long before I had a monopoly in the neighborhood, and there was one, particularly special, family who moved but came back to pick me up so I could still sit. (I sat for them until I was 19, and their kids were big, even after I began working at 16.)

Newspaper routes were a way kids could earn money. My own eleven-year-old son earned the money to buy his first Nintendo system and was very proud of having done that.

In general, the way my family has always done things, children haven't felt particularly deprived because parents covered as many expenses as they did. Young children don't really need much more, and it isn't until a kid gets to be thirteen or so when the wish to have more spending money starts to get really strong. A kid that age can often find a way to earn some extra money, but if s/he cannot s/he will only have to wait a little while before being old enough to find a "real" part-time job. Thirteen to fifteen or so tend to be ages when kids are at high risk of getting into a little trouble, and I think the limitations of having little money can often keep a kid home at a time when too much out-and-around time isn't always good. Once kids were old enough to become employed it was understood that if they wanted extra spending money they needed to work for it. If they chose not to work they would need to live within parents' budgets when it came to spending money.

Our family had the general attitude that family members are supposed to help other family members at times - not because they'll be paid for services but because that's what families do. My belief (like my parents' was) has always been that it is the parents' responsibility to cover the expenses of childrearing, and providing for adequate social and entertainment activities is part of normal childrearing. "Adequate", however, is very different from "all the socializing and entertaining you want". In general, the idea always was that younger children's extra spending needs are fairly limited. Once teenagers get old enough to want to get a car, go out eating, and do things that require more money their "extra expenses" become a little higher and require a little pitching in on their part.

I've never believed I needed to hand my children money that was under the name of "allowance" just because they were my children. My kids had plenty of things and somehow had learned to be very careful with all those dollar bills and five-dollar bills they had been given at birthday time or upon accomplishment.

To me, it didn't seem like such a bad idea to let them know that dependence on others is for children and that a fixed weekly income comes when a person is willing and able to work for it. I wanted them to know if they needed anything they had me (and their father) to provide it, and when it came to things they wanted we'd provide as much as we could. My parenting was, to me, not a business arrangement. Somehow offering an allowance and getting into a whole, big, formal, arrangement as "allowance-payer" wasn't my idea of how things should be done. I wanted a less formal arrangement as provider, but it was also important to me that my children learn that when all is said and done people who want more money or stuff than they already have must work for it. To me, learning that there are limitations when one must be dependent on others helped children realize that part of being grown-up is working and earning a little more independence as a result of it.

At eleven years old I was proud that those young mothers trusted me to get exactly what they asked for from the store or to push their babies. I'd save up four of those quarters and use them to buy Barbie outfits, which at the time were usually about two dollars. All those neighborhood babysitting jobs (that earned me about $50 a week decades ago) made me feel as if people (other than my parents) saw me as a trustworthy, capable, individual. When I got a job as a supermarket cashier a couple of weeks after turning sixteen I was not only able to buy an ugly suede jacket for myself, but I learned how to overcome shyness and be friendly toward strangers, as well as overcome it enough to use the paging system. I made a lot of new, different, friends at the store as well. Most importantly, perhaps, I learned what it feels like to have a reputation as "one of the best and reliable cashiers".

Having one's "own money" is very different from being handed money by one's parents.
Parents can obviously teach their children about money in the way they sit fit, and I don't think allowances are the worst thing in the world. Its just that I don't think an allowance is always the best way to teach the value of money and good money management, and there's at least the chance the offering an allowance can blur the line between "providing for" and "own money". There may also be the chance that kids who are handed a fixed amount of cash each week could actually miss out on learning some of the ideas about money that most of us hope they will learn.

Ok. There, I've said it. If nobody with tar and feathers shows up by tomorrow I'll assume I'm safe.

Just Thoughts on Raising Children to Be Responsible

The best way to have children turn out to be responsible adults may be to be a very responsible adult, so they see what a responsible adult does.

