This is very interesting. Although it's not completely similar, it made me think of federal mandates that the federal government implements on state governments. But instead of authority vs. the people, it's authority vs. the second rank of authority. Here's one example to consider: Medicaid. Federal governments pay for a partial amount of the health care program while states pay the rest. The federal government wants to expand Medicaid and the states want to continue getting federal aid. So the federal government gives the states 2 choices. 1)Expand the program and spend more money doing so, or 2) refuse to expand the program and stop receiving any federal aid at all.
This example is similar to the bribery and "policies" that Gans implemented on his daughter. Do this and get this. Don't do it, and you don't get anything.
This also shows the relationship between the national government and the states or, in the case of the Gans family, the parents and the children. Although it's not a written rule of who is the power-holder, it is clear who is.
What if this were my family? It basically is. My mother is a business woman so she become unnaturally excited when talking about things like budgets and interest rates. She did the same thing Gans did and gave my brothers and I a fixed allowance starting when we were in 1st grade. We obviously didn't get much then, but as we got older, the amount of allowance increased. The only difference is my mother did not place any restrictions on the money. It was ours to do whatever we pleased. Within the realm of reason. Instead, she had my grandparents set up a 401K plan for their three grandchildren. She still claims it was their idea, but I beg to differ. Because even a 1st grader realizes that if he puts $10 in the bank and then Grandma and Grandpa match it by putting another $10 in the bank, the the money is doubled without any extra effort. Of course as we got older she introduced us to Certificate of Deposits, checking accounts, saving accounts, and low-risk stocks. My mom's system worked because as opposed to creating incentives like the potty-training one Gans used that had loop holes, or imposing restrictions that could be avoided, she figured out exactly what it was that we wanted and gave us a solution that also fit what she wanted. It doesn't work in government quite like that much, what with all of the complex layers invovled. But it does provide a basic example of governments manipulating their citizens into doing something that ends up being beneficial to both sides. Well, at least in the optimist's world.
What if this was my family? I think this is really neat. Also, this method will definitely prepare Joshua's children for their futures, and help them to understand why they pay taxes and what government incentive really means. But it's interesting overall. It poses the question, what if all families practiced a similar kind of system with their children? Would we prepare a generation of more successful citizens? I can't help but think so. I wish the concept of debt, interest, government incentive, and taxes were taught to me at a younger age. Learning those things now, just as they are can sometimes seems daunting. But not every parent is an economist, and not every parent cares. I guess it's just another thing to remember for our own futures.
This is a GREAT way to get young kids to be financially conscious of what they are doing. I hope that one day when I have kids that I will be able to teach them lessons about their money just as easy! My parents did well in teaching me this lesson as I have had a steady job since I was 12 making plenty of money to sustain myself and savings. For the past two years I have held a second steady job at Best Buy where I have already started my 401K. Starting my 401k was my idea. I actually did it without asking my parents and now that I think about it, I chose to start investing in my future because of the financial lessons I was taught when I was much younger. This story is a great example for teaching children how to manage money, in addition to slowing down the candy consumption :)
The economist Steven Levitt once said that "morals are the way people ought to act; economics is how they actually do." Considering this quote in relation to the father's dilemma we see the supposedly "arbitrary" rules enlisted to enforce the allowances. Economically speaking the father ought not "subsidize" the daughters dress spending, but he does anyhow to insert his own preferences over dresses that he might see as too racy. Earlier in the podcast we heard the story of the daughter "feeding... [her brother] buckets of water" so that he would use the restroom and she could help earning them both rewards. Contrary to what the father expected, this situation still provided for a) family dynamics b) a developing understanding of basic econmic patterns for the kids and c) potty training, which was after all the chief goal. ironically, the father's supposedly controlled atmosphere was in fact undercut by "leakage" and other pillars of human incentive not so different from the greater world. The key to the NPR report was the narrator's use of the word "incentives" because it most fully circumspects the reciprocity principle of economics and therefore politics.
