As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: children


The best place to learn solid financial behavior is at home. Although a kid’s environment at school and among peers is important in his or her development, the biggest influence on a growing child’s set of values is the behavior of the parents. Parents are role models, so in a perfect world, they are best suited to solve young adults’ lack of preparedness for handing the world from a financial perspective.

Parents, on the other hand, are often ill-equipped for this responsibility, so public school teachers are left to pick up the slack for parents who can’t or won’t be the role models necessary. The lessons aren’t difficult, but financial behavior is so embedded in life at home, poor models there can easily undo any lessons taught in a school environment. Although New Jersey updates its public school curriculum standards a few years ago to require 2.5 credits in financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy, the typical class is not going to be effective for establishing solid financial behavior.

Eighth gradePrograms that teach financial literacy need to get creative. If there’s ever a chance for the banking industry to get involved with its future customers at an early age, this is it. Capital One sees the benefit in teaching young children how to use its products and is sponsoring the “Finance Park” program, coordinated by the non-profit organization Junior Achievement.

Finance Park is a mobile program for middle school students. After a few preparatory lessons in the classroom, the students visit one of these mobile stations and a Capital One bank branch. Students are assigned a family situation (single, married, with or without children, etc.) and a job, and are faced with simulations requiring financial decisions that have consequences. Due to a lack of preparedness in real life, most people learn how to manage their money “on the job.” But even in real life, the consequences of poor financial decision-making can be somewhat removed from the decisions themselves. The distance between cause (overspending, for example) and effect (not being able to afford a house due to high debt levels, for example) are so separated that learning on the job isn’t always effective as quickly as it would need to be.

Simulations can bring the cause and effect relationship into focus.

Capital One’s presence is significant in this program. The official name of the initiative is the “Capital One Junior Achievement Finance Park” with the necessary trademark symbols. Corporate involvement doesn’t stop with Capital One. There are more co-branded programs which one might expect to see corporations training young consumers to be life-long customers, in New Jersey alone:

Elementary school grades

  • Our Nation® Sponsored by United Technologies
  • JA More than Money™ (After-school Program) Sponsored by HSBC

Middle school grades

  • JA Global Marketplace™ Sponsored by MasterCard Worldwide
  • JA Economics for Success™ Sponsored by the Allstate Foundation
  • JA America Works Sponsored by Pitney Bowes & The Literacy and Education Fund

High school grades

  • JA TITAN (Internet based) Sponsored by Oracle
  • JA Economics™ Sponsored by the MetLife Foundation
  • JA Exploring Economics™ Sponsored by the MetLife Foundation
  • JA Banks in Action™ Sponsored by the Citi Foundation
  • JA Business Ethics™ Sponsored by Deloitte
  • JA Careers with a Purpose™ Sponsored by HCA & John Templeton Foundation

Junior Achievement programs in other states have different partnerships.

Shareholders are often impressed with corporate involvement in positive social initiatives and happy when companies are beneficiaries of tax incentives for charitable spending. I am concerned about the effect of branding in education lessons for eighth-graders. Corporations should not be involved with the education of children, but these corporations have money to devote to programs like Finance Park. If it weren’t for corporate sponsorship, programs like these would likely not exist.

Corporations have been involved with public education since the 1920s, but the trend has increased in recent years. As the United States falls behind other countries in education, citizens look to blame this country’s public school system. We look to corporations that create charter schools as an alternative, with the idea that schools with a better funding source, corporate profits rather than taxpayer money, will help solve the educational crisis. Results show that charter schools have mixed results when compared with public schools.

The lessons in personal finance are important, so it’s a good thing that kids are getting the exposure to real-life simulations. Can it be done without corporate involvement and indelible branding at an impressionable age?

Photo: daveparker
Junior Achievement Finance Park, Stanford CREDO study

{ 10 comments }

There is a perception among many families that private elementary and high schools are worth the costs of tuition even though public school is comparatively free to attend (not including taxes and bake sales). That’s a debate that will never end. Parents, who always want what’s best for their children, will take advantage of every opportunity possible to provide them with an advantage.

