Horticulturalists have a pretty simple formula for keeping a garden in top form and for providing viewing pleasure for the owners: plants are in, weeds are out. When a bush or tree dies they plant another one, knowing that the absent plant can cause an imbalance in the garden plan; when a weed gets pulled out, they don't rush out and plant another weed to replace it. To try and extend their lives, some weeds present a beautiful outside, hoping the gardener will overlook them. But letting weeds in based on their looks alone spells disaster for the garden. They soon overtake the better plantings and create havoc in the garden.
Sometimes a gardener will have been seduced by the beautiful plants in a nursery and brings home more than will grow successfully when crowded all together. In that case even beautiful plants will have to be removed for the good of the garden. Those beautiful plants will have become a burden on the garden, on the gardener, and ultimately a costly mistake. Gardeners know that the size of the growing plot cannot magically be extended to accommodate yet more plantings. They know this, and yet, they somehow cannot resist when faced with the new selections in the nursery.
All garden plantings have a "shelf life," the amount of time it takes for a plant to grow to maturity, to go through all its stages, before it dies. Some plants have a brief showy season before they go dormant. Other plants provide visual interest all year round. Some plants are relegated to the background, where they fill in the gaps and work hard but are not as visually arresting as their more flamboyant cousins. Some plants have intense visual interest; they are the real prima donnas of the garden. But every gardener knows that having too many of those focal plants disturbs the balance of the garden. And then there is the cost of the plants. Gardeners think long and hard about spending megabucks on a plant with a short life. They think long and hard about the sometimes exorbitant costs of a prima donna plant--is the cost worth the once in a blue moon show the plant puts on?
And then we have the closets in our homes. I have yet in all my years of living heard anyone complain that they have too much closet space; the opposite is always true. Closets, even those already stuffed to overflowing, are constantly being rearranged to take "just one more item." And like weeds, many of those items multiply incredibly quickly.
An article I read on closet management suggested that people need to make a plan for their closets and stick to it. The first thing it suggested was to find a classification system for the closet. Some people use a cold weather/hot weather system to begin with. They further divide the closet contents into at home/casual clothes, clothes for work and clothes for special occasions.
The next step is to assign a usage time to each classification. If you live in a cold weather area you will spend more time in cold weather clothing; for hot weather areas you will spend more time in hot weather clothing. If you work a 5-day week you will spend more time in work clothing than in casual clothing. How many special occasions have you attended in the last year? Now enter onto your list the amount of time that the clothing in each classification is actually worn.
The article ended with a suggestion that people remove from their closets multiples of types of clothing that are not worn often enough to justify their taking up closet space. I think the article should have gone further.
Take all those classifications of clothing and at least estimate how much the clothing for each classification cost. Now divide the cost of the clothing by the number of times each piece will be worn. Let's say that a skirt for work will be worn 16 times during the year. It cost you $64. That skirt would then have cost you $4 per wearing. Hold on to that skirt for 4 years and the cost drops to $1 per wearing. But what if that skirt is dry clean only? Add $5 to each wearing. Hold on to that skirt for only one year and that skirt will cost you $9 each time you put it on. And that $64 skirt actually cost you $144 for the year. Hold the skirt for 4 years and your cost drops to $32 per year, or $2 per wearing. But what if you have two dozen skirts? What if each skirt is only worn 6 times instead of 16 times in one year? The cost per wearing jumps to $16.50 per wearing if held for only one year.
And where there are skirts there are tops. Check out your closets carefully and you may notice a strange phenomenon. You may have 6 tops that all only go to the same skirt. Or you may have 6 skirts that all look best with the same top. Either way, most tops will only be worn a few times during any season; wear a top more often and the other tops stuffed on the shelves and in the drawers won't get worn as much or at all. The more tops, the higher the cost per wearing. Bring in a new skirt and it is inevitable that no top you already own will fit that skirt perfectly, thus necessitating the purchasing of yet another top.
Now look at your special occasion clothing. Look at your calendar for the last year and add up how many of these occasions you actually attended, and what type they were. An average figure would be one such occasion a month. Let's even say you have a busy social calendar and you attended two such occasions each month. And let's say that some were during hot weather and some during cold weather. How many special occasion pieces of clothing do you need to own to cover the number of occasions attended? In reality, only two, but let's be generous and say four: two for hot weather and two for cold. Now let's look at the cost of those items. Let's be "thrifty" (sarcasm intended) and make the cost only $200 per outfit. That's $800 in special occasion clothing. Divide by the number of wearings and each outfit costs you "only" $33.33 per wearing. Now add in a $10 dry cleaning charge for each wearing and the cost goes to $43.33 per wearing, if you use the outfits for one year. Imagine--gasp!--if an outfit costs more than $200.
Somewhere in the back of our minds we know that clothing costs more if we wear it for less times and so we hold on to that clothing, but instead of wearing the clothing more often it gets pushed to the side as we bring in replacements. Green is in this season so last season's blue clothing isn't "wearable" any longer. But not to worry, because next season green will be out and pink will be in. And so it goes season after season, shopping trip after shopping trip. And the closets are stuffed to overflowing with clothing that we can't bear to get rid of but that we don't really use often enough to justify the price. And like weeds in the garden, those unworn clothes overrun the space available to store them in.
Ever notice that mother nature doesn't designate that one flower color and that color alone is the "in" color for any given season? That plants come in all kinds of "styles" and "lengths" all existing harmoniously? Fall flowering bulbs in purples and yellows and pinks and blues exist side by side with fall foliage in reds and oranges and yellows and pinks of all shades. Green never goes out of fashion. Brown remains basic throughout all the seasons.