So often I've heard parents talk about how they insist that their children do household chores "so they'll learn to be responsible". Sometimes these are even chores the parents have decided they, themselves, will no longer do because "the children need to learn". I'm not "anti-chores" when the matter is handled in a way that is reasonable; but sometimes parents require children to do the very chores they, the parents - whose responsibility those chores are - won't do them!

The parent who sits on the couch behind a newspaper every evening, rather than spending time with the children or even doing housework, is showing children that when people grow up they don't need to do what someone else wishes they would. The parent who sits and talks to another parent (or on the cell phone) at the park and gets so engrossed in conversation may not notice if her child needs something. I'm not saying parents shouldn't socialize, but we've all seen people not noticing the children because of being too busy in conversation with an adult. These same parents may try to teach their children that "there is a time and place for things".

When kids see their parents doing all kinds of things the kids wouldn't want to do (getting up to make breakfast for everyone else, paying bills, calling the plumber, fixing the roof, walking the dog in the middle of the night, etc.) they often not only start to see that this what being an adult is, but they also may admire their parents for doing all the things they do. (I think kids need to see that being adult can also mean having fun sometimes, but that's a topic for another day.)

When children have parents who act very responsibly, and when, as part of acting responsibly parents also talk to children all throughout their childhoods about why one thing or another is important, there's a good chance children grow up to be apples that didn't fall far from the tree.

There is one other factor that could play a role in which children grow up to be responsible adults; and that is when children have childhoods that are pretty carefree and secure, and parents who assure that their children's childhoods are safeguarded, the children often grow up not missing anything and more than ready to take on their own adult responsibilities when the time comes. It is at least possible that children who miss too much of what children need from childhood may grow up still wanting to hang onto to their childhood in some way and not too interested in anything they may view as a burden.

Children and Stealing

This is a subject I ran into in an online forum, so I thought I'd post my reply here:

It's one thing if it the friends are, say, teens who shoplift.  That's not something "all kids" (or at least a lot of kids) do.  With younger kids (especially kids around 5/6, I think, but maybe even with some a little older in some cases), it's a different thing.

Young kids can be raised to know what's right and wrong, and they can very much want to do what's right.  What they run into can be temptation that's more than they're emotionally ready to be able to resist.  They know "in their head" that stealing is wrong.  (That's why a lot of them are very clever at making sure nobody ever discovers that they've taken something.) It's not something that absolutely "every" kid does as a little kid, but it's something a whole lot of kids do (and even if for some, it's nothing more than a candy bar once or twice).  There's something awfully appealing about something like a candy-bar rack, and resisting that urge (especially if kids know their parent won't buy it) can be hard for - like - a five-year-old.  Their brains are developed enough for them to be able to think up "deceit" and a "plan" and a "cover-up", but emotionally they're not always able to resist the urge to take what they want.

When he was still with ABC News, John Stossel did a thing on what's called "frustration tolerance point", and it was found that the more kids did without something, the more likely it would be that they'd hit their frustration toleration point and be unable to resist temptation.

It's not just stuff like candy, though.  Little kids may see something that appeals to them, like shiny coins, other "shiny objects".  Kids who have plenty of the kind of thing that catches their eye aren't as likely to have that frustration tolerance point as kids who never really have the kind of thing they find appealing for reason or another.

It gets the best of them.  They take something here or there.  Some take more than one thing here or there.  They feel horrible about what they did (if they're normal, rather than if they're just "little sociopaths", which most little kids are not).  Eventually (and in generally not in all that many years at all), most outgrow even having the urge to steal at all and/or they at least become emotionally mature enough to be able to control the urge to steal if it happens they get such an urge.  Most just outgrown even seeing (if only for a moment) stealing as an option, no matter how much they want something.

Young children of the "best parents in the world" have been known to "lift" something at one time or another, or even over a period of time when they were in that "around five" (or so) age range.

