It occurred to me, while watching a family in line ahead of me at K-Mart, that not disciplining your children must cost many thousands of dollars over the course of 18 years.

Here are some of the ways:
The inability to say no to their myriads wants,
The need to buy a lawn service because the child does not *feel* like doing his chores,
(assuming they have been assigned any and that the parents actually enforce what has been assigned.)
The cost of bribery gifts.

What started me on this line of thinking was earlier in the day I'd been asked by a friend how often my mother made me practice piano during the week between lessons. I told her that I was told to practice during the week and on sat. mornings after I polished the silver or mowed the lawn, depending on time of year, I practiced for 1/2 hour and if she didn't like what she heard then it was for a whole hour.

She laughed and said "I wish my kids did chores" as if it was outside of her responsibility to ensure they did it. When I asked why, she said it was too hard to force them and on saturdays she just wanted to read the paper and chill.

Hmmmmmmmm.........

So. I got to thinking that that is why perhaps my parents achieved all they did on a fraction of the salaries people earn today. (Two houses, two cars, summer camps, private schools.) Self discipline and disciplining their children to help out, share the load and do some work so you don't have to buy it outside the house, (like a maid service or a lawn service or having us do our own laundry at the laundromat instead of replacing the broken washing machine.)

So what ch'all think?

I think that in my generation (I'm 48) a lot of kids were expected to do chores, so it was nothing unusual. Today, though, I get the sense that a lot of kids aren't asked to help around the house (this varies regionally and locally, I'm sure), especially in urban and suburban areas. The other thing that has changed is that more kids today feel it's appropriate to challenge their parents and stand up to demands that they think are unfair. So you get situations in which kids will say, "look, none of my friends are asked to do this stuff, so I don't think it's fair for you to ask me to do it." Of course you can and should say, "well, I'm sorry you feel that way but this is our house; we feel it's entirely fair to ask you to do your part and we expect you to do it." If your kids respect your authority, that's fine, but many kids today do not.

I worked hard when I was a kid; we had several acres of property and I spent my after-school and weekend hours mowing the lawn, raking leaves, splitting firewood, weeding, shoveling snow in winter, etc., plus I had to wash all the dishes, sweep the kitchen floor every night, do the laundry, and clean the bathrooms twice a week. I did all the painting and other routine maintenance. I didn't receive an allowance for any of that work, and the rule was that I had to do all the chores at home before I could do any paying work (I worked as the neighborhood "lawn and garden boy" and did mowing, leaf raking, painting, and other landscape work for a number of my neighbors). There was no option to say "no" to my parents, but today kids seem to feel entitled to resist anything they don't feel like doing.

It makes me feel old to use the phrase "kids today" (I'm 33) but I'll use it anyway...

It seems to me that many (not all) kids today don't have any work ethic. I started volunteering when I was 4, working when I was 12, went on the books when I was 14 and I was working full time by the time I was 17. I worked some crap jobs, but I did what needed to be done and I didn't bitch and moan about it. It was what was expected. In my last office job, I managed the interns and wow! let me just tell you that I've never worked with a group of people who were more lazy and who had a higher sense of self importance than these kids. They were absolutely shocked that they were expected to work during their (PAID!!) internships. And, not only work, but do crap work too. I usually had to fire at least one/semester before they learned. And I'm not a bad manager. I'm not one who thinks that interns are crap and should be stuck in a corner filing all day. I went to great efforts to ensure that they got to work on cool projects. However, if grunt work needed to be done, they were expected to do it. Immediately and without complaint (at least within my hearing). I had interns flat-out refuse to make copies for me and bind presentation books. They were given a choice which they had 5 minutes to consider: Start making the copies or start packing their desks. It was pathetic. And I blame their parents for not teaching them better.