Perhaps if we considered our closets as gardens we would have less weeds growing in them. Perhaps we would be more concerned with the long term and less concerned with the short term. Perhaps we would have room enough for what really looks good in our gardens without burdening ourselves looking for storage space for the extras that just don't fit in. Perhaps we should look at gardens and notice that most of what is in them is there for the long haul. Paying loads of money for short-lived annuals that come and are dead a short time later makes no gardening sense. Wise gardeners know that spending more on those annuals doesn't give the garden any more pizazz; inexpensive annuals perform the same tasks as their more expensive relatives.
Maybe, just maybe, if we followed the advice of horticulturalists instead of the "advice" of Madison Avenue and the clothing retailers our closet "gardens" would be in better shape and able to hold just the right number of plants. We are long overdue to cull the weeds in our closets.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Just Keep Thinkin' About Tomorrow
A friend who reads this blog called me that she was so happy my mom was feeling better. When I asked her how she knew that, she said that she had noticed that I was spending more time on the blog than I had been in the past few weeks. Sigh.
Yes, I have been present here at what may seem like all hours of the day but certainly more then I have been recently. I truly wish it was because mom was feeling better, but I'm having a bit of an enforced vacation from work, mom and just about everything else but the round after round of phone calls. It seems that what I thought was bronchitis turned out to be pneumonia and I'm house bound for a few days until the antibiotic makes me no longer contagious. I'll admit my mood has been decidedly down and grumpy (in case you hadn't noticed, my last few postings have not been upbeat) and I put on a CD this morning to make myself feel a little better. I hadn't even noticed which one I pulled out and I clicked on a track at random. And oh boy did I get a reminder that no matter how bad things seem today, well tomorrow is full of all kinds of possibilities. A good word no matter where it comes from ought to be heeded. Maybe we all need to let a little "Annie" into our minds.
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
When I'm stuck with a day
That's gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And grin,
And say,
Oh
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
Tïll tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!
But if Annie doesn't do it for you, there's always Fleetwood Mac
If you wake up and don't want to smile,
If it takes just a little while,
Open your eyes and look at the day,
You'll see things in a different way.
Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Don't stop, it'll soon be here,
It'll be, better than before,
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone.
Why not think about times to come,
And not about the things that you've done,
If your life was bad to you,
Just think what tomorrow will do.
Yes, I have been present here at what may seem like all hours of the day but certainly more then I have been recently. I truly wish it was because mom was feeling better, but I'm having a bit of an enforced vacation from work, mom and just about everything else but the round after round of phone calls. It seems that what I thought was bronchitis turned out to be pneumonia and I'm house bound for a few days until the antibiotic makes me no longer contagious. I'll admit my mood has been decidedly down and grumpy (in case you hadn't noticed, my last few postings have not been upbeat) and I put on a CD this morning to make myself feel a little better. I hadn't even noticed which one I pulled out and I clicked on a track at random. And oh boy did I get a reminder that no matter how bad things seem today, well tomorrow is full of all kinds of possibilities. A good word no matter where it comes from ought to be heeded. Maybe we all need to let a little "Annie" into our minds.
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
When I'm stuck with a day
That's gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And grin,
And say,
Oh
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
Tïll tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!
But if Annie doesn't do it for you, there's always Fleetwood Mac
If you wake up and don't want to smile,
If it takes just a little while,
Open your eyes and look at the day,
You'll see things in a different way.
Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Don't stop, it'll soon be here,
It'll be, better than before,
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone.
Why not think about times to come,
And not about the things that you've done,
If your life was bad to you,
Just think what tomorrow will do.
An Addendum to "The Sem Years"
I'd like to clear up some confusion about yesterday's posting on sending girls to seminary. First, the main purpose was to point out that seminary is a luxury, a highly expensive luxury, and in today's economic situation it is a luxury that needs to be done without. Sending girls to seminary, as the previous posting pointed out, was not because of some great outpouring of concern for the Jewish education of our daughters. The sudden rise in interest in girls seminaries coordinated with the "problem" of what to do with girls for that post high school year until they were ready to be pushed into the shidduch parsha. It was not my intention to leave the impression that only girl's seminaries should be considered as luxury items we need to do without now.
Let me be clear: in today's economic situation sending boys to Israel to learn for a year or more is also a luxury that should be foregone. And please let us not kid ourselves either. Many of those boys are not in Israel poring over their texts yomom v'loyloh. As is the case with many of the girls, many of the boys are there for the "fun" of it. Away from home, no supervision, all expenses paid--what's not to like?
A commenter yesterday raised a good point. She said that if you don't have the money to send your daughter to seminary in Israel then you should not be sending your son there. I agree. Today's parents don't look at the tuition bills for their daughters' schools and the bills for their sons' schools and say there is only money for one so our girls will not go to yeshiva. And the post high school years should be treated no differently. If I take my kids shopping and one buys an apple for 50 cents and one buys a banana for 45 cents I'm not going to be worried about parity, and my kids are not going to be worried that I'm showing favoritism. But if I buy one of the kids an apple for 50 cents and I buy the other child a Lexus for $33,000 then I am sending a message that one child is worth more to me than the other, that one child has higher value to me than the other one does. What a horrible message to be sending our children. Saying that you will find the money somehow to send your sons but saying that the money can't/won't be found for your daughters is to create two tiers of children, one more privileged than the other.
Let's keep this in mind: both seminary and yeshiva are luxuries--they are wants that need to be paid for. If money is tight, as it is for many people now, then it is common sense to say that the Israel year--both for the boys and for the girls--is off the table as a consideration. Even when money is more freely available I would question the real value of making the Israel year post high school a "requirement," particularly a requirement for a shidduch. For some students the year is a worthwhile one; for some students it is not. We need to look at that year as optional.
Common sense says that when money is short, rein in your spending. Common sense says that when money is short, skip luxuries and spend only on necessities. Common sense also says don't spend what you don't have. Seminary and yeshiva in Israel fall squarely in the column marked "Luxuries."
