Let me tell you a story. Before starting a week-long vacation, two parents gave each of their two young sons twenty dollars to spend. The younger son, David, spent all of his money the first day. The next day he wanted to buy a toy, and asked his mom for more money. His mom said “no.”
“But Mom, Aaron still has all of his money. Why can’t I have some of his?”
His mom was sympathetic. “Aaron, why don’t you give your little brother ten dollars. He’s run out of money, and you still have your twenty dollars.”
There are two problems here. First, the Mom was being inconsistent by saying “No” and then “Yes.” Her quick contradiction invited both sons, as well as everyone else in her life, to continue asking for the same thing over and over, under the now-proven belief that she may have a change of mind. This is an assumption that many of us invite throughout our lives. We all know we cannot transmute lead into gold, but with people who are inconsistent we know we might successfully convert refusal into acceptance. And this can be true for Dads just as well as Moms.
But there is a second, far more serious consequence that results from Mom’s asking Aaron to share the money he has saved. She is, in essence, telling her older son that his decision to save money may lead to his losing it by having to share with his less thrifty younger brother. Aaron’s act of saving actually results in his losing, and not retaining, his stockpile.
Whenever we divorce consequences from an action we are encouraging irresponsible action.
Take politicians. Please. They are in charge of spending money. Not their own money. Your money. But spending your money does not drain their personal bank accounts. To the contrary. They raid the public treasury. And if an office holder spends public funds to favor one group of voters, they will, in gratitude, be more likely to fill the politician’s coffers with donations, or vote for him or her in the next election. Politicians often spend our money, to our disadvantage, in order to benefit themselves.
The same is true of corporations. Before the recent “Great Recession,” for example, many banks took high financial risks, and earned a temporary and illusory profit. They promptly rewarded their CEO’s and other high-ranking officers with elevated salaries and obscene bonuses. A few years later, when the banks were penalized by regulators and forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, who footed the bill? Not the same officers, I assure you, but the shareholders.
I suggest that we change our behavior, and consistently marry actions to consequences. When a child spends his or her money, it should be considered gone and should not be replaced. Beneficial behavior, like saving money, should be rewarded with praise, not a parental request to “share.”
Years ago one of my young children, age eleven, was accustomed to throwing up in the middle of the night, with Mom cleaning up the mess. One night, when we were both awakened by a mewling child, I decided to respond myself.
In the child’s bedroom I said, “Clean it up yourself.”
“I can’t. I don’t know how.”
“Then learn. Or sleep in it. When you make a mess you have to clean it up yourself. I won’t do it for you.”
I think this was a beneficial lesson. Our son did clean up his own vomit, and never woke me or my wife in the middle of the night again. I would say this is a win-win solution.
When they are married to each other, actions will be more thoughtful, and consequences will remain where they belong – with the person responsible for the action.
Alan
As a child, I adopted many chiseled-in-granite ideas about how an adult should live. That wisdom included:
emotional wastebasket, because they didn’t work for me anymore.