My cousins are a prime example of how bad parenting can ruin kids. I have 2 cousins, ages 13 (K) and 15 (S) who are just horrible. They've gotten better over the years, but they're still mostly horrible to be around, and their parents admit it. One is lazy, whiny and a big cry baby and his father (J) coddles him and gives him everything he wants because he doesn't like confrontation. For example, the older boy (S) refuses to eat anything but fast food, preferably McDonalds. During holiday meals he'll throw a fit if someone doesn't bring him a happy meal and will refuse to eat. So, instead of letting him go hungry, my cousin (J) drives over to McDs and gets him what he wants. Every time. Now me, my response would be: "this is dinner. If you don't like it, don't eat, but this is all there is today so you won't have anything until tomorrow if you don't eat now." It will only take a couple nights on an empty stomach for them to learn to eat what's given to them. The girl, (K), is a consumer goddess. This year for Christmas she got a $500 Coach purse...along with about $1000 worth of other crap. Now I ask you, what 13 year old needs a $500 purse. When I asked her, she was happy to inform me that this was her 4th purse. She also has a Gucci, a LV and another Coach that she'd gotten for other presents. All told, she probably has $3k worth of bags...at 13. Since my cousin J works as a delivery driver, I have zero doubt that he's gone into serious debt to finance this crap for her.

It drives me nuts. Seriously nuts.

I spent a year as an au pair for a family in Switzerland and it just amazed me to be around those kids. They had rules and followed them. They were expected to play outside with their friends, not sit inside and watch TV. In fact, they were only allowed 1 hour of screens (TV, game boy, computer, etc)/week. If they wanted to watch more, they could earn it by doing extra chores, reading a chapter in a book, doing pages in school workbooks and other things. They received an allowance of 5 CHF/week which they could save up to buy something special if they wanted (computer/game boy games, etc). For a special treat (happened 3 times in the year I was there) they got McDonalds. Every other meal (except for maybe 2-3 that I remember) was eaten at home, at the dinner table, with the entire family present.

Now, I'm not saying they were perfect. They had their whiny moments and their just plan PITA moments, but so do all kids. But I was never embarrassed to take them out in public. I knew I could go to the store, to a museum, to the park with them and they'd behave. And if they didn't, we went home and they lost their screen privileges for a week. The problem is, it took effort to get them "trained" that way and many parents don't have the time/desire/knowledge to put in that effort.

Many in my generation grew up as latch key kids, eating dinner alone in front of the TV with minimal parental supervision...so should it be a surprise that we don't know how to be good parents? One of the best things that happened to me was working for that family because I saw a different way to raise kids and manage a family and I liked it and intend to follow it if/when I have a family of my own.

Anyway, this became kind of a rant, sorry. As you can see, it's something I feel strongly about because it's ruining our kids and the future of our country. If you raise a generation of kids who won't work, who's going to manage our future?

Far fewer people went to university and university entrance cut-offs were a lot lower. That may work into the mix now, too.

By that do you mean that parents now may be enouraging their kids to spend more time studying (to help them get into university) and thus may not be giving them as much work to do around the house? That makes some sense but I'm not sure it's true: in my family we were all expected to get straight A's in school and university, and if we didn't there was trouble. But we were also expected to work hard around the house; there was certainly no cutting back on chores to give us more time to do homework. We had to fit it all in. We didn't have much time for after-school recreation activities, though (although one of my brothers was an athlete, the rest of us didn't do a lot of extracurricular activity because there wasn't time). The "soccer mom" syndrome was unheard of back then, you wouldn't see parents driving their kids all over the place for games, rehearsals, or whatever, and I think many parents today devote perhaps too much time and energy to serving their kids' wishes rather than having the kids help out at home.

I think there is a range of factors playing into the sense of entitlement that so many young slackers exhibit; the Internet, cellphones, and television give young people more ready access to their peers than earlier generations had, and attitudes and behaviors can spread more widely and quickly than before. The "latchkey kid" phenomenon that Mandy mentioned probably has had a big effect as well, as kids have more unsupervised time and thus feel more independent, more willing to stand up to their parents.