Let me be clear: in today's economic situation sending boys to Israel to learn for a year or more is also a luxury that should be foregone. And please let us not kid ourselves either. Many of those boys are not in Israel poring over their texts yomom v'loyloh. As is the case with many of the girls, many of the boys are there for the "fun" of it. Away from home, no supervision, all expenses paid--what's not to like?
A commenter yesterday raised a good point. She said that if you don't have the money to send your daughter to seminary in Israel then you should not be sending your son there. I agree. Today's parents don't look at the tuition bills for their daughters' schools and the bills for their sons' schools and say there is only money for one so our girls will not go to yeshiva. And the post high school years should be treated no differently. If I take my kids shopping and one buys an apple for 50 cents and one buys a banana for 45 cents I'm not going to be worried about parity, and my kids are not going to be worried that I'm showing favoritism. But if I buy one of the kids an apple for 50 cents and I buy the other child a Lexus for $33,000 then I am sending a message that one child is worth more to me than the other, that one child has higher value to me than the other one does. What a horrible message to be sending our children. Saying that you will find the money somehow to send your sons but saying that the money can't/won't be found for your daughters is to create two tiers of children, one more privileged than the other.
Let's keep this in mind: both seminary and yeshiva are luxuries--they are wants that need to be paid for. If money is tight, as it is for many people now, then it is common sense to say that the Israel year--both for the boys and for the girls--is off the table as a consideration. Even when money is more freely available I would question the real value of making the Israel year post high school a "requirement," particularly a requirement for a shidduch. For some students the year is a worthwhile one; for some students it is not. We need to look at that year as optional.
Common sense says that when money is short, rein in your spending. Common sense says that when money is short, skip luxuries and spend only on necessities. Common sense also says don't spend what you don't have. Seminary and yeshiva in Israel fall squarely in the column marked "Luxuries."
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Sem Years
Before someone decides to hand me my head on a platter, let's make clear that I am Tzioni in that I love Eretz Yisroel and yes, I believe that living there should be what Jews yearn for. Having said that, I am also willing to say that actually living in Israel, right now, is not possible for many Jews who live chutz l'aretz. Some of the reasons for not making aliyah right now are not being able to make a parnosah and leaving close family behind. The first is a real area of concern; no job available means no money to support a family. The second is pooh-poohed by far too many people. They give their answer that being in Israel trumps kibud av v'aim. Sorry, but my Rav sees that differently. And given the age and situation of my mother, my Rav's opinion makes much more sense than those who say "Aliyah today no matter what."
But we do have one way that we are sending out people to Israel, even if temporarily, and that is the vaunted Seminary Year, parallel to the boys' years of learning in Israel. And I am still scratching my head and asking why we are doing this.
Not all that many years ago a seminary year abroad was a rare thing relative to the size of Klal. And Israel was not the only choice or even the main choice. For the few girls whose parents sent them, Gateshead and Switzerland were top choices. Then there was Michlala and BJJ. That was it. You know who went abroad for seminary? The daughters of rich families. And there were plenty of people who wondered why they bothered.
The girls who stayed in the States, what did they do? Some went to full-time seminary here, many of them going to college at night. Others went to half-day seminary and either went to college the other half a day or worked the other half a day. And some girls didn't go to seminary at all. "Where did you go to seminary?" wasn't a question asked in all that many shidduchim. It was also fairly well assumed that the girls who were going to full-time seminary and not also going to college at night were preparing themselves to become teachers of limudei kodesh. The out of country seminaries? If Israel, again the assumption was that a girl was studying to become a teacher of limudei kodesh. If Europe, well seminary was the frum version of a finishing school. In addition to Hebrew studies the girls learned cooking and baking and how to set a gracious table, and some practical subjects like typing. Gateshead was for those more to the right, Switzerland for those more to the middle or left.
One thing most people agreed on was that girls needed a year out of high school before they were ready to go on the marriage market. Some people then thought that two years was a better idea. But what most parents thought then was that sending girls out of country where they would be away from their parents' influence was not the best idea. And yes, for most parents the thought of spending "all that money" to warehouse the girls until marriage was just not possible.
Fast forward to the present day. Suddenly seminary has become a "necessity." Mothers who themselves did not consider seminary in Israel an option or a necessity are preaching that only Israel will do. And the number of seminaries has multiplied according to the demand. There is now a competition for which seminary is the "best" seminary, which seminary will give you the best credentials for the type of shidduch you want to make. And the cost? $15K plus. The more "choshuv" the seminary, the more its charges have risen.
There are parents who "reasonably" point out that a year in seminary in Israel is not more expensive then a year in a private college here in the States, and the credits from seminary are transferable for those girls going on to college when they come home. Well yes, some of those credits are transferable, but the only colleges that take the maximum number of transfer credits are those that are private and under Jewish auspices: YU and Touro. And those two places can hardly be considered as "cheap" when you look at tuition and board.
Above I mentioned that once upon a time out of country seminary was limited to families of financial means. That is not the case today. Somehow going to seminary has become a requirement for making a shidduch. Somehow every family now has to consider how to pay for that seminary year, wealthy or not. Seminary in Israel has become another "must have" purchase, affordable or not.
Proponents of the seminary year in Israel point out that the girls who go to seminary are better educated in limudei kodesh than those who do not go to seminary. Okay, but can they also say that the girls in Israeli seminaries are better educated than those who go to American seminaries? So all girls who spend the year in Israel are super serious about their studies? Take off the blinkers, please. For many girls the year in Israel is about socialization, not studying. They do the minimum necessary to keep the school off their backs but it is the extra curricular activities that they are most interested in. And why not? You ever hear of a seminary that sent a failing transcript for any of its students? The "Gentleman's B" is alive and well in these places, as long as the tuition checks keep coming.
