I was doing the lawn tonight and needed some help cleaning up because it was getting dark. Thomas is trying to earn some money to buy a Nintendo DS, so I offerred to give him a couple bucks to come out and help me finish up.
Thomas then proceeds to tell me that he and Calvin have been working on a deal where Calvin will pay him "like $3/week" to do his chores for him. My initial thought was that if Calvin wants to spend his money this way, I suppose he's entitled to. But then I remembered we pay Calvin $5.50/week, so the little putz would basically be earning $2.50/week to sit around and do nothing.
I think it's time to revisit the compensation structure around here. Alternatively, I'd like to see if there's some way I could apply this technique to my situation.
Posts
No Pomp. All Circumstance.
3 years ago
4 comments:
That's one reason we were reluctant to tie allowance to chores. On one hand, it makes sense: in the real world, people don't get paid for existing; they get paid for doing something. OTOH, if we pay the kids to do chores/housework, it implies that a household is a capitalist economy - which leads to ideas like outsourcing, or refusal to clean the fishtank/ pick up my dirty socks/ help with whatever, because "I don't need the money."
Also: go Calvin.
Things like this is not common, a lot of works or jobs can use outsourcing, and be effective in some point.
Let's face it. Calvin is going to go far in life.
Post a Comment