While this is a very good way of teaching kids the value of money, my parents tried it and it didn’t work out so well for them. As an only child and a daddy’s girl I would normally spend the money on lip gloss then be able to convince my dad I NEEDED the new dress and would never ask again. What made me realize the value of a dollar was when the money wasn’t given to me and I started babysitting and could calculate how many hours I would be working to pay for whatever crap I wanted. Also, I learned the value of hard work. The taxing idea is pretty good however. Good thing my parents didn’t think of that one.
Wow. This is probably the best post Mr. Fitz has put on online so far. The psychology of the situation is inriguing because it does provide some pros and cons in terms of how our government could work. For instance, 100% taxes can be used as deterrents to ward off foriegn goods in a time of recession so that the domestic economy would have time to recover. The cons of this reward/discipline system is that there are always going to be loopholes in the framework and the constiuents are going to find a way to work around the rules. If we apply this system to our government, an example of states evading the national government is the passing of Jim Crow laws to enforce segregation when the protection of civil liberties was still fresh in the Consitution. The family experiment is fascinating and our government has actually already incorporated someo of this thinking into its framework already.
Wow. This is probably the best post Mr. Fitz has put on online so far. The psychology of the situation is intriguing because it does provide some pros and cons in terms of how our government could work. For instance, 100% taxes (like the family used on candy) can be used as deterrents to ward off foreign goods in a time of recession so that the domestic economy would have time to recover. The cons of this reward/discipline system are that there are always going to be loopholes in the framework and the constituents are going to find a way to work around the rules. If we apply this system to our government, an example of states evading the national government is the passing of Jim Crow laws to enforce segregation when the protection of civil liberties was still fresh in the Constitution. The family experiment is fascinating and our government has actually already incorporated some of this thinking into its construction.
What if this is my family?? I mean I can see how this can prepare you for the real world but it doesn't seem appropriate for a family setting. The government does a lot of things that we don't like, so why repeat the behavior in a family setting? ...well this is why I have a job.
I wish this was my family and I'm glad it isn't my family.
I wish it was my family because not only would I receive allowance, but I would be able to learn how to control and spend my money wisely. Also, this would help me in the future as an adult by giving me the knowledge of how to govern my money in the business world.
Yet, I'm happy this isn't my family because my parents don't give me allowance for all of the things I do. But, I have no problem with it because it gives me the mind set of working without needing something in return.
I think the use of incentives is a bit of a slippery slope... sure, it's great for a while -- Gans finds his child especially willing to cooperate, and the government finds its subordinates especially willing to do as it pleases. But it's impossible to use incentives as merely a crutch that can be removed when the apparatus is more stable. The incentive inevitably becomes part of the system, and the recipient inevitably becomes dependent on the reward. What if Gans runs out of jelly beans? What if the government runs out of room in the budget? Incentives are better used as validation or encouragement of good behavior. For example, Gans could give his kid a couple jelly beans as a reward for her progress in potty training rather than busting out the Jelly Belly's every time she uses the toilet. The same goes for the government.
Before answering this question, I think I have explained how the value of my family differs from most of the families. Ever since I was a child, I was taught to be respectful and recognize the authority that my parents have over me. Therefore, I was expected to ask my mom what I needed so that she could get if for me, and when I turned 11, finally I was able to tell my parents why I need an allowance and received it weekly, but expected to tell them how I spent it. When I turned 16, I didn’t get weekly allowances, but worked, and didn’t have to tell my parents how I sent it. Now I think back, my mom taught me how to spend my money wisely and the value of it. I think teaching economics like that way might mislead the children by not able to teach them how to spend their money wisely. Also it might plant an idea that she could use the allowance for anything if she could pay the “tax” to her dad. First she might not buy the candy when the tax is the equal amount, but later in her life she would buy whatever desires her, and think that she can buy them because she pays taxes. I’m not saying it’s a bad way to teach the children, but I am glad that my mom taught me how to spend my money wisely and buy what I need, not what I want. Sometimes what I want to buy is just wasting money and makes me more materialistic.
