Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
He at least apologized.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="susiestar" data-source="post: 388318" data-attributes="member: 1233"><p>For the most part I am FAR too cheap to pay someone to do chores. The point with the scenario I lined out is to take the nagging, anger, etc... out of the parent's end of the situation. In this situation Shari as the parent and her husband is the child, for the sake of illustration. The facts are that the job needs to be done, that it is not the adult's job, that the adult does not need to nag, bark orders, or do anything else to get the job done. The child knows good and well that it is their responsibility and likely assumes that all ignoring the chore will result in is having the parent angry (big whoop), nag, and/or do something else the child will ignore.</p><p> </p><p>By only telling the child one time (not per day, week, hour, etc... ONE TIME) that it is their job to do the chore, the parent is treating the child like any normal rational person. In spite of what MANY so called experts tell us, our kids CAN remember things even if they are only told them one time. Our kids don't remember stuff because tehy do not HAVE TO. We remember for them. So that needs to stop. No where else will someone remind them to do things over and over. It only annoys the parent, much like teaching a cow to sing opera only annoys the teacher.</p><p> </p><p>If the child chooses to not do the chore (excuses are ignored as they are meaningless and usually untrue) then the chore still must be done. If the parent does the chore, the child is rewarded for not doing it. If the parent reminds again, nags, etc... the child is still quite certain that if they ignore it long enough the parent will go ahead and do it and it will not be a problem for the child.</p><p> </p><p>By hiring someone to come in and do the job, another factor is introduced. The worker will go to the child for payment (or will be told to do that). It is the real world consequence of hiring someone to do chores you will not do. Doesn't matter WHY you don't do the task, the person still must be paid. If the parent has to pay the worker, the child still owes the $$ because it is still the child's job to do the chore in whatever manner he chooses as long as it gets done. So when child has "no money" they go through what the rest of the world goes through. They have to sell stuff to get the $$. Pawning is an excellent way to do this with-o forcing the child to permanently part with anything. You learn how important the item is to your child when you do this. They have 90 days to earn the $$ to get their item back, plus another 30 day grace period where it is still held for them. This is the first form of credit we ever had, and it is a very good tool to help your child learn both to do what you say and the value of $$.</p><p> </p><p>With a minor child, the parent must pay if the child does not. This is understood. In Shari's case, her husband is not a child and can pay for htis himself. If he takes it out of the household budget/bill money instead of his beer money or fun money, then Shari needs to make sure that the bills are met by pawning his stuff. </p><p> </p><p>The entire exercise is NOT about paying someone to do it all the time. It is about getting Shari's husband to handle his responsibilities. If Shari does the work herself then her husband will expect her to always do it. It is no skin off of his nose. If he uses $$ out of the budget to pay the worker, Shari is punished because her husband refuses to take care of business. This is why she needs to pawn what is IMPORTANT to him. The computer and TV, and keep HER computer locked up. If I were her I would ahve separate bank accounts, but that is just me. It would be the way to keep him from using $$ I earned to get his stuff back with-o earning it.</p><p> </p><p>That is the reasoning behind my ideas. Not really my ideas - this is straight out of love and logic parenting. And it WORKS. Paying someone to do it is not a forever thing when used this way, unless the child is willing to permanently give up something he regularly spends discretionary dollars on. In which case if he wants to pay a house cleaner instead of buying a couple of cases of beer, I am ALL for it!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="susiestar, post: 388318, member: 1233"] For the most part I am FAR too cheap to pay someone to do chores. The point with the scenario I lined out is to take the nagging, anger, etc... out of the parent's end of the situation. In this situation Shari as the parent and her husband is the child, for the sake of illustration. The facts are that the job needs to be done, that it is not the adult's job, that the adult does not need to nag, bark orders, or do anything else to get the job done. The child knows good and well that it is their responsibility and likely assumes that all ignoring the chore will result in is having the parent angry (big whoop), nag, and/or do something else the child will ignore. By only telling the child one time (not per day, week, hour, etc... ONE TIME) that it is their job to do the chore, the parent is treating the child like any normal rational person. In spite of what MANY so called experts tell us, our kids CAN remember things even if they are only told them one time. Our kids don't remember stuff because tehy do not HAVE TO. We remember for them. So that needs to stop. No where else will someone remind them to do things over and over. It only annoys the parent, much like teaching a cow to sing opera only annoys the teacher. If the child chooses to not do the chore (excuses are ignored as they are meaningless and usually untrue) then the chore still must be done. If the parent does the chore, the child is rewarded for not doing it. If the parent reminds again, nags, etc... the child is still quite certain that if they ignore it long enough the parent will go ahead and do it and it will not be a problem for the child. By hiring someone to come in and do the job, another factor is introduced. The worker will go to the child for payment (or will be told to do that). It is the real world consequence of hiring someone to do chores you will not do. Doesn't matter WHY you don't do the task, the person still must be paid. If the parent has to pay the worker, the child still owes the $$ because it is still the child's job to do the chore in whatever manner he chooses as long as it gets done. So when child has "no money" they go through what the rest of the world goes through. They have to sell stuff to get the $$. Pawning is an excellent way to do this with-o forcing the child to permanently part with anything. You learn how important the item is to your child when you do this. They have 90 days to earn the $$ to get their item back, plus another 30 day grace period where it is still held for them. This is the first form of credit we ever had, and it is a very good tool to help your child learn both to do what you say and the value of $$. With a minor child, the parent must pay if the child does not. This is understood. In Shari's case, her husband is not a child and can pay for htis himself. If he takes it out of the household budget/bill money instead of his beer money or fun money, then Shari needs to make sure that the bills are met by pawning his stuff. The entire exercise is NOT about paying someone to do it all the time. It is about getting Shari's husband to handle his responsibilities. If Shari does the work herself then her husband will expect her to always do it. It is no skin off of his nose. If he uses $$ out of the budget to pay the worker, Shari is punished because her husband refuses to take care of business. This is why she needs to pawn what is IMPORTANT to him. The computer and TV, and keep HER computer locked up. If I were her I would ahve separate bank accounts, but that is just me. It would be the way to keep him from using $$ I earned to get his stuff back with-o earning it. That is the reasoning behind my ideas. Not really my ideas - this is straight out of love and logic parenting. And it WORKS. Paying someone to do it is not a forever thing when used this way, unless the child is willing to permanently give up something he regularly spends discretionary dollars on. In which case if he wants to pay a house cleaner instead of buying a couple of cases of beer, I am ALL for it! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
He at least apologized.
Top