>> I am not sure I want my money going anywhere except in my >> pocket, lol. I'm kidding, but changing the way small >> businesses and the taxes are handled would certainly create >> more jobs (at least in Michigan) because our wonderful >> (NOT) governor has made it so hard for businesses to stay >> afloat that they have all had to close because of her >> wonderful tax increases.
> yes, i agree. it's not the small businesses shipping jobs > overseas. it's the big corporations, which have extremely > favorable tax structures *and* get loads of incentives & > kickbacks (Haliburton, Blackwater?)
Some small businesses to ship things overseas. Or they buy products and services from overseas that they can get here.
>>> when did consumerism become our god anyway? >> You are kidding right? This is America. It's always been >> raised on consumerism. Consumerism is not a bad thing. You >> act like it is a horrible thing. It does, you know, keep >> our beloved Amercia running.
> no, it hasn't always been this way. i'm only 53 & i remember > when saving was more important than spending. the instant > gratifacation & credit card generation really ramped up in the > late 70s.
Gee, I went to high school in the early '70s. Yet I believe in saving.
<...>
> antique is anything over 50 years old to thousands of years > old. there may be *something* in that broad range you like ;) > (vintage is 25-50 years old). i suspect that you're thinking > "colonial" when you think antique, at least that's the most > common perception i've run into. > there *is* good quality new furniture out there, but it's > very expensive. however, some of it costs about the same as > regular high end furniture that has less than high quality > construction. you have to know what to look for (tied springs, > dove joints, peg & screw joints, etc). when i *do* shop, i'm > kind of the nightmare customer... > lee
Perhaps it would make more sense for you to shop for good quality tools and machines and good quality wood. Then use the machines, tools and wood to maker your own furniture.
> Sue wrote: >> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>> sleazy employment practices.
>> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >> actually know someone that works there?
> There have been many reports about how they force employees > to work during breaks, have locked employees in for the > night, they get little pay, etc.
minimum wage, just under the # of hours required to provide health insurance, etc lee
>> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>> sleazy employment practices. >> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >> actually know someone that works there?
> frequently there *are no other jobs* in areas where Wal-Mart > exists. if there were, the people wouldn't be working at Wal- > Mart. > and i care how the employees are treated because it's my > responsibility as a fellow human to see people be treated > fairly & equitably... why yes, i *was* a 60s radical... > lee
Costco is known for giving good wages for their employees. I think the average is something like $18 per hour. Or is that the starting wage? I forget. They also have great benefits. Costco's management has been criticized in the past for being so generous to employees as well as for not marking up any items by more than a certain percent (I think 28%).
One reason why Wal-Mart has been in the news a lot of about employee problems is that they have a huge number of employees. If you have that many employees, there will be issues that come up. However, the pattern is pretty consistent. In addition, Wal-Mart actively tries to prevent employees from unionizing. While I am not a great fan of unions (union membership as a proportion of workers went up last year), if the employees want to unionize they should able to.
>> Sue wrote: >>> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>>> sleazy employment practices. >>> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >>> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >>> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >>> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >>> actually know someone that works there? >> There have been many reports about how they force employees >> to work during breaks, have locked employees in for the >> night, they get little pay, etc.
> minimum wage, just under the # of hours required to provide > health insurance, etc > lee
The wages are a true issue. 93% of Walmart employees have health insurance, and just over 1/2 have health insurance through Wal-Mart. This is because Wal-Mart has new health insurance that recently began. (about 43% of employees have health insurance from another source, like their spouses). I don't know how many employees get health insurance for their families, though.
>> Sue wrote: >>> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>>> sleazy employment practices.
>>> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >>> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >>> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >>> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >>> actually know someone that works there?
>> There have been many reports about how they force employees >> to work during breaks, have locked employees in for the >> night, they get little pay, etc.
> minimum wage, just under the # of hours required to provide > health insurance, etc > lee
> "enigma" <eni...@evil.net> wrote in message >> of course i do, and i do not plan to accept this "rebate".