This is my family. But better. My family never put restrictions on my spending or conditions that needed to be followed. It seems like I get the money for just being alive, which is awesome. A lot of kids I know get 50$ for every A they get in school, which is an incentive to work hard in school. I sort of see my allowance as incentive for working hard in everything that I do. Because I feel like getting an allowance for doing nothing at all is too good to be true and I feel a little guilty too. I don't know if my parents knew about the whole reverse psychology of this or if they just wanted to teach me about managing my own money. But either way I have learned to save my money wisely. Early on you realize the more you don't spend the more money in the bank! With every purchase you think to yourself "Would I rather have this item or save it for something else that's better?" I'm appreciative of my parents' trying to teach me to be fiscally responsible. I've had this sort of allowance for as long as I've grasped the concept of money, which was pretty early on because it seems to be a big part of all of our lives.
I feel like I need to tie this into politics more so that I can get points. I feel kind of like the states when they get block grants and they can decide what they want to do with the money. There are no conditions or strings attached. But I can also see why those aren't given out as often because it can easily be abused and taken for granted. Like if I realized that the money flow would never end and I went out and bought whatever my heart desired. There would be no money and we would be poor.
I think that even though I have this allowance and incentive that I don't always need it to do what's wanted of me. I still am able to do things without expecting anything in return. Having this incentive hasn't given me the avarice of a miser.
Kids are kids. In the end, no matter what system you lay down, they'll find a loophole. I think parents should just make the executive decision on whether or not to buy something for their kids and teach them the value of money in the process. If not, they should allow the kids to buy whatever they want, without this 100% tax nonsense. I can see how this system might work in the the long run but to be honest, i'm glad my childhood didn't consist of ridiculous taxes and incentives. It's important to learn from your own mistakes. If I ate too much candy (which I did), I definitely learned my lesson after those cavities and dentist visits. Plus, kids could create unrealistic expectations if their parents put incentives to everything. The value of hard work would be completely undermined.
If this was my family it would be awesome, yet not at the same time. It would be awesome because I would receive an allowance, which, in my family, got cut off right about my freshman year, and the idea of not having to work for my money seems like an amazing idea. But, on the flip side, receiving an allowance, whether it had incentives or punishments attatched to it, wouldn't really benefit me in the long run. By not having an allowance and having to earn my own money, I've learned to be more responsible with my money and I've learned that once you step foot in the real world, mommy and daddy aren't always there to hand you $20. I've had to learn that the hard way in my own family, if I happen to spend all of my money before my next paycheck and I go to ask my parents for a loan or something, many times they don't have extra money just lying around at my disposal, or if they do lend me a few bucks, they enforce the word lend strongly. It's like they know exactly when I get paid, because they're there waiting to be reimbursed as soon as I walk through the door. But in the long run, this is teaching me to be more money savvy and learn that I create my own rewards and punishments.
I think this can be a positive and negative reinforcement because the child is learning by being and responsible and doing what your asked of you is rewarding. also money management can teach you a thing or two for the future. but i also think this a negative the child also knows they can go to grandma and ask for candy and they'll get it for free without having to pay for it or earn it. but this can also be known as bribery in which isnt always good cause it can be instilled into the child a they grow up. i didnt have this system growing up and i know how to manage my money but i guess different things work different for everyone.
If this were my family, I wonder if I would be better in budgeting and being more healthy? It is a really neat idea. This seems to be a great idea to teach children about the government and how to budget their money in the future. If this were my family, I don't think I would last. I like the way my family is now. We are aware of money without having all the rules, however we don't have any young children in your family. Getting an allowance would be nice though. Overall, it is a very interesting idea and may help children, but on a personal level, I am glad that my household is not run that way. I like to be more accountable for myself than to have my parents try and be accountable for me.
If this were my family, the system would probably not last very long. My parents have often tried to implement plans to help my brother and me to become financially smart but they never quite worked out. My brother and I would probably find loopholes such asking other relatives or talk our way out of the situation or my parents would become too busy with other matters and eventually forget. This system of taxing to try to dissuade people from buying things that would be detrimental would probably not work too well in America. First of all, people would find loopholes to avoid being taxed, such as in the example given by the article about cigarettes and fireworks. Second, Americans are big on individualism and ideas such as independence and self-reliance and would argue that they don't need the government to figure out what's good or bad for them.