I agree. I personally don't notice kids spending any extra time studying...if anything it seems like they spend less time studying if the fact that they're making the tests easier so they can pass them is any indication. I think that they're just involved in a whole lot more after school, like you said. Sports, music lessons, dance, etc...kids are crazy busy these days. Though I can't say much. For most of my high school career I was at school from 7 am to 7 pm daily as I was involved in sports, drama, and other clubs that kept me very busy.

When I finished high school, you needed marks in the 90s to get into university. I personally studied from 6 pm till 11 every night, except for the three nights a week that I had to work and I studied at other times, although I did study more than most people (and hence had those marks in the 90s). I would estimate that I spent about 30 hours a week on homework. For scholarships and some programs, you also needed to have significant community, sports/arts, and volunteer involvement. I volunteered and did extra curricular stuff for about 10 hours each week. So that you could get a part-time job or even a co-op job in university, you needed to have work experience, too. I worked at least 12 hours a week for pay. Most of the people I knew studied less but spent considerably more time at work and extracurricular activities. I also had some responsibilities at home, but not to the degree that you're describing.

In my current city, kids still do all those work/volunteer/extracurricular/study things. Most also go for tutoring, because the admissions cut-off for school is pretty high. Also, if everyone else is getting extra help, you need to get help just to keep pace. Many kids take courses in advance at summer school, then repeat them again the next year, so that they can pull off straight-As. If you aren't part of the game, you're not going to get in. And, when it comes to work experience, employers (and admissions people and scholarship people and even prime volunteer orgs) value stuff outside the home more than stuff you did at home. This is very sad but true.

pft...in the US, as long as you are actively breathing you can get into at least a community college. it's gotten so bad here that they're making the standardized tests EASIER because kids weren't able to pass them any more. so, instead of improving teaching methods, they just make the tests easier so the kids pass. it's pathetic.

Ha, true. You can't put "mowed the lawn, did the dishes, did the laundry and polished the windows" on your resume.

I'm 24, and I didn't have many chores growing up, but we were expected to help out. I spent most my time on extracurriculars, and had a part time job throughout highschool, but I was also free to do normal teenage things like go to sports games, bonfires, hang out with my friends. I studied only enough to ensure A's, which honestly wasn't much. I even surfed the net and watched TV. I turned out fine, without strict discipline, and my friends did too. We all graduated college, have jobs, are responsible with our money...

I guess my point is, it is a different world now. "Kids these days" will probably never do as many chores as people of my parents generation did, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as they area learning a work ethic and other good values in other places. There is definitely some bad parenting going on out there, but I like to think there are a lot of great and sensible parents too.

As it relates to personal finance.... parents just have to be able to say "no" and know when it is appropriate to say yes. It think it'd be a huge challenge to balance wanting your kids to "have it better than you" without spoiling them.

Yeah, but what about admissions to major universities in the US?

What about it? It's still pretty easy to get into state schools. Most, I think, require a C average. The kids who aren't willing to work hard enough to get a C probably aren't the ones who are going to go to college anyway. If you want to go to an Ivy school or a big name then you need good grades but if you don't care where you go to school then your grades don't much matter.

The drop-out rate is crazy too. In DC, only 25% of high school kids graduate. Of those, only about 4% go on to university. Of those, less than half graduate college. The education system in America is screwed, which is one of the reasons why our country is dying.

I don't know what state schools you looked at but here a C (2.0) average won't get you in. Most of the schools around won't even look at you with less than a 2.8 but University of Illinois is nearly impossible to get into even with a 4.0 average.

These were schools in Indiana. A 2.8 is what? B-/C+? Still not great. And, like I said, if you want to get into a name school, which U of I is, you need much higher grades.

Wow. Kids with 82% (B+) averages can't get into university here. Now I see why the US college-educated coaches at my university said that US schools had lower standards!

Like someone mentioned, it depends on the school. Some schools do have lower standards, some have high standards. It depends. Besides, even if the state schools accept "bad" students, many of them don't make it through the first year. So... what do B+ students do then? Just get non-college jobs?

Also, did you mean 92% or is 82% B+? In high school 82% was more of a C/C+. In college, maybe a B-, but sort of depended on the bell curve.