> Correct me if I am wrong, but this "rebate" is our money to begin with. > The last time a rebate was offered, it was just our money from taxes > coming in before April. When tax time comes, we got less back because of > the rebate. So if I am correct in this, then for you not to accept the > rebate is kind of silly because you are turning down your own money. We > are just getting it back sooner than later.
>> that, and instead of the 'rebate' sop to the masses, it would >> be far better to put that money into the failing >> infrastructure of this country. that would provide a LOT of >> construction jobs, with attendant management & engineering >> jobs, which would pump more actual dollars into the economy by >> providing employment.
> I am not sure I want my money going anywhere except in my pocket, lol. I'm > kidding, but changing the way small businesses and the taxes are handled > would certainly create more jobs (at least in Michigan) because our > wonderful (NOT) governor has made it so hard for businesses to stay afloat > that they have all had to close because of her wonderful tax increases.
>> when did consumerism become our god anyway?
> You are kidding right? This is America. It's always been raised on > consumerism. Consumerism is not a bad thing. You act like it is a horrible > thing. It does, you know, keep our beloved Amercia running.
I think it *is* a bad thing. Aside from being a dumb way to keep America running, it is morally bankrupt to buy more and more crap that we don't need.
>>i was raised to save, & to buy quality. this explains why i have no >>"fashion >> sense" (i don't do trendy)
> That's a shame. You can have fashion sense and buy quality. Just because > you don't have a sense for clothes doesn't mean that it's a bad thing that > someone else does. One can buy wonderful, fashionable clothing from second > hand stores and sale items. I love clothes and looking nice.
I LOVE our second hand stores. I never, ever, ever pay full price for clothes. It does tend to mean not being current with fashion. But around where I live, no one is!
>>& almost no furniture (i can't find good enough quality anymore. i'm >>slowly >buying antiques & hand crafted stuff that will last another 100 >>years or more)
> I will give you that. Furniture is awful these days. I do have some pieces > left from my childhood that have withstood the test of time. They don't > make quality furniture like they used to. I don't like antiques so we do > have cheap furniture in our house, but not a lot because our house is very > small. > -- > Sue (mom to three girls)
In article <45adnT01NuE43gbanZ2dnUVZ_tuon...@comcast.com>, Stephanie says...
>I LOVE our second hand stores. I never, ever, ever pay full price for >clothes. It does tend to mean not being current with fashion. But around >where I live, no one is!
And these are the perfect way to get good kids' clothes with good value through the years when they outgrow stuff. I also got stuff at KidsRUs (which wouldn't please the buy-American folks here...)
>> Sue wrote: >>> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>>> sleazy employment practices.
>>> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >>> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >>> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >>> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >>> actually know someone that works there?
>> There have been many reports about how they force employees >> to work during breaks, have locked employees in for the >> night, they get little pay, etc.
>minimum wage, just under the # of hours required to provide >health insurance, etc >lee
That's how just about every retail business operates that I've ever worked at. No, I've never worked at Walmart.
> What is an appropriate allowance amount for an almost 10 year old?
> What do your kids use their allowance $$ for? Are there certain > things they're responsible for buying or can they use the money for > whatever they want? I'd like to open a savings account for him and > make him save a certain %... but I'm not sure what % would be "fair."
> Thanks for your input.
> Kim
My 8yo gets $5 a week (unless he does zero chores - then he doesn't get it). He is allowed to spend it any way he wants. I do not require him to save any particular percentage but he saves money on his own. If he did not I might insist on it to show him the pay off (being able to get a larger ticket item etc.). He has a savings account that he puts some of his allowance money in from time to time and/or gift money.
I do not make him budget for any necessities. He uses it for any toy he wants, if he wants to go to the arcade, or if he wants something like a candy bar. He'll often put a candy bar back when I remind him he has to pay. He doesn't really want it that bad, lol.