I believe Joshua's way is very effective when teaching children how to handle money. Not only does Gans teach his daughter a way to see the difference between fair and unfair deals, he is also challenging himself to think of better ways to acquire his wants.
Honestly, if this were my family, I would just give up and tell my parents to take the money and shut up. This is just way too frustrating for the kid. I mean, the poor girl understood how the systems worked but everytime she cracked her fathers traps to get what HE wants, he just manipulates the system again so HE will benefit from it, not the child.
If this was my family... I would love it and hate it. I would love it because then my parents would really be implementing in me the value of money and whats necessary in life and what isn't. However I would hate it because I wouldn't be able to buy whatever I wanted with that money. But overall, I think its a good way to teach kids about the value of money.
Wow, this is a really interesting article. Economics seems like a topic that could be hard to apply on a every-day basis, but apparently this professor can. I can see the merits of the implementation of economic incentives, such as getting a reward whenever chores are done, but it doesn't always work, as noted in the article. I personally think that using this in a household would eventually fail: living like that could be difficult. However, if the kids were in their teens, then using this system could teach them a lot, if they were willing to learn.
This a great concept, however I think it is a little too strict. He shouldn't be shoving down an economic lessons at these kids at such a young age in their lives. Let them enjoy their candy and silliness. But at the same time, I do wish my parents implemented some kind of "save your money" mentality on me. It would have helped with all the wasted money on fast food. I see what this man is trying to do and his ultimate goal is to provide his kids with knowledge and experience to make their way through a tough economy. He knows it will only get tougher as they get older, so he is doing what is best in his view point. My spending mentality right now is more "In the future its all going to bills and payments, might as well enjoy my money now" .
I actually wish that this was family and I bet a lot of people like those heading off to college wished the same thing. We would definitely be a lot more prepared especially financially. At any rate, my parents main focus is of the present times and not of the long term situations. Right now, I have no college fund saved up and they don't have any retirement plan. Although our family will always work hard through all the difficulties, it would've been a lot easier if we had been prepared a long time ago. Now thinking back, I wished in the past two years, I hadn't splurged so much of my paycheck and had saved partial of it for future neccessities. This picture just proves the importance of thinking further down the road and be prepared young.
I think this is a great way to get kids to do what you want and instill the value of money in them at an early age. Its also a great example of how our country works, its capitalism ... but with some regulation. Gans does have to step in on certain circumstances in order to prevent her daughter from exploiting loopholes in the system, but over all this appears to be a very effective approach at influencing the children into being safe consumers in our modern society.
This is also evidence for how our country operates off of federalism but with the national government being supreme due to its finances. The states can try to find ways to outsmart the national government but in the end the group with the most money gets the final word.
I don't agree with giving children incentives to earn their money/rewards. Just like B, they could easily take advantage of this system. However, this alternative method of allowances with taxes could really teach a child restraint and control with their money in the later future. This could definitely apply to a child as they grow up. My parents did something similar to this. I would get an allowance based off of how well I did my chores or how many I did for every week or so, and I could spend it on whatever I thought I needed or wanted. When I spent all of the money I had before the week ended, they would tell me "Too bad!" and I would wait until the next time I was paid again. This taught me how to conserve the money that I made and it helped me develop a good work ethic. My parents really taught me to work for everything that I get and to do my absolute best without expecting anything in return because the rewards that do come my way are appreciated a lot more that way. In terms of politics and economics, though, I think that the framework of our government uses some of these methods in society today. Because of this, discipling a child this way may just set them up for success in the future.
The effects of incentive driven behavior is a common psychological concept. The more rewards one achieves for doing something right, the more he or she will become encouraged to do this thing over and over again. In my family, no such strategy has been used. If it even was my family, it probably wouldn't even work since the money would begin going to different things just as B. This was the case with B and her candy. This is apparent with Americans, finding loopholes in order to not pay for certain items.
This is very interesting. Although it's not completely similar, it made me think of federal mandates that the federal government implements on state governments. But instead of authority vs. the people, it's authority vs. the second rank of authority. Here's one example to consider: Medicaid. Federal governments pay for a partial amount of the health care program while states pay the rest. The federal government wants to expand Medicaid and the states want to continue getting federal aid. So the federal government gives the states 2 choices. 1)Expand the program and spend more money doing so, or 2) refuse to expand the program and stop receiving any federal aid at all.