Why harp on seminary right now? In case you haven't noticed we're in something of an economic turn down right now. This comes in addition to skyrocketing yeshiva tuition for elementary and high school. This comes in addition to having a part of the frum population that is not working to support itself but is supported by others. This is coming with an older generation that is heading into the "golden" years and which is going to have to concentrate on itself instead of spending lavishly on the younger generations. Quite frankly, seminary is an expensive luxury right now, one that not too many families can readily afford. What we need right now is a retrenching to the ideas of the past, where seminary was not a requirement, and seminary in Israel certainly was not a requirement. We need to unequivocally say that seminary as a requirement for a shidduch needs to be ousted.
I'd be willing to wager money that there are a lot of parents who don't know how they are going to pay for that seminary year but who are going to go into debt for it anyway because they are fearful of making their children into some sort of social pariah. I'd also be willing to bet that those parents would breathe easier if "the powers that be" would make it clear that seminary is only an option, and only an option if you can afford it. It is more than time for girls' high schools to stop holding the Damocles Sword of seminary over the heads of parents vis a vis making a shidduch. And I also believe that it is time for parents to stop cowering in the corners and giving in to demands that make no financial sense.
And while I am laying myself open for some of the lambasting I'm sure will come, we might also want to look at the practice of sending our boys to Israel post high school for one, two or more years. These yeshivas are hardly free institutions and the same financial concerns that apply to seminaries for girls also apply to Israeli yeshivas for boys.
What ever happened to common sense and being sensible? What ever happened to financial responsibility? What ever happened to not biting off more than you could swallow?
But we do have one way that we are sending out people to Israel, even if temporarily, and that is the vaunted Seminary Year, parallel to the boys' years of learning in Israel. And I am still scratching my head and asking why we are doing this.
Not all that many years ago a seminary year abroad was a rare thing relative to the size of Klal. And Israel was not the only choice or even the main choice. For the few girls whose parents sent them, Gateshead and Switzerland were top choices. Then there was Michlala and BJJ. That was it. You know who went abroad for seminary? The daughters of rich families. And there were plenty of people who wondered why they bothered.
The girls who stayed in the States, what did they do? Some went to full-time seminary here, many of them going to college at night. Others went to half-day seminary and either went to college the other half a day or worked the other half a day. And some girls didn't go to seminary at all. "Where did you go to seminary?" wasn't a question asked in all that many shidduchim. It was also fairly well assumed that the girls who were going to full-time seminary and not also going to college at night were preparing themselves to become teachers of limudei kodesh. The out of country seminaries? If Israel, again the assumption was that a girl was studying to become a teacher of limudei kodesh. If Europe, well seminary was the frum version of a finishing school. In addition to Hebrew studies the girls learned cooking and baking and how to set a gracious table, and some practical subjects like typing. Gateshead was for those more to the right, Switzerland for those more to the middle or left.
One thing most people agreed on was that girls needed a year out of high school before they were ready to go on the marriage market. Some people then thought that two years was a better idea. But what most parents thought then was that sending girls out of country where they would be away from their parents' influence was not the best idea. And yes, for most parents the thought of spending "all that money" to warehouse the girls until marriage was just not possible.
Fast forward to the present day. Suddenly seminary has become a "necessity." Mothers who themselves did not consider seminary in Israel an option or a necessity are preaching that only Israel will do. And the number of seminaries has multiplied according to the demand. There is now a competition for which seminary is the "best" seminary, which seminary will give you the best credentials for the type of shidduch you want to make. And the cost? $15K plus. The more "choshuv" the seminary, the more its charges have risen.
There are parents who "reasonably" point out that a year in seminary in Israel is not more expensive then a year in a private college here in the States, and the credits from seminary are transferable for those girls going on to college when they come home. Well yes, some of those credits are transferable, but the only colleges that take the maximum number of transfer credits are those that are private and under Jewish auspices: YU and Touro. And those two places can hardly be considered as "cheap" when you look at tuition and board.
Above I mentioned that once upon a time out of country seminary was limited to families of financial means. That is not the case today. Somehow going to seminary has become a requirement for making a shidduch. Somehow every family now has to consider how to pay for that seminary year, wealthy or not. Seminary in Israel has become another "must have" purchase, affordable or not.
Proponents of the seminary year in Israel point out that the girls who go to seminary are better educated in limudei kodesh than those who do not go to seminary. Okay, but can they also say that the girls in Israeli seminaries are better educated than those who go to American seminaries? So all girls who spend the year in Israel are super serious about their studies? Take off the blinkers, please. For many girls the year in Israel is about socialization, not studying. They do the minimum necessary to keep the school off their backs but it is the extra curricular activities that they are most interested in. And why not? You ever hear of a seminary that sent a failing transcript for any of its students? The "Gentleman's B" is alive and well in these places, as long as the tuition checks keep coming.
Why harp on seminary right now? In case you haven't noticed we're in something of an economic turn down right now. This comes in addition to skyrocketing yeshiva tuition for elementary and high school. This comes in addition to having a part of the frum population that is not working to support itself but is supported by others. This is coming with an older generation that is heading into the "golden" years and which is going to have to concentrate on itself instead of spending lavishly on the younger generations. Quite frankly, seminary is an expensive luxury right now, one that not too many families can readily afford. What we need right now is a retrenching to the ideas of the past, where seminary was not a requirement, and seminary in Israel certainly was not a requirement. We need to unequivocally say that seminary as a requirement for a shidduch needs to be ousted.