I do the same thing with my 6yo but he's not as 'responsible' as his brother. I may have to set up a savings thing for him.
To encourage savings I have 'matched' their savings a couple of times. It is hard to save up a lot of money but if they can save half I'll pitch in the other have to get them something they really want.
-- Nikki, mama to Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 Brock 4/06 Ben 4/06
> i pay my credit card bills off every other month. i used to do > it monthly but that screws your credit rating. you have to > carry debt once in a while to get a good rating :p
That's not necessarily true and must depend largely on your credit card company because that is definitely not the case for me.
> "enigma" <eni...@evil.net> wrote in message > > of course i do, and i do not plan to accept this "rebate".
> Correct me if I am wrong, but this "rebate" is our money to begin with. The > last time a rebate was offered, it was just our money from taxes coming in > before April. When tax time comes, we got less back because of the rebate. > So if I am correct in this, then for you not to accept the rebate is kind of > silly because you are turning down your own money. We are just getting it > back sooner than later.
> > that, and instead of the 'rebate' sop to the masses, it would > > be far better to put that money into the failing > > infrastructure of this country. that would provide a LOT of > > construction jobs, with attendant management & engineering > > jobs, which would pump more actual dollars into the economy by > > providing employment.
> I am not sure I want my money going anywhere except in my pocket, lol. I'm > kidding, but changing the way small businesses and the taxes are handled > would certainly create more jobs (at least in Michigan) because our > wonderful (NOT) governor has made it so hard for businesses to stay afloat > that they have all had to close because of her wonderful tax increases.
> > when did consumerism become our god anyway?
> You are kidding right? This is America. It's always been raised on > consumerism. Consumerism is not a bad thing. You act like it is a horrible > thing. It does, you know, keep our beloved Amercia running.
> >i was raised to save, & to buy quality. this explains why i have no > >"fashion > > sense" (i don't do trendy)
> That's a shame. You can have fashion sense and buy quality. Just because you > don't have a sense for clothes doesn't mean that it's a bad thing that > someone else does. One can buy wonderful, fashionable clothing from second > hand stores and sale items. I love clothes and looking nice.
> >& almost no furniture (i can't find good enough quality anymore. i'm > >slowly >buying antiques & hand crafted stuff that will last another 100 > >years or more)
> I will give you that. Furniture is awful these days. I do have some pieces > left from my childhood that have withstood the test of time. They don't make > quality furniture like they used to. I don't like antiques so we do have > cheap furniture in our house, but not a lot because our house is very small. > -- > Sue (mom to three girls)
Whereabouts in Michigan are you Sue? I'm a Michigander myself whose husband thankfully was reemployed in the 13th hour of the last governmental layoff/closure ordeal and who also found out in another 13th hour that the service tax would not cause me to lose my business. A very stressful couple of months she bestowed upon us for certain. She is a moron.
>>>of course i do, and i do not plan to accept this "rebate".
>>Correct me if I am wrong, but this "rebate" is our money to >>begin with. The last time a rebate was offered, it was just >>our money from taxes coming in before April. When tax time >>comes, we got less back because of the rebate. So if I am >>correct in this, then for you not to accept the rebate is >>kind of silly because you are turning down your own money. >>We are just getting it back sooner than later.
> i don't work though, so i don't think that *is* my money. i > haven't had a job in 8 years. > i suspect that if i did get a rebate i'd buy bonds. that way > at least i know a small part of the stupid plan is going where > it should be ;)
>>>that, and instead of the 'rebate' sop to the masses, it >>>would be far better to put that money into the failing >>>infrastructure of this country. that would provide a LOT >>>of construction jobs, with attendant management & >>>engineering jobs, which would pump more actual dollars >>>into the economy by providing employment.
>>I am not sure I want my money going anywhere except in my >>pocket, lol. I'm kidding, but changing the way small >>businesses and the taxes are handled would certainly create >>more jobs (at least in Michigan) because our wonderful >>(NOT) governor has made it so hard for businesses to stay >>afloat that they have all had to close because of her >>wonderful tax increases.