ReplyDeleteThis example is similar to the bribery and "policies" that Gans implemented on his daughter. Do this and get this. Don't do it, and you don't get anything.
This also shows the relationship between the national government and the states or, in the case of the Gans family, the parents and the children. Although it's not a written rule of who is the power-holder, it is clear who is.
What if this were my family? It basically is.
ReplyDeleteMy mother is a business woman so she become unnaturally excited when talking about things like budgets and interest rates. She did the same thing Gans did and gave my brothers and I a fixed allowance starting when we were in 1st grade. We obviously didn't get much then, but as we got older, the amount of allowance increased.
The only difference is my mother did not place any restrictions on the money. It was ours to do whatever we pleased. Within the realm of reason.
Instead, she had my grandparents set up a 401K plan for their three grandchildren. She still claims it was their idea, but I beg to differ. Because even a 1st grader realizes that if he puts $10 in the bank and then Grandma and Grandpa match it by putting another $10 in the bank, the the money is doubled without any extra effort.
Of course as we got older she introduced us to Certificate of Deposits, checking accounts, saving accounts, and low-risk stocks.
My mom's system worked because as opposed to creating incentives like the potty-training one Gans used that had loop holes, or imposing restrictions that could be avoided, she figured out exactly what it was that we wanted and gave us a solution that also fit what she wanted.
It doesn't work in government quite like that much, what with all of the complex layers invovled. But it does provide a basic example of governments manipulating their citizens into doing something that ends up being beneficial to both sides. Well, at least in the optimist's world.
What if this was my family?
ReplyDeleteI think this is really neat. Also, this method will definitely prepare Joshua's children for their futures, and help them to understand why they pay taxes and what government incentive really means. But it's interesting overall. It poses the question, what if all families practiced a similar kind of system with their children? Would we prepare a generation of more successful citizens? I can't help but think so. I wish the concept of debt, interest, government incentive, and taxes were taught to me at a younger age. Learning those things now, just as they are can sometimes seems daunting. But not every parent is an economist, and not every parent cares. I guess it's just another thing to remember for our own futures.
This is a GREAT way to get young kids to be financially conscious of what they are doing. I hope that one day when I have kids that I will be able to teach them lessons about their money just as easy! My parents did well in teaching me this lesson as I have had a steady job since I was 12 making plenty of money to sustain myself and savings. For the past two years I have held a second steady job at Best Buy where I have already started my 401K. Starting my 401k was my idea. I actually did it without asking my parents and now that I think about it, I chose to start investing in my future because of the financial lessons I was taught when I was much younger. This story is a great example for teaching children how to manage money, in addition to slowing down the candy consumption :)
ReplyDeleteThe economist Steven Levitt once said that "morals are the way people ought to act; economics is how they actually do." Considering this quote in relation to the father's dilemma we see the supposedly "arbitrary" rules enlisted to enforce the allowances. Economically speaking the father ought not "subsidize" the daughters dress spending, but he does anyhow to insert his own preferences over dresses that he might see as too racy. Earlier in the podcast we heard the story of the daughter "feeding... [her brother] buckets of water" so that he would use the restroom and she could help earning them both rewards. Contrary to what the father expected, this situation still provided for a) family dynamics b) a developing understanding of basic econmic patterns for the kids and c) potty training, which was after all the chief goal. ironically, the father's supposedly controlled atmosphere was in fact undercut by "leakage" and other pillars of human incentive not so different from the greater world.
ReplyDeleteThe key to the NPR report was the narrator's use of the word "incentives" because it most fully circumspects the reciprocity principle of economics and therefore politics.
While this is a very good way of teaching kids the value of money, my parents tried it and it didn’t work out so well for them. As an only child and a daddy’s girl I would normally spend the money on lip gloss then be able to convince my dad I NEEDED the new dress and would never ask again. What made me realize the value of a dollar was when the money wasn’t given to me and I started babysitting and could calculate how many hours I would be working to pay for whatever crap I wanted. Also, I learned the value of hard work. The taxing idea is pretty good however. Good thing my parents didn’t think of that one.