I'd be willing to wager money that there are a lot of parents who don't know how they are going to pay for that seminary year but who are going to go into debt for it anyway because they are fearful of making their children into some sort of social pariah. I'd also be willing to bet that those parents would breathe easier if "the powers that be" would make it clear that seminary is only an option, and only an option if you can afford it. It is more than time for girls' high schools to stop holding the Damocles Sword of seminary over the heads of parents vis a vis making a shidduch. And I also believe that it is time for parents to stop cowering in the corners and giving in to demands that make no financial sense.
And while I am laying myself open for some of the lambasting I'm sure will come, we might also want to look at the practice of sending our boys to Israel post high school for one, two or more years. These yeshivas are hardly free institutions and the same financial concerns that apply to seminaries for girls also apply to Israeli yeshivas for boys.
What ever happened to common sense and being sensible? What ever happened to financial responsibility? What ever happened to not biting off more than you could swallow?
Children and Money--Part #2--Introducing the Terminology
Children learn about the world around them in many ways: they listen to what is being said in a variety of circumstances and coming from a variety of sources and they observe what is going on. But the vocabulary that they need to make sense of their world and surroundings is often not there or is imperfectly understood. In the same way that schools and parents patiently teach other types of vocabulary, parents need to teach the vocabulary of money and finances.
Young kids have a vague idea of what money is and where it comes from. They may understand that mom and dad work and that brings in money, but they do not necessarily see money as a finite substance. For most kids, all their needs and a lot of their wants are being met by their parents. They are fed and clothed and put to sleep in beds in homes with solid roofs and with heating or cooling. Their school supplies are purchased. They go on school field trips. Most frum kids attend yeshivas. They go to their friends' birthday parties and they go carrying a gift for the celebrant. They get Chanukah presents. They get birthday presents. In their minds money shows up, is spent and replaces itself.
Any conversation with young kids should start out with defining terms. Money needs to be defined as something that is earned in some way and that is limited rather than infinite. The idea of budgeting** can be introduced, as well as the idea of wants and needs. Certainly the term "savings" should be introduced and defined.
**A package of cookies can work as a tool in teaching budgeting. Take 4 children* and a package of cookies containing 32 cookies. Have some sandwich bags handy. Now, announce to the children that the package of cookies is the only package that will be available for the week. Viewed as an unopened package at the beginning of the week it sure looks like a lot of cookies. Now open the package and start dividing it equally among the children. Point out that each child will get 8 cookies for the week. Suddenly that package of cookies is starting to look smaller, but still, 8 cookies is a lot of cookies. Now start talking about how those 8 cookies are going to be eaten during the week. Inevitably there is going to be one child that says he/she wants to eat all the cookies today. Put the 8 cookies into a bag and place it in front of the child. Other of the children may be able to reason out that they would like a cookie every day. Place one cookie into each of 7 bags and give those bags to the child. Point out that there will be one cookie left over. What does the child want to do with that cookie? You can point out that the child could have one day that week where he/she gets 2 cookies instead of one, where one of the bags has two cookies in it. You could also point out that the child could put that cookie away in a separate bag and save it for the future.
There is going to be a child who looks at one cookie in the bag and says "One cookie is not enough for a snack." Fine. Ask how many cookies would be enough for a snack. Say the child says "two cookies." Put two cookies into each of 4 bags and place in front of the child. Have the child count the bags. Point out that there will only be 4 days during the week when the child can have cookies if they are divided this way. Another child may say "three cookies." Place three cookies in each of two bags and two cookies in a third bag. Point out that by dividing the cookies this way there will be only two days when the child can have three cookies and a third day when only 2 cookies will be available. Now put 4 cookies into each of two bags. Point out that if someone wants to eat 4 cookies there will only be two days that cookies will be available.
Keep in mind that some children will opt for more cookies but for less days, and some will opt for less cookies but for more days. Either choice is fine as long as everyone understands that this is all the cookies that are going to be available. Inevitably at least one child is going to say "Just buy more cookies." This is where you explain that only one package of cookies has been budgeted for. If you double the cookies for the week you will have to take away something else that has been budgeted for for that week. If they want more cookies what are they willing to give up in order to get those cookies?
Now take out a large bag of pretzel sticks. Point out that the bag of pretzel sticks costs the same as the package of cookies, and there is only one bag of pretzels budgeted for for the week. Have the children help you to divide the pretzel sticks into 4 even piles. (The bag I divided had 151 sticks in it.) Each child will have 37 sticks, with 3 left over. Divide those sticks further and each child will have 7 piles of 5 pretzels each with two left over. Point out that those two extra pretzels could be added to one or two of the piles or they could be put together with the 3 leftover sticks and put into "savings." If the extras are put into "savings" there will be 11 pretzels in the savings bag.
Now, have the kids look at the bags of pretzels and the bags of cookies. If they want one of each type of snack each day then they are going to be limited to 5 pretzels and one cookie each day with very little put into savings. If they alternate the cookies and pretzels, with two cookies three times during the week and six pretzels four times during the week they are going to be able to save two cookies each week and thirteen pretzels each week, with a savings of 8 cookies and 52 pretzels across the four kids. Now point out that their "savings" for the month will be 32 cookies, or a whole package of cookies, and 208 pretzels or 1-1/3 bags of pretzels. By dividing their cookies and pretzels in this way they not only get both snacks each week but they also save money the second month because they don't have to buy pretzels and cookies again because they already have the items. What could be done with the saved money? You might also point out that if they opt for only one snack item each week instead of two the same savings could be realized.
Depending on the age of the children, you could also introduce the idea of "unexpected expenses." What if the kids have company at some point during the week and want to offer their guests some cookies or pretzels? How are the cookies and pretzels going to be divided to cover the "day to day" cookie and pretzel expenses of each child while still covering the guests? How might savings help here? Or what--gasp!--if mom or dad want some cookies or pretzels?