> yes, i agree. it's not the small businesses shipping jobs > overseas. it's the big corporations, which have extremely > favorable tax structures *and* get loads of incentives & > kickbacks (Haliburton, Blackwater?)
>>>when did consumerism become our god anyway?
>>You are kidding right? This is America. It's always been >>raised on consumerism. Consumerism is not a bad thing. You >>act like it is a horrible thing. It does, you know, keep >>our beloved Amercia running.
> no, it hasn't always been this way. i'm only 53 & i remember > when saving was more important than spending. the instant > gratifacation & credit card generation really ramped up in the > late 70s.
>>>i was raised to save, & to buy quality. this explains why i >>>have no "fashion >>>sense" (i don't do trendy)
>>That's a shame. You can have fashion sense and buy quality. >>Just because you don't have a sense for clothes doesn't >>mean that it's a bad thing that someone else does. One can >>buy wonderful, fashionable clothing from second hand stores >>and sale items. I love clothes and looking nice.
> i should make it clear that clothes generally bore me to tears > & i loathe shopping with rare passion. i do, however, sew & > when i'm not wearing jeans & a t-shirt, i wear really , um, > creative stuff ;) > i'm not concerned about looking nice because i'm generally > knee deep in mud & manure (metaphorically speaking. i'd be > appalled if there was that much mud *or* manure around). it's > a lifestyle choice.
>>>& almost no furniture (i can't find good enough quality >>>anymore. i'm slowly >buying antiques & hand crafted stuff >>>that will last another 100 years or more)
>>I will give you that. Furniture is awful these days. I do >>have some pieces left from my childhood that have withstood >>the test of time. They don't make quality furniture like >>they used to. I don't like antiques so we do have cheap >>furniture in our house, but not a lot because our house is >>very small.
> antique is anything over 50 years old to thousands of years > old. there may be *something* in that broad range you like ;)
I'm not sure who would consider something only 50 years old an "antique". According to Antiques Roadshow, it's something more than 100 years old. According to my mother, it's something made before furniture was mass-produced (no later than 1840s or 1850s?)
> (vintage is 25-50 years old). i suspect that you're thinking > "colonial" when you think antique, at least that's the most > common perception i've run into. > there *is* good quality new furniture out there, but it's > very expensive. however, some of it costs about the same as > regular high end furniture that has less than high quality > construction. you have to know what to look for (tied springs, > dove joints, peg & screw joints, etc). when i *do* shop, i'm > kind of the nightmare customer... > lee
> enigma wrote: >> antique is anything over 50 years old to thousands of years old. there >> may be *something* in that broad range you like ;)
> I'm not sure who would consider something only 50 years old an > "antique". According to Antiques Roadshow, it's something > more than 100 years old. According to my mother, it's something made > before furniture was mass-produced (no later than 1840s or 1850s?)
There are lots of different definitions for "antique" depending on the situation. For instance, at least in my state you can get "antique" tags for your car when it's only 25 years old! In common parlance, people mean all sorts of things by the word, which is why organizations like Antiques Roadshow or the DMV have to define it when it's a matter of more than idle curiosity ;-)
>>> antique is anything over 50 years old to thousands of years old. >>> there may be *something* in that broad range you like ;)
>> I'm not sure who would consider something only 50 years old an >> "antique". According to Antiques Roadshow, it's something >> more than 100 years old. According to my mother, it's something >> made before furniture was mass-produced (no later than 1840s or 1850s?)
> There are lots of different definitions for "antique" > depending on the situation. For instance, at least in my state > you can get "antique" tags for your car when it's only 25 years > old! In common parlance, people mean all sorts of things by > the word, which is why organizations like Antiques Roadshow or > the DMV have to define it when it's a matter of more than idle > curiosity ;-)
> Best wishes, > Ericka
Yes, that's correct. I was referring only to antique furniture; there are other definitions for other items. I don't know for sure, but Antiques Roadshow might be using the U.S. Customs Department definition of an antique.