Similar to higher education, private grade schools and high schools make financial aid available for certain students whose families may not be able to pay the full tuition. An increasing number of families are applying for financial aid at private schools, and I was surprised to read that families with incomes as high as $350,000 a year were asking for help paying for their child’s tuition. In fact, when the financial aid is awarded, it’s going mostly to these high-income families rather than low-income families who truly need financial assistance. As schools dedicate more financial aid to their wealthier students, less is available for families who are on the lower end of the income scale.

This type of financial aid is more like a grant than a loan. Families who qualify for financial aid from private schools, for the most part, do not need to pay back what they receive.

  • If a family can pay half of the tuition bill while requiring the rest from financial aid, that family stands a greater chance of receiving what they need. Meanwhile, families who could afford to pay only a small portion of the cost of tuition will not receive the financial help needed to bridge the larger gap.
  • When the family a student who has previously attended a private schools loses liquid assets as a result of the recession, schools would like to see that student stay in the program.

The financial advantages one has in life, while mostly earned, not inherited, beget more financial advantages. The school-based grant type of financial aid is focused on those who can afford to contribute a significant portion of the tuition, while lower-income private school attendees need to increasingly turn to loans. The need for financing changes the calculation of whether private school is worthwhile.

Does your family receive financial aid for private school? Should school-based grants be offered to more low-income students? Should those who can’t afford private school be satisfied with the public school system?

CNN

{ 8 comments }

How much time do you spend in front of the television, socializing with friends, or watching movies? I freely admit that I spend too much time watching television. There are certain television programs that entertain me, and particularly during stressful times in my life, I need some type of outlet that makes me laugh, raising my spirits. As a single man living alone, I don’t have the opportunity right now to unwind at the end of the day by spending time with family.

This is, of course, an excuse or a rationalization of why I don’t just spend more time working. A new study, wherein the researchers’ intent was to reevaluate whether the consumption gap between the wealthy and the poor grew alongside the income gap between 1980 and 2010, also has indicated a correlation between education level and leisure time. The authors of the study then make the connection from education level to wealth, when asked by the Wall Street Journal.

Low-educated men saw their leisure hours grow to 39.1 hours in 2003-2007, from 36.6 hours in 1985. Highly-educated men saw their leisure hours shrink to 33.2 hours from 34.4 hours… Low-educated women saw their leisure time grow to 35.2 hours a week from 35 hours. High-educated women saw their leisure time decrease to 30.3 hours from 32.2 hours. Educated women, in other words, had the largest decline in leisure time of the four groups.

Movie marqueeThe higher a person’s level of education, the less time they spend on leisure activities like watching television, going out to see movies in a theater, socializing with friends, talking on the phone, and playing games. The study authors content that as unemployment has grown at a higher rate for lower-education individuals, that factor has contributed to about half of the change in leisure time for that segment of the sample.

How do we get from a measurement of education to a measurement of wealth? The study authors contend that education is a proxy for wealth, as level of education tends to correspond with income. There are probably some pieces missing in this leap from education to wealth in general, but if nothing else, a higher education opens more opportunities for traditional methods of earning income. (There are always counter-examples, with Ivy League dropouts forming companies that go onto being worth many billions of dollars, but that is exceedingly rare.)

No one is pointing to a causality — that working more and spending less time on leisure activities alone — will result in an increase of income. But if there is a correlation, it makes sense. There is, however, a perception that those at the top of the corporate ladder, earning more money, do not “work harder” than rank-and-file employees. On the job, employees during the grunt work may work just as hard or harder as an executive whose primary function seems to be attending meetings and farming out work to his or her underlings while consolidating reports and presenting reports to the Board of Directors, for example. This study doesn’t look at how hard one works at the workplace, but at how much leisure time is used outside of the office.

There is a message: get to work. Those with higher incomes spend less time on activities outside the office that aren’t productive. Family time is excluded, of course. Highly-educated individuals (who we’re assuming are also earning higher incomes) are more likely to spend time at home cooking and caring for children.

Do rich people work harder? Can less time wasted on leisure activities like watching television translate to higher income?