So, budgeting is what you do so that both what you need and what you may want can be purchased. Budgeting says that there is only so much that can be spent and makes sure that spending covers all items, even if some items may not be seen as frequently as other items. Budgeting is thinking about money before it is spent.
*Note: Obviously if you have more or less than four children, how the cookies and pretzels get divided will be different, and will definitely impinge on how much can be eaten and how much can be saved. And this, too, should be pointed out as part of the budgeting lesson.
Young kids have a vague idea of what money is and where it comes from. They may understand that mom and dad work and that brings in money, but they do not necessarily see money as a finite substance. For most kids, all their needs and a lot of their wants are being met by their parents. They are fed and clothed and put to sleep in beds in homes with solid roofs and with heating or cooling. Their school supplies are purchased. They go on school field trips. Most frum kids attend yeshivas. They go to their friends' birthday parties and they go carrying a gift for the celebrant. They get Chanukah presents. They get birthday presents. In their minds money shows up, is spent and replaces itself.
Any conversation with young kids should start out with defining terms. Money needs to be defined as something that is earned in some way and that is limited rather than infinite. The idea of budgeting** can be introduced, as well as the idea of wants and needs. Certainly the term "savings" should be introduced and defined.
**A package of cookies can work as a tool in teaching budgeting. Take 4 children* and a package of cookies containing 32 cookies. Have some sandwich bags handy. Now, announce to the children that the package of cookies is the only package that will be available for the week. Viewed as an unopened package at the beginning of the week it sure looks like a lot of cookies. Now open the package and start dividing it equally among the children. Point out that each child will get 8 cookies for the week. Suddenly that package of cookies is starting to look smaller, but still, 8 cookies is a lot of cookies. Now start talking about how those 8 cookies are going to be eaten during the week. Inevitably there is going to be one child that says he/she wants to eat all the cookies today. Put the 8 cookies into a bag and place it in front of the child. Other of the children may be able to reason out that they would like a cookie every day. Place one cookie into each of 7 bags and give those bags to the child. Point out that there will be one cookie left over. What does the child want to do with that cookie? You can point out that the child could have one day that week where he/she gets 2 cookies instead of one, where one of the bags has two cookies in it. You could also point out that the child could put that cookie away in a separate bag and save it for the future.
There is going to be a child who looks at one cookie in the bag and says "One cookie is not enough for a snack." Fine. Ask how many cookies would be enough for a snack. Say the child says "two cookies." Put two cookies into each of 4 bags and place in front of the child. Have the child count the bags. Point out that there will only be 4 days during the week when the child can have cookies if they are divided this way. Another child may say "three cookies." Place three cookies in each of two bags and two cookies in a third bag. Point out that by dividing the cookies this way there will be only two days when the child can have three cookies and a third day when only 2 cookies will be available. Now put 4 cookies into each of two bags. Point out that if someone wants to eat 4 cookies there will only be two days that cookies will be available.
Keep in mind that some children will opt for more cookies but for less days, and some will opt for less cookies but for more days. Either choice is fine as long as everyone understands that this is all the cookies that are going to be available. Inevitably at least one child is going to say "Just buy more cookies." This is where you explain that only one package of cookies has been budgeted for. If you double the cookies for the week you will have to take away something else that has been budgeted for for that week. If they want more cookies what are they willing to give up in order to get those cookies?
Now take out a large bag of pretzel sticks. Point out that the bag of pretzel sticks costs the same as the package of cookies, and there is only one bag of pretzels budgeted for for the week. Have the children help you to divide the pretzel sticks into 4 even piles. (The bag I divided had 151 sticks in it.) Each child will have 37 sticks, with 3 left over. Divide those sticks further and each child will have 7 piles of 5 pretzels each with two left over. Point out that those two extra pretzels could be added to one or two of the piles or they could be put together with the 3 leftover sticks and put into "savings." If the extras are put into "savings" there will be 11 pretzels in the savings bag.
Now, have the kids look at the bags of pretzels and the bags of cookies. If they want one of each type of snack each day then they are going to be limited to 5 pretzels and one cookie each day with very little put into savings. If they alternate the cookies and pretzels, with two cookies three times during the week and six pretzels four times during the week they are going to be able to save two cookies each week and thirteen pretzels each week, with a savings of 8 cookies and 52 pretzels across the four kids. Now point out that their "savings" for the month will be 32 cookies, or a whole package of cookies, and 208 pretzels or 1-1/3 bags of pretzels. By dividing their cookies and pretzels in this way they not only get both snacks each week but they also save money the second month because they don't have to buy pretzels and cookies again because they already have the items. What could be done with the saved money? You might also point out that if they opt for only one snack item each week instead of two the same savings could be realized.
Depending on the age of the children, you could also introduce the idea of "unexpected expenses." What if the kids have company at some point during the week and want to offer their guests some cookies or pretzels? How are the cookies and pretzels going to be divided to cover the "day to day" cookie and pretzel expenses of each child while still covering the guests? How might savings help here? Or what--gasp!--if mom or dad want some cookies or pretzels?
So, budgeting is what you do so that both what you need and what you may want can be purchased. Budgeting says that there is only so much that can be spent and makes sure that spending covers all items, even if some items may not be seen as frequently as other items. Budgeting is thinking about money before it is spent.
*Note: Obviously if you have more or less than four children, how the cookies and pretzels get divided will be different, and will definitely impinge on how much can be eaten and how much can be saved. And this, too, should be pointed out as part of the budgeting lesson.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
All Mankind is NOT Equal
Thanks to Orthonomics where this recent post got me thinking along the following lines. Hachnasat Bar Mitzvah Bochur Orthonomics.blogspot.com
No less an authority than the US Declaration of Independence had the following to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There are any number of people who think they are quoting these famous words when they say "All men are equal." Fact #1: all men--mankind--are not equal. There are among us those whose talents and abilities place them in an elevated position Vis a Vis the rest of us. There are those among us whose ingenuity and hard work also place them in an elevated position. There are people whose ability to make money, and thus to acquire those items that cost money, puts them ahead of other people monetarily. There are some people who simply are healthier, wealthier and wiser than other people around them. No amount of saying it shouldn't be that way is going to change the reality, a reality that is not new to our times but that has been with us almost from the beginning of our recorded time. What the Declaration does say is that all people are created equal; there is no inherent class system that people here are born into, a class that they can never get out of, as is the case where caste systems are used.