>> i pay my credit card bills off every other month. i used >> to do it monthly but that screws your credit rating. you >> have to carry debt once in a while to get a good rating :p
> That's not necessarily true and must depend largely on your > credit card company because that is definitely not the case > for me.
i have 4 credit cards through 3 companies, but that's irrelevant. if you do not carry some sort of debt, be it credit card, mortgage or other loan, you will have a poor credit rating. if you have never had a credit card or any type of loan, you will have a hard time getting credit. i got a secured credit card when i was 35ish, because i needed to establish a credit rating in order to purchase a house (since all my other purchases of things like vehicles or houses had been in cash, or cosigned by my ex, and i had never gone for the credit card trap before). why a secured card? because it had the balance i chose (my balance was the amount i put in a savings account at that credit union) & a reasonably low interest rate. i kept that card for about 7 years, until the credit union started billing fees on the savings account that were higher than the interest it made. i am not going to *pay* a bank to make money off my money. lee
Whereabouts in Michigan are you Sue? I'm a Michigander myself whose husband thankfully was reemployed in the 13th hour of the last governmental layoff/closure ordeal and who also found out in another 13th hour that the service tax would not cause me to lose my business. A very stressful couple of months she bestowed upon us for certain. She is a moron.
Hi Chris,
I have picked up that you are from Michigan. Aren't you also a medical transcriptionist? I am too, I thought I saw you on the transcription board. Anyway, Royal Oak area is where I am from. And yes, I really don't like Jennifer. I was much more an Engler fan myself. -- Sue (mom to three girls)
> Personally, I buy cheap clothes for my kids, because they outgrow them > before they wear out. If he's a normal growing kid, he will learn nothing > about quality of fabric or construction for that reason.
Totally agreed. Any name brand clothing myself or my kids own was given to us as a gift, because I don't buy it. I get a lot the kids clothes from 2nd hand stores, because like you said, they outgrow them before they ruin them.
Unfortunately in the case of my DSS, he wouldn't care if he went to school with his toes poking out of his shoes, but I would! If I gave him a clothing budget, he would know I'd replace anything because I wouldn't want him to go out "looking like nobody owns him" as my mom would say. I've already had to replace his winter coat this year because he managed to leave it in the shopping cart at Walmart... however we ended up returning one of Christmas presents because he got two of the same, so I kept the refund money, which seemed fair.
>> Personally, I buy cheap clothes for my kids, because they >> outgrow them before they wear out. If he's a normal >> growing kid, he will learn nothing about quality of fabric >> or construction for that reason.
> Totally agreed. Any name brand clothing myself or my kids > own was given to us as a gift, because I don't buy it. I > get a lot the kids clothes from 2nd hand stores, because > like you said, they outgrow them before they ruin them.
you must not let your kids out to actually play. Boo's 7.5 & he rips out his knees or snags shirts on tree branches. i buy good quality (expensive is a relative term, btw, & it seldom actually denotes quality)clothes which means they hold up to rough boy play better. i'm also quite capable of sewing extentions on the bottoms of his pants legs & patches on knees.
> Unfortunately in the case of my DSS, he wouldn't care if he > went to school with his toes poking out of his shoes, but I > would! If I gave him a clothing budget, he would know I'd > replace anything because I wouldn't want him to go out > "looking like nobody owns him" as my mom would say.
if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson. think about it. where *do* kids learn instant gratification? where do they learn responsibility? peer pressure around clothing is pretty strong. i suspect your SS would find himself caring about his manner of dress in quite short order (assuming he's 9 or older). and refusing to allow a child to wear clean, neatly repaired & patched clothing is really silly (not to mention wasteful). as long as a child is clean & neat (well, as far as kids are ever neat), it shouldn't matter if the clothes are repaired or new.