ReplyDeleteWow. This is probably the best post Mr. Fitz has put on online so far. The psychology of the situation is inriguing because it does provide some pros and cons in terms of how our government could work. For instance, 100% taxes can be used as deterrents to ward off foriegn goods in a time of recession so that the domestic economy would have time to recover. The cons of this reward/discipline system is that there are always going to be loopholes in the framework and the constiuents are going to find a way to work around the rules. If we apply this system to our government, an example of states evading the national government is the passing of Jim Crow laws to enforce segregation when the protection of civil liberties was still fresh in the Consitution. The family experiment is fascinating and our government has actually already incorporated someo of this thinking into its framework already.
ReplyDeleteWow. This is probably the best post Mr. Fitz has put on online so far. The psychology of the situation is intriguing because it does provide some pros and cons in terms of how our government could work. For instance, 100% taxes (like the family used on candy) can be used as deterrents to ward off foreign goods in a time of recession so that the domestic economy would have time to recover. The cons of this reward/discipline system are that there are always going to be loopholes in the framework and the constituents are going to find a way to work around the rules. If we apply this system to our government, an example of states evading the national government is the passing of Jim Crow laws to enforce segregation when the protection of civil liberties was still fresh in the Constitution. The family experiment is fascinating and our government has actually already incorporated some of this thinking into its construction.
ReplyDeleteWhat if this is my family??
ReplyDeleteI mean I can see how this can prepare you for the real world but it doesn't seem appropriate for a family setting. The government does a lot of things that we don't like, so why repeat the behavior in a family setting?
...well this is why I have a job.
I wish this was my family and I'm glad it isn't my family.
ReplyDeleteI wish it was my family because not only would I receive allowance, but I would be able to learn how to control and spend my money wisely. Also, this would help me in the future as an adult by giving me the knowledge of how to govern my money in the business world.
Yet, I'm happy this isn't my family because my parents don't give me allowance for all of the things I do. But, I have no problem with it because it gives me the mind set of working without needing something in return.
I think the use of incentives is a bit of a slippery slope... sure, it's great for a while -- Gans finds his child especially willing to cooperate, and the government finds its subordinates especially willing to do as it pleases. But it's impossible to use incentives as merely a crutch that can be removed when the apparatus is more stable. The incentive inevitably becomes part of the system, and the recipient inevitably becomes dependent on the reward. What if Gans runs out of jelly beans? What if the government runs out of room in the budget? Incentives are better used as validation or encouragement of good behavior. For example, Gans could give his kid a couple jelly beans as a reward for her progress in potty training rather than busting out the Jelly Belly's every time she uses the toilet. The same goes for the government.
ReplyDeleteWhat if this was my family?
ReplyDeleteBefore answering this question, I think I have explained how the value of my family differs from most of the families. Ever since I was a child, I was taught to be respectful and recognize the authority that my parents have over me. Therefore, I was expected to ask my mom what I needed so that she could get if for me, and when I turned 11, finally I was able to tell my parents why I need an allowance and received it weekly, but expected to tell them how I spent it. When I turned 16, I didn’t get weekly allowances, but worked, and didn’t have to tell my parents how I sent it. Now I think back, my mom taught me how to spend my money wisely and the value of it.
I think teaching economics like that way might mislead the children by not able to teach them how to spend their money wisely. Also it might plant an idea that she could use the allowance for anything if she could pay the “tax” to her dad. First she might not buy the candy when the tax is the equal amount, but later in her life she would buy whatever desires her, and think that she can buy them because she pays taxes.
I’m not saying it’s a bad way to teach the children, but I am glad that my mom taught me how to spend my money wisely and buy what I need, not what I want. Sometimes what I want to buy is just wasting money and makes me more materialistic.
This is my family. But better.