Here's the take of The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry on the matter:
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_who_steal

Childhood Obesity

Does Letting Kids Grow Up Too Fast Play A Role In Today's Rate Of Childhood Obesity?With all the talk about childhood obesity these days, it seems as if most people blame fast food for this problem, which results not only in obesity, but which can lead to Type II Diabetes, as well.

While fast food may frequently "be in the picture" when it comes to childhood obesity, I can't help but wonder if there's a chicken-egg aspect to it; and if the real problem is what makes kids want/need more of this food than they otherwise may (or than a lot of other kids do).

My own children, now grown, were always very slender kids; and I'd bring them to fast-food places a few times a week, when we'd be on the way to pick up their father and when I'd know they'd be too hungry to wait until we got home. All three children (two boys and one girl) ate a modest meal when they were grade-school age. They'd get juice or milk, so they didn't have the soda. Before they were grade-school age each child barely ate what was in, say, a Happy Meal. They'd eat a part of the sandwich, about three French fries, and maybe a couple of the cookies (which was what came in those meals at the time).

So, what I wonder is this: What makes some children "chow down" on fast food when, really, the over-eating isn't something normally "built into" a child's nature (even when he's at a fast-food place).

It is now known that stress can cause fierce food cravings because under stress the body craves high-energy foods (foods high in carbohydrates and fat). I can't help but wonder if many children today live under stress because they're allowed to, and even encouraged to, grow up too soon. One point about stress cravings is that the person so stressed out as to need high-energy foods will not feel well, may have trouble concentrating, and may even have difficulty doing much of anything unless/until he eats the kind of food his body craves.

For the person experiencing that physiological call to eat carbohydrates and/or fat, not only will he not feel satisfied until he has eaten what his body craves, but the person under stress may feel nauseous eating something like salad because changes in stomach acid can mean eating something blander (like bread) eliminates any mild sense of nausea or other discomfort that the stressed-and-empty stomach can cause.

Many people may think about how many girls show physical signs of growing up earlier than girls in the past did, and believe that this is just one more indication that kids "just grow up faster today". The truth is that a link has been made to stress and early onset of menstruation; so even if it appears that kids are "just growing up faster", what's behind that particular piece of "evidence" is stress.

People who understand child development know that children's brains and bodies generally develop according to a basic time-table; and regardless of what time we live in, or what society we live in, toddlers still get teeth during a certain age range, learn to walk during a certain age rage, etc. etc. The same applies to all areas and stages of child development.

It just makes sense to me that, in view of the fact that the stages of development people knew about in the era of Dr. Spock are the same for children today; so one has to ask what impact it would have on a child who is not emotionally ready to be treated like an adult, or to be expected by the world to act more grown-up than his years.

In other words, just because a four-year-old may be capable of playing his older brother's video games; or just because a lot of a thirteen-year-old's classmates may be involved in sexual relationships; should they be? Society today dumps a whole lot of grown-up stuff onto young kids; and if you're that thirteen-year-old in a sexual relationship it's got to be more than you're ready for. At the same time, the kid who isn't doing what he thinks "everybody else is doing" may have the stress of feeling like he's not like his peers.

The four-year-old who is at a stage in development when much of the focus is on expanding the at-home world to include more of the outside world (like preschool), and learning about playing with peers, has to be missing something his brain needs if he's spending a lot of time doing things that aren't appropriate for his age. Similarly, if he's playing games with older siblings he's most likely up against someone who has the advantage of age over him.

With regard to girls who mature earlier than is considered, "average", one type of stress blamed for early maturity is a stressful home environment. It cannot possibly be good for a girl who has matured early but who lives under stress at home, and who isn't ready to "act like a grown-up", to be viewed (and treated) by peers (including young-teen boys) as "being all grown-up".

Another problem may be that adults so often underestimate the intelligence of children; and living life always being underestimated is, by itself, stressful and frustrating.

The point is, I suspect that one major cause of childhood obesity is that society too often grossly underestimates the intelligence of children while, at the same time, it too often overestimates the emotional maturity of children.