> I've > already had to replace his winter coat this year because he > managed to leave it in the shopping cart at Walmart... > however we ended up returning one of Christmas presents > because he got two of the same, so I kept the refund money, > which seemed fair.
was it equal to the price of the coat? if not, it wasn't really "fair" to you. just wondering how you could get out of the store without noticing the coat wasn't on the child. and did you check the lost & found at the store to see if they had the coat there? seriously, Tom once left his crappy cap & work gloves on a shelf at K-Mart & i went back and got them 4 or 5 days later, stores do keep lost items for a reasonable time. calling as soon as you notice the loss makes it more likely they will find & hold it too. lee
>>> Personally, I buy cheap clothes for my kids, because they >>> outgrow them before they wear out. If he's a normal >>> growing kid, he will learn nothing about quality of fabric >>> or construction for that reason.
>> Totally agreed. Any name brand clothing myself or my kids >> own was given to us as a gift, because I don't buy it. I >> get a lot the kids clothes from 2nd hand stores, because >> like you said, they outgrow them before they ruin them.
>you must not let your kids out to actually play. Boo's 7.5 & >he rips out his knees or snags shirts on tree branches. > i buy good quality (expensive is a relative term, btw, & it >seldom actually denotes quality)clothes which means they hold >up to rough boy play better. i'm also quite capable of sewing >extentions on the bottoms of his pants legs & patches on >knees.
But second-hand is exactly where you can find well-made clothes that others have cast off when they're outgrown. I agree about Walmart crap (where I found even stuff that's not some weird fabric blend would often stretch out or come out from the wash poorly), but it doesn't have to be new either.
>> Unfortunately in the case of my DSS, he wouldn't care if he >> went to school with his toes poking out of his shoes, but I >> would! If I gave him a clothing budget, he would know I'd >> replace anything because I wouldn't want him to go out >> "looking like nobody owns him" as my mom would say.
> if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his >clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson. think about it. >where *do* kids learn instant gratification? where do they >learn responsibility?
I think you missed her point. *He*, doesn't *care*. It's not very useful for one to leave a responsibility in the hands of someone who cares a lot less about the outcome than you do! And that doesn't go just for kids. Goes for husbands, roomates, employees to. It's just human. If he's happy to run outside and go to school in broken up shoes, he's not going to penny over his own $$$ because mommy does. So much better to keep that up to mom, and give him an allowance for the things *he does* care about.
I have had my own son do his laundry since he was 11 (I think 11), but he is a kid that wouldn't like going to school in dirty clothes. He actually was glad - he didn't like waiting for mom's laundry for his stuff sometimes.
> peer pressure around clothing is pretty strong. i suspect >your SS would find himself caring about his manner of dress in >quite short order (assuming he's 9 or older).
Not necessarily. And what if he cares too much? As in, wanting to wear goth or emo stuff.
> and refusing to allow a child to wear clean, neatly repaired >& patched clothing is really silly (not to mention wasteful). >as long as a child is clean & neat (well, as far as kids are >ever neat), it shouldn't matter if the clothes are repaired or >new.
>> I've >> already had to replace his winter coat this year because he >> managed to leave it in the shopping cart at Walmart... >> however we ended up returning one of Christmas presents >> because he got two of the same, so I kept the refund money, >> which seemed fair.
> was it equal to the price of the coat? if not, it wasn't >really "fair" to you. > just wondering how you could get out of the store without >noticing the coat wasn't on the child. and did you check the >lost & found at the store to see if they had the coat there? >seriously, Tom once left his crappy cap & work gloves on a >shelf at K-Mart & i went back and got them 4 or 5 days later, >stores do keep lost items for a reasonable time. calling as >soon as you notice the loss makes it more likely they will >find & hold it too. >lee
Yeah, I wondered how she could get out of the store not noticing the left coat too...
Banty (I'm responsible for the lawn. Lawns are perfectly OK brown.)