Keeping up with the Joneses syndrome loses sight of the fact that we aren't all exactly the same. If the Joneses have something then I am entitled to have that something too is how the reasoning goes, because otherwise we aren't all equal. If the Joneses make a mega-bucks bar mitzvah or wedding then we are entitled to do so as well, because otherwise equality is damaged. i don't know quite when or how this thinking came about, but it is highly skewed thinking. What I do know is that it is somehow related to the part of the quote above that refers to "the pursuit of happiness."
For many people it is not "the pursuit of happiness" that they see as guaranteed to us but happiness itself. When they see the happiness the Joneses have they believe that they are entitled to that same happiness. No, they are not. They are certainly entitled to pursue whatever happiness they wish to attain, but no one ever promised them that they will actually get whatever it is they are pursuing.
I know people who are monetarily far wealthier than my family; I also know people who have less money than my family. So be it. My husband and I did not steal whatever money we have nor did we unfairly "cut the line" to get more than what was coming to us. Everything we have we have worked for, and worked hard for. When we had less we made do with less. We saved and we budgeted, and if we have things now there is nothing "unfair" about it. We went out in pursuit of happiness, a happiness we defined for ourselves, and procured for ourselves. Neither my husband nor myself have a particular taivoh for Jones-ism. It always flummoxes me, however, when some people perceive us as members of the Jones tribe, and are disgruntled because they don't have what we have. My hubby and I have, for the past few years, gone away together on vacation twice during the year. Someone this last summer made a comment that "I don't know how you are managing to take so many vacations," and she wasn't being admiring. Talk about being flummoxed. What, pray tell, do my vacations have anything to do with anybody else? I'm not asking anyone else to pay for them, and I'm not taking tzedaka from the community to pay for them either.
When I read or hear that parents who don't have the money are going to be making a mega-bucks bar mitzvah for their son because otherwise their child will be perceived as different, as somehow not as "equal" as the other children, I am really floored. Where is reality in this kind of thinking? In Klal, as in the outside world, some people have more money than other people do. The spending of that money, and the desire to spend like those who have the money, has nothing to do with equality and a great deal to do with kinah.
Frankly, I'm thinking that Klal, or at least a whole lot of members of Klal, needs an attitude adjustment, and fast. Yes, if someone is starving, if someone has no place to live, if an emergency arises so that basic living expenses cannot be met, then we need to help out those people. But not being able to make an elaborate bar mitzvah does not constitute an emergency to my way of thinking. Not being able to buy expensive furniture and other expensive furnishings when first getting married does not constitute an emergency. Being "forced" to shop second hand or in bargain stores does not constitute an emergency. We need to spend a lot more time being appreciative of what we do have and a lot less time looking into everyone else's pots. We've set up some mindsets of entitlement that are eating away at our communal fabric.
No less an authority than the US Declaration of Independence had the following to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There are any number of people who think they are quoting these famous words when they say "All men are equal." Fact #1: all men--mankind--are not equal. There are among us those whose talents and abilities place them in an elevated position Vis a Vis the rest of us. There are those among us whose ingenuity and hard work also place them in an elevated position. There are people whose ability to make money, and thus to acquire those items that cost money, puts them ahead of other people monetarily. There are some people who simply are healthier, wealthier and wiser than other people around them. No amount of saying it shouldn't be that way is going to change the reality, a reality that is not new to our times but that has been with us almost from the beginning of our recorded time. What the Declaration does say is that all people are created equal; there is no inherent class system that people here are born into, a class that they can never get out of, as is the case where caste systems are used.
Keeping up with the Joneses syndrome loses sight of the fact that we aren't all exactly the same. If the Joneses have something then I am entitled to have that something too is how the reasoning goes, because otherwise we aren't all equal. If the Joneses make a mega-bucks bar mitzvah or wedding then we are entitled to do so as well, because otherwise equality is damaged. i don't know quite when or how this thinking came about, but it is highly skewed thinking. What I do know is that it is somehow related to the part of the quote above that refers to "the pursuit of happiness."
For many people it is not "the pursuit of happiness" that they see as guaranteed to us but happiness itself. When they see the happiness the Joneses have they believe that they are entitled to that same happiness. No, they are not. They are certainly entitled to pursue whatever happiness they wish to attain, but no one ever promised them that they will actually get whatever it is they are pursuing.
I know people who are monetarily far wealthier than my family; I also know people who have less money than my family. So be it. My husband and I did not steal whatever money we have nor did we unfairly "cut the line" to get more than what was coming to us. Everything we have we have worked for, and worked hard for. When we had less we made do with less. We saved and we budgeted, and if we have things now there is nothing "unfair" about it. We went out in pursuit of happiness, a happiness we defined for ourselves, and procured for ourselves. Neither my husband nor myself have a particular taivoh for Jones-ism. It always flummoxes me, however, when some people perceive us as members of the Jones tribe, and are disgruntled because they don't have what we have. My hubby and I have, for the past few years, gone away together on vacation twice during the year. Someone this last summer made a comment that "I don't know how you are managing to take so many vacations," and she wasn't being admiring. Talk about being flummoxed. What, pray tell, do my vacations have anything to do with anybody else? I'm not asking anyone else to pay for them, and I'm not taking tzedaka from the community to pay for them either.