Photo: angeloangelo
Wall Street Journal, National Bureau of Economic Research

{ 12 comments }

Last week, I acknowledged recent survey findings from the Pew Research Center showing that women are beginning to value success in their careers more than men value their own. It’s a historical twist, brought about by the idea that women entering the workforce is no longer related to a necessity, but an innate desire. Women, as a group, have a higher level of education and are increasingly choosing to pursue a successful career path.

With young children at home needing care and an increasing cost of outsourcing that care, many families need to choose a parent to stay home while the other earns money with an occupation. Women are still subject to compensation inequity — again, as a group — but in an increasing number of families, the wife is out-earning the husband. The choice is often simply financial; whoever earns the most money or has the potential to earn the most continues in their career path, while the other parent stays home to care for the child or children.

Now that more men are staying home to care for their children while their wives concentrate on their careers, it’s easier to shatter one of the long-standing myths about fatherhood. Previously, men who chose to pause their path to career success were judged inadequate to survive in the world of business.

Men are raised to value work as their main source of worth and self-esteem. Society’s underlying message is that men who make sacrifices and choose family over career advancement do it because they can’t succeed at work. But we are at the beginning of an epic shift in cultural norms. More men are finding parenthood meaningful and that is raising the status of fathers. Some men are trading career advancement for time with their family because they value the fulfillment they find in fatherhood, not because they can’t hack it in the job market. More men than ever feel that being a good father is a significant accomplishment in life.

Child and fatherResults from a survey performed last year by the University of Nebraska indicate that 75 percent of men consider being a parent very important, while only 48 percent had the same opinion about having a successful career. It’s possible, however, that there is a new stigma against being overly concerned with financial success, and this psychological aversion to being associated with the stereotypical careerist might prevent people from answering in a survey in a manner the respondent might think reflects poorly on themselves. There’s a tendency, also, to answer surveys as if one is an ideal. In other words, I might answer a survey as if I were an ideal version of myself rather than reflecting a true self-analysis.

Even if that is the case, it reflects the idea that stay-at-home-fatherhood is now a more respected life choice than it has been in the past.

Having a two-income family is still a luxury, and when at least one of the two incomes is significant enough to afford a solid living for a family of three or more, it’s a blessing. Most middle class families, when both parents are working out of necessity, it’s the ability to stay home with the children that is a luxury. It can be a difficult choice, particularly if one parent’s income is roughly equivalent to the cost of day care for his or her child or children.

The argument fails to consider yet another reality of life: one parent, either a father or a mother, struggling to earn an income and take care of one child or more, without a spouse for support.

For men: Would you put your career on hold — possibly forever — if it made more financial sense for you to stay at home with your children?

For women: Would you be willing to pursue your career full steam ahead while your partner develops a closer bond with children through more time spent with them during formative years?

Photo: Chris. P
Fathers Forum, CNN, BabyCenter

{ 6 comments }

More Women Than Men Value Career Success

by Flexo
Career woman

A new survey by the Pew Research Center shows women have surpassed men in placing value on career advancement. Among 18 to 34-year-olds, 66 percent of women consider being successful in a high-paying career or job is one of the most important things or very important, compared to 59 percent of men. In 1997, 56 ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

The Over-Marketization of Social Behavior

by Flexo

Do you reward your children with money for performing well in school? Do you use the promise of an allowance to ancourage appropriate behavior in the family? These are big issues, because they take appropriate behavior and can turn the incentive to financial gain. Children growing up believing that financial gain is the reward for ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →

Will You Financially Support Your Parents?

by Flexo

My recent article on Business Insider points out that more families are living in multi-generational households with the recent shaky economy. While we are technically in a recovery period, the effects of the recession are still present in families. Taking care of elderly individuals is an expensive business, and those who did not save expecting ... Continue reading this article…

25 comments Read the full article →

Do Multilingual Individuals Earn More Money?

by Flexo

A recent article in the New York Times (linked below) synthesizes several studies about people who speak several languages fluently. I am relatively confident that the ability to converse in more than one language adds to your human capital, increasing the likelihood of earning more money over time. There are some surveys that show that ... Continue reading this article…

7 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 3512345···Last »