On Jan 28, 7:28 am, enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote:
snippets:
> you must not let your kids out to actually play.
They can actually play indoors too. I get the 'branches ripping clothes' point, but I can't picture a mom not letting a child go outside (unless there's a busy street, too little to leave alone, etc). To assume otherwise seems to suggest parental cruelty or something...
> if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson.
So it's an experiment gone wrong. It won't scar him for life. I'm going to assume a parent isn't silly enough to repeat this over and over.
> refusing to allow a child to wear clean, neatly repaired & patched clothing is really silly (not to mention wasteful).
Who says these are outright refused? And secondhand stores do carry them.
> just wondering how you could get out of the store without noticing the coat wasn't on the child.
> In article <Xns9A334C12DEB53enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>, > enigma says... >>you must not let your kids out to actually play. Boo's 7.5 >>& he rips out his knees or snags shirts on tree branches. >> i buy good quality (expensive is a relative term, btw, & >> it >>seldom actually denotes quality)clothes which means they >>hold up to rough boy play better. i'm also quite capable of >>sewing extentions on the bottoms of his pants legs & >>patches on knees.
> But second-hand is exactly where you can find well-made > clothes that others have cast off when they're outgrown. I > agree about Walmart crap (where I found even stuff that's > not some weird fabric blend would often stretch out or come > out from the wash poorly), but it doesn't have to be new > either.
i don't think i ever said clothes needed to be new. used clothes are fine with me... as long as they're 100% natural fiber (although i can deal with polarfleece as an unnatural fiber) and they are well constructed, and have adjustable elastic in the waistband (Boo is just over 4' tall & weighs 49 pounds). the natural fiber is non-negotiable since i do the laundry & polyester makes me ill. i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>> if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his >>clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson. think about it. >>where *do* kids learn instant gratification? where do they >>learn responsibility?
> I think you missed her point. *He*, doesn't *care*. It's > not very useful for one to leave a responsibility in the > hands of someone who cares a lot less about the outcome > than you do! And that doesn't go just for kids. Goes for > husbands, roomates, employees to. It's just human. If > he's happy to run outside and go to school in broken up > shoes, he's not going to penny over his own $$$ because > mommy does. So much better to keep that up to mom, and > give him an allowance for the things *he does* care about.
my parents bought my clothes, and the fabric i chose to make my own when i started doing so at 11 or so. they did not object to what i chose, for the most part. my mom did put her foot down about an all black wardrobe when i was in high school, so we compromised on dark navy blue... but i was, much like my son, a bit rough on my clothes & i patched & lengthened for myself. the point i'm making is that there is no shame in neatly repaired clothing, not that it's fine to wear rags.
>> peer pressure around clothing is pretty strong. i suspect >>your SS would find himself caring about his manner of dress >>in quite short order (assuming he's 9 or older).
> Not necessarily. And what if he cares too much? As in, > wanting to wear goth or emo stuff.
so? i'm goth. i don't see a problem there ;) besides, at that point his clothing choices might be a bit of a 'first alert' to his parents as to who he's associating with & what he's into outside of the home.
>> and refusing to allow a child to wear clean, neatly >> repaired >>& patched clothing is really silly (not to mention >>wasteful). as long as a child is clean & neat (well, as far >>as kids are ever neat), it shouldn't matter if the clothes >>are repaired or new.
> Good for mom. Kid might not care :)
i don't know much about kids now, but when i was in school, they were pretty damned *nasty* to kids who were dirty or dressed differently. i think the kid *would* care (unless they were like me & decided if i was going to be an outsider, i'd be as outlandish as possible)
> Banty (I'm responsible for the lawn. Lawns are perfectly > OK brown.)
my 'lawn' is moss & wild strawberries. it's the best tasting lawn ever! ;) lee
enigma wrote: > i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't > know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd > looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam > finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items > before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can > recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, > so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack > foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand in hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton of hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
>>> if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his >>> clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson. think about it. >>> where *do* kids learn instant gratification? where do they >>> learn responsibility?