If one considers these potential sources of stress, and then factors in other sources of additional stress (such as a stressful home life, peer pressure, academic demands/challenges, and even the general insecurities of childhood/adolescence), it's not hard to realize how much stress today's children can live under. More significantly, it's not hard to imagine how today's kids may be so stressed out they crave the high-fat/high-carb meals and snacks that can make them feel less tired or frazzled.

What could be making this confounding issue as challenging as it appears to be is that the adults "in charge of" solving the (parents, teachers, anyone concerned with childhood obesity) don't think to ask themselves if THEY are responsible. Rather, they take the easy route of pointing a finger at fast food (or at parents of overweight kids they believe "must not know about healthy eating").

I really think it's time adults in society stop looking at kids who appear to "just be growing up faster these days", and stop passively accepting what "how it seems kids are".

It's the responsibility of adults to define what childhood is supposed to be - not allowing what children "seem to be" to define it. It's also the responsibility of adults to make sure children have a childhood while they're still too emotionally immature to be able to deal with more grown-up things (even if "more grown-up" is only a ten-year-old doing things he shouldn't be doing until he's thirteen).

It's only my guess, but I think if people want to solve the problem of childhood obesity (and the Type II Diabetes no child should ever develop) they need to stop blaming fast food, and stop assuming that all parents of overweight kids don't know anything about healthy eating.

Children in recent years have increasingly been put on the fast track to growing up far earlier than the developing human being ever should be. To make it worse, it's now known that if a child doesn't receive the right kind of nurturing in his first three years (when his brain synapses are forming) it can affect how well his immune system and stress response system function for the rest of his life. If it's true that more of today's babies and toddlers are being pushed to develop/do things for which they aren't quite developmentally ready, that could potentially mean that they'll have an even more challenging time dealing with a stress response system that, perhaps, goes into action under circumstances that would otherwise not cause a stress response.

I know I could be wrong, but I tend to think people today seem to be looking for solutions to the childhood obesity issue in the wrong places. I don't think educating parents and children about the value and goodness of vegetables and fresh fruits nearly addresses what may potentially be the real root of the rise in childhood obesity; because while I know there there are, of course, some parents or children who are ignorant about healthy eating, I don't believe that the majority are that ignorant.

Technology In Schools Today

There is no doubt that greater technology in elementary schools offers children some educational advantages, as well as the chance to have technology as much a part of their world as it is of the larger world. Whether or not greater technology is beneficial to the actual process of learning may be a separate consideration.

There's the external process involved with learning (someone shares information about something with someone else), and the internal process of learning (the activities of the brain and any formation of brain connections).

I think the basic, external, learning process is the same as always. Someone gives information to the child. I think technology has offered ways of reinforcing, building on, or supplementing that basic learning; but, in general, I think the foundation of basic learning remains the same. So, in this way, greater technology is beneficial.

On the other hand, I can't help but believe that there are probably different things going on in the brain as a result of technology's role in learning because it is clear that someone who began learning long after technology was in full swing does things differently. Whether this is good or not is not clear.

Consider math, for example. I learned the basics before computers were available to everyone. Calculators existed but would never be allowed in school. Today, if I'm in a work setting, doing some kind of math calculations, I'll do the work the way it is done in business these days, using technology.

If I'm working on personal finances, though, I do something kind of bizarre: I'll use the computer to do the math. I'll check it once by re-doing it. Then I'll check the computer's work by using a personal calculator, and check the calculator's work by doing it a second time. At this point, you'd think I'd be pretty comfortable, but I'm not.

I will then proceed to check the double-checked work of both the computer and the calculator by doing the math myself (complete with paper and pencil). I should at least skip the double-checking of the computer and calculator, but no matter how often I do this I keep thinking that double-checking will be enough. Its as if I discover each time that I cannot reach a level of confidence in the results until I check one more time. In my head I trust the computer the first or second time, depending on room for human error. Every time I have a big calculating job to do I think the computer will suffice. Every time I keep discovering I can't feel confident in it or the calculator. Its only after I do my own calculations that I can have "mental peace".