ReplyDeleteMy family never put restrictions on my spending or conditions that needed to be followed. It seems like I get the money for just being alive, which is awesome. A lot of kids I know get 50$ for every A they get in school, which is an incentive to work hard in school. I sort of see my allowance as incentive for working hard in everything that I do. Because I feel like getting an allowance for doing nothing at all is too good to be true and I feel a little guilty too. I don't know if my parents knew about the whole reverse psychology of this or if they just wanted to teach me about managing my own money. But either way I have learned to save my money wisely. Early on you realize the more you don't spend the more money in the bank! With every purchase you think to yourself "Would I rather have this item or save it for something else that's better?" I'm appreciative of my parents' trying to teach me to be fiscally responsible. I've had this sort of allowance for as long as I've grasped the concept of money, which was pretty early on because it seems to be a big part of all of our lives.
I feel like I need to tie this into politics more so that I can get points. I feel kind of like the states when they get block grants and they can decide what they want to do with the money. There are no conditions or strings attached. But I can also see why those aren't given out as often because it can easily be abused and taken for granted. Like if I realized that the money flow would never end and I went out and bought whatever my heart desired. There would be no money and we would be poor.
I think that even though I have this allowance and incentive that I don't always need it to do what's wanted of me. I still am able to do things without expecting anything in return. Having this incentive hasn't given me the avarice of a miser.
Kids are kids. In the end, no matter what system you lay down, they'll find a loophole. I think parents should just make the executive decision on whether or not to buy something for their kids and teach them the value of money in the process. If not, they should allow the kids to buy whatever they want, without this 100% tax nonsense. I can see how this system might work in the the long run but to be honest, i'm glad my childhood didn't consist of ridiculous taxes and incentives. It's important to learn from your own mistakes. If I ate too much candy (which I did), I definitely learned my lesson after those cavities and dentist visits. Plus, kids could create unrealistic expectations if their parents put incentives to everything. The value of hard work would be completely undermined.
ReplyDeleteIf this was my family it would be awesome, yet not at the same time. It would be awesome because I would receive an allowance, which, in my family, got cut off right about my freshman year, and the idea of not having to work for my money seems like an amazing idea. But, on the flip side, receiving an allowance, whether it had incentives or punishments attatched to it, wouldn't really benefit me in the long run. By not having an allowance and having to earn my own money, I've learned to be more responsible with my money and I've learned that once you step foot in the real world, mommy and daddy aren't always there to hand you $20. I've had to learn that the hard way in my own family, if I happen to spend all of my money before my next paycheck and I go to ask my parents for a loan or something, many times they don't have extra money just lying around at my disposal, or if they do lend me a few bucks, they enforce the word lend strongly. It's like they know exactly when I get paid, because they're there waiting to be reimbursed as soon as I walk through the door. But in the long run, this is teaching me to be more money savvy and learn that I create my own rewards and punishments.
ReplyDeleteI think this can be a positive and negative reinforcement because the child is learning by being and responsible and doing what your asked of you is rewarding. also money management can teach you a thing or two for the future. but i also think this a negative the child also knows they can go to grandma and ask for candy and they'll get it for free without having to pay for it or earn it. but this can also be known as bribery in which isnt always good cause it can be instilled into the child a they grow up.
ReplyDeletei didnt have this system growing up and i know how to manage my money but i guess different things work different for everyone.
If this were my family, I wonder if I would be better in budgeting and being more healthy? It is a really neat idea. This seems to be a great idea to teach children about the government and how to budget their money in the future. If this were my family, I don't think I would last. I like the way my family is now. We are aware of money without having all the rules, however we don't have any young children in your family. Getting an allowance would be nice though.
ReplyDeleteOverall, it is a very interesting idea and may help children, but on a personal level, I am glad that my household is not run that way. I like to be more accountable for myself than to have my parents try and be accountable for me.
If this were my family, the system would probably not last very long. My parents have often tried to implement plans to help my brother and me to become financially smart but they never quite worked out. My brother and I would probably find loopholes such asking other relatives or talk our way out of the situation or my parents would become too busy with other matters and eventually forget.
ReplyDeleteThis system of taxing to try to dissuade people from buying things that would be detrimental would probably not work too well in America. First of all, people would find loopholes to avoid being taxed, such as in the example given by the article about cigarettes and fireworks. Second, Americans are big on individualism and ideas such as independence and self-reliance and would argue that they don't need the government to figure out what's good or bad for them.