When I read or hear that parents who don't have the money are going to be making a mega-bucks bar mitzvah for their son because otherwise their child will be perceived as different, as somehow not as "equal" as the other children, I am really floored. Where is reality in this kind of thinking? In Klal, as in the outside world, some people have more money than other people do. The spending of that money, and the desire to spend like those who have the money, has nothing to do with equality and a great deal to do with kinah.
Frankly, I'm thinking that Klal, or at least a whole lot of members of Klal, needs an attitude adjustment, and fast. Yes, if someone is starving, if someone has no place to live, if an emergency arises so that basic living expenses cannot be met, then we need to help out those people. But not being able to make an elaborate bar mitzvah does not constitute an emergency to my way of thinking. Not being able to buy expensive furniture and other expensive furnishings when first getting married does not constitute an emergency. Being "forced" to shop second hand or in bargain stores does not constitute an emergency. We need to spend a lot more time being appreciative of what we do have and a lot less time looking into everyone else's pots. We've set up some mindsets of entitlement that are eating away at our communal fabric.
What You Don't Know About Health Care...
As I reported two weeks ago, my mother fell, fractured her hip and ended up with emergency surgery to repair it. From the hospital she was sent to a rehab facility because she will need intensive physical therapy to be able to regain her mobility.
Accidentally we had the name of a kosher rehab facility as my uncle was in it along with a friend of my mom's. It had a good name and the physical therapy was supposed to be excellent. So when the time came to transfer mom we took her to the rehab facility in Brooklyn. We were told we were actually "lucky" to get her in there since open beds are few and far between.
How to even begin to describe our experiences. First thing we have learned--my sister and I, the only siblings here in New York--is that even the best of facilities are not all that great. Unless the family can commit to long hours of visitation, seven days a week, and even longer hours of being on the phone trying to track down the various service providers in the home then the patient will not get everything that is promised up front. Even with family there all the time, even with a hired aide for over Shabbos, there are glitches that need straightening out multiple times per day.
Some of you may have parents who are getting on in age or grandparents who are doing so. Trust me, the time to plan out this kind of care is before you will ever need it. My sister and I are truly devoted to our mom. But we couldn't imagine just what was going to be needed. We both have families and there are jobs to be considered. And just because one person is in the hospital or in a rehab facility does not automatically confer excellent health on everyone else in the family for the duration of the patient's stay. During this two weeks we have "only" had one case of Coxsackie Virus, one case of bronchitis, one emergency endoscopy for an esophageal yeast infection and one emergency extraction of a severely impacted wisdom tooth. And that is in addition to the incision area getting infected on mom.
What I have noticed in the 10 days we have been in the rehab facility is that those patients who have family and friends who come regularly are the "lucky" ones. There are lots of people in the facility for whom the phone never rings and who get no visitors at all. I've made it my business to drop in and say hello to one woman down the hall from my mom who is one of those who has no visitors. I've brought her a tea when I bring one to my mom. But there is more that needs to be done.
The Brooklyn Bikur Cholim societies seem to function fine when it comes to hospital visitation but I think they need to expand their efforts when it comes to the multiple rehab homes that the borough has. And I think the various shuls also need to get involved in an organized manner.
My family is truly getting an education about health care and health care facilities. Some of what we are "learning" is fine, and some is not so fine. While we are so busy arguing about concerts and the color of women's skirts, perhaps time would be better spent evaluating what is available in our nursing facilities and how things could be improved upon. Until we ended up needing such a facility I admit I didn't give them all that much attention or thought; I know better now.
Accidentally we had the name of a kosher rehab facility as my uncle was in it along with a friend of my mom's. It had a good name and the physical therapy was supposed to be excellent. So when the time came to transfer mom we took her to the rehab facility in Brooklyn. We were told we were actually "lucky" to get her in there since open beds are few and far between.
How to even begin to describe our experiences. First thing we have learned--my sister and I, the only siblings here in New York--is that even the best of facilities are not all that great. Unless the family can commit to long hours of visitation, seven days a week, and even longer hours of being on the phone trying to track down the various service providers in the home then the patient will not get everything that is promised up front. Even with family there all the time, even with a hired aide for over Shabbos, there are glitches that need straightening out multiple times per day.
Some of you may have parents who are getting on in age or grandparents who are doing so. Trust me, the time to plan out this kind of care is before you will ever need it. My sister and I are truly devoted to our mom. But we couldn't imagine just what was going to be needed. We both have families and there are jobs to be considered. And just because one person is in the hospital or in a rehab facility does not automatically confer excellent health on everyone else in the family for the duration of the patient's stay. During this two weeks we have "only" had one case of Coxsackie Virus, one case of bronchitis, one emergency endoscopy for an esophageal yeast infection and one emergency extraction of a severely impacted wisdom tooth. And that is in addition to the incision area getting infected on mom.
What I have noticed in the 10 days we have been in the rehab facility is that those patients who have family and friends who come regularly are the "lucky" ones. There are lots of people in the facility for whom the phone never rings and who get no visitors at all. I've made it my business to drop in and say hello to one woman down the hall from my mom who is one of those who has no visitors. I've brought her a tea when I bring one to my mom. But there is more that needs to be done.
The Brooklyn Bikur Cholim societies seem to function fine when it comes to hospital visitation but I think they need to expand their efforts when it comes to the multiple rehab homes that the borough has. And I think the various shuls also need to get involved in an organized manner.
My family is truly getting an education about health care and health care facilities. Some of what we are "learning" is fine, and some is not so fine. While we are so busy arguing about concerts and the color of women's skirts, perhaps time would be better spent evaluating what is available in our nursing facilities and how things could be improved upon. Until we ended up needing such a facility I admit I didn't give them all that much attention or thought; I know better now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)