If I'm in work setting I do it "the work way". I figure if the machines make an error it isn't my doing because in the work setting today people choose to "take the risk".

A young person raised since computers have been in homes and schools doesn't have this "issue". They take for granted the computer does a better job than a human, and they trust it. I'm comfortable with technology. In my head I certainly trust that it is more likely to do it's math correctly than I, a human, will. Still, I'm not able to overcome that feeling I learned from the time I first learned to do math - that feeling of seeing the process, knowing I have included the correct numbers, being the one to do the calculating, and seeing that all the numbers add up.

I can only assume that my brain learned some need to be involved with the process of the calculation in order to reach that sense of confidence and "mental peace" with the results. I don't have OCD in any area of my life, and decades ago there would have been no technology to cause me to wonder if I have it when it comes to doing my own calculations. I can only assume that because my generation was taught with this ongoing, ever-present, do-it-yourself, approach and drill, drill, drill; that's how my brain learned to be most comfortable.

I'm not sure if the way children today learn is a good thing or a bad thing. Its certainly a current thing. Children today are less likely to develop the issue I have that makes me appear to have OCD when it comes to doing calculations. (I was "so-not" ever a math wiz, so it isn't that I've built my confidence in my math ability. I was nicely above average in math ability, but math was never my favorite subject.)

When it comes to the internal part of the learning process I think children today must have something different going on. Whether people like me have such solid "manual" skills they tend to have more confidence in themselves, or whether people like me have our brains hopelessly wired in an obsolete way, I don't know.

There is little doubt that greater technology offers a world of learning experience to students of all ages. There is no doubt that with each new era comes the need for new types of skills. There was a time when people needed to know how to make their own soap. My great-grandmother's generation needed to be skilled at using a washboard. My mother knew to how to sterilize cloth diapers, while - for good or ill - I never dealt with a dirty cloth diaper in my life. My generation came along at a time when so many life skills, once required for day-to-day living, were no longer necessary. Will today's elementary-school student even need the math skills I needed to learn?

There is another side to this, though. The math skills that are so ingrained in me are a part of my day-to-day living. When I do my grocery shopping I keep a pretty accurate running total of what I'm spending in my head. If I get a ad from a bank, advertising a new type of account or a new credit card I have a fairly complete picture of the costs involved just by seeing the rates and requirements outlined in the large print. Whether shopping for car insurance, a mortgage, or a dental plan, the math skills I've used all my life offer me that immediate overview of costs without doing much calculating. If I decide to keep track of the calories or fat I eat, convert a recipe, or manage my time, that lifetime of using my own math skill makes life easier. More significantly, there is the possibility that a "use it or lose it" principle applies to matters of cognitive skill. There is also the question of whether use of one's own math skill results in secondary neurological goings-on that are beneficial in ways not presently understood.

There is no doubt that greater technology is beneficial in a number of ways. The question is whether it is also a double-edged sword. I'm certainly not of the one-room schoolhouse era, but my elementary school education involved an old school, books, paper, pencils, a blackboard, and, of course, My Weekly Reader. It was not a luxurious education, but it was a solid one. There was no elaborate technology to create the impression of a great education even when the education was only mediocre. Some would say that the lack of that elaborate technology was what made the education I got, in fact, mediocre.

Greater technology is clearly beneficial in it's own way. Whether that way is the most crucial way, in terms of developing human potential, is something we cannot yet know.

The Myth That Kids Who Aren't Hit or Aren't Punished Don't Respect Parents and Won't Behave Well

The Myth That Kids Who Aren't Hit or Aren't Punished Don't Respect Parents and Won't Behave Well

How Long Should You Leave Your Baby to Cry

How Long Should You Leave Your Baby to Cry

Become a Better Parent

Become a Better Parent