I believe Joshua's way is very effective when teaching children how to handle money. Not only does Gans teach his daughter a way to see the difference between fair and unfair deals, he is also challenging himself to think of better ways to acquire his wants.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, if this were my family, I would just give up and tell my parents to take the money and shut up. This is just way too frustrating for the kid. I mean, the poor girl understood how the systems worked but everytime she cracked her fathers traps to get what HE wants, he just manipulates the system again so HE will benefit from it, not the child.
If this was my family... I would love it and hate it.
ReplyDeleteI would love it because then my parents would really be implementing in me the value of money and whats necessary in life and what isn't.
However I would hate it because I wouldn't be able to buy whatever I wanted with that money.
But overall, I think its a good way to teach kids about the value of money.
Wow, this is a really interesting article. Economics seems like a topic that could be hard to apply on a every-day basis, but apparently this professor can. I can see the merits of the implementation of economic incentives, such as getting a reward whenever chores are done, but it doesn't always work, as noted in the article. I personally think that using this in a household would eventually fail: living like that could be difficult. However, if the kids were in their teens, then using this system could teach them a lot, if they were willing to learn.
ReplyDeleteThis a great concept, however I think it is a little too strict. He shouldn't be shoving down an economic lessons at these kids at such a young age in their lives. Let them enjoy their candy and silliness. But at the same time, I do wish my parents implemented some kind of "save your money" mentality on me. It would have helped with all the wasted money on fast food. I see what this man is trying to do and his ultimate goal is to provide his kids with knowledge and experience to make their way through a tough economy. He knows it will only get tougher as they get older, so he is doing what is best in his view point. My spending mentality right now is more "In the future its all going to bills and payments, might as well enjoy my money now" .
ReplyDeleteI actually wish that this was family and I bet a lot of people like those heading off to college wished the same thing. We would definitely be a lot more prepared especially financially. At any rate, my parents main focus is of the present times and not of the long term situations. Right now, I have no college fund saved up and they don't have any retirement plan. Although our family will always work hard through all the difficulties, it would've been a lot easier if we had been prepared a long time ago. Now thinking back, I wished in the past two years, I hadn't splurged so much of my paycheck and had saved partial of it for future neccessities. This picture just proves the importance of thinking further down the road and be prepared young.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great way to get kids to do what you want and instill the value of money in them at an early age. Its also a great example of how our country works, its capitalism ... but with some regulation. Gans does have to step in on certain circumstances in order to prevent her daughter from exploiting loopholes in the system, but over all this appears to be a very effective approach at influencing the children into being safe consumers in our modern society.
ReplyDeleteThis is also evidence for how our country operates off of federalism but with the national government being supreme due to its finances. The states can try to find ways to outsmart the national government but in the end the group with the most money gets the final word.
I don't agree with giving children incentives to earn their money/rewards. Just like B, they could easily take advantage of this system. However, this alternative method of allowances with taxes could really teach a child restraint and control with their money in the later future. This could definitely apply to a child as they grow up. My parents did something similar to this. I would get an allowance based off of how well I did my chores or how many I did for every week or so, and I could spend it on whatever I thought I needed or wanted. When I spent all of the money I had before the week ended, they would tell me "Too bad!" and I would wait until the next time I was paid again. This taught me how to conserve the money that I made and it helped me develop a good work ethic. My parents really taught me to work for everything that I get and to do my absolute best without expecting anything in return because the rewards that do come my way are appreciated a lot more that way. In terms of politics and economics, though, I think that the framework of our government uses some of these methods in society today. Because of this, discipling a child this way may just set them up for success in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe effects of incentive driven behavior is a common psychological concept. The more rewards one achieves for doing something right, the more he or she will become encouraged to do this thing over and over again. In my family, no such strategy has been used. If it even was my family, it probably wouldn't even work since the money would begin going to different things just as B. This was the case with B and her candy. This is apparent with Americans, finding loopholes in order to not pay for certain items.
ReplyDelete