>> I think you missed her point. *He*, doesn't *care*. It's >> not very useful for one to leave a responsibility in the >> hands of someone who cares a lot less about the outcome >> than you do! And that doesn't go just for kids. Goes for >> husbands, roomates, employees to. It's just human. If >> he's happy to run outside and go to school in broken up >> shoes, he's not going to penny over his own $$$ because >> mommy does. So much better to keep that up to mom, and >> give him an allowance for the things *he does* care about.
> my parents bought my clothes, and the fabric i chose to make > my own when i started doing so at 11 or so. they did not > object to what i chose, for the most part. my mom did put her > foot down about an all black wardrobe when i was in high > school, so we compromised on dark navy blue... but i was, much > like my son, a bit rough on my clothes & i patched & > lengthened for myself. > the point i'm making is that there is no shame in neatly > repaired clothing, not that it's fine to wear rags.
Why it it not fine to wear shaggy clothing if you don't care about appearance. I have holes in the knees of some of my jeans. So does my son.
>>> peer pressure around clothing is pretty strong. i suspect >>> your SS would find himself caring about his manner of dress >>> in quite short order (assuming he's 9 or older).
>> Not necessarily. And what if he cares too much? As in, >> wanting to wear goth or emo stuff.
> so? i'm goth. i don't see a problem there ;) > besides, at that point his clothing choices might be a bit of > a 'first alert' to his parents as to who he's associating with > & what he's into outside of the home.
>>> and refusing to allow a child to wear clean, neatly >>> repaired >>> & patched clothing is really silly (not to mention >>> wasteful). as long as a child is clean & neat (well, as far >>> as kids are ever neat), it shouldn't matter if the clothes >>> are repaired or new.
>> Good for mom. Kid might not care :)
> i don't know much about kids now, but when i was in school, > they were pretty damned *nasty* to kids who were dirty or > dressed differently. i think the kid *would* care (unless they > were like me & decided if i was going to be an outsider, i'd > be as outlandish as possible)
On Jan 28, 2:31 pm, "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote:
> enigma wrote: > > my parents bought my clothes, and the fabric i chose to make > > my own when i started doing so at 11 or so. they did not > > object to what i chose, for the most part. my mom did put her > > foot down about an all black wardrobe when i was in high > > school, so we compromised on dark navy blue... but i was, much > > like my son, a bit rough on my clothes & i patched & > > lengthened for myself. > > the point i'm making is that there is no shame in neatly > > repaired clothing, not that it's fine to wear rags.
> Why it it not fine to wear shaggy clothing if you don't care about > appearance. I have holes in the knees of some of my jeans. So does my son.
But do you go out in public like that?
IMO, wearing shabby clothes to school or work, if you can afford better, conveys that you don't take school or work seriously, and teachers and supervisors, as well as peers, may treat you accordingly. There's a reason you don't show up in sweat pants to white-collar jobs. It's not nice to needlessly inflict ugliness on others, either. What's the point of my wife and I earning good money if our kids aren't dressed well? By "dressed well" I don't mean wearing designer labels.
Beliavsky wrote: > On Jan 28, 2:31 pm, "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote: >> enigma wrote:
>>> my parents bought my clothes, and the fabric i chose to make >>> my own when i started doing so at 11 or so. they did not >>> object to what i chose, for the most part. my mom did put her >>> foot down about an all black wardrobe when i was in high >>> school, so we compromised on dark navy blue... but i was, much >>> like my son, a bit rough on my clothes & i patched & >>> lengthened for myself. >>> the point i'm making is that there is no shame in neatly >>> repaired clothing, not that it's fine to wear rags.
>> Why it it not fine to wear shaggy clothing if you don't care about >> appearance. I have holes in the knees of some of my jeans. So does >> my son.
> But do you go out in public like that?
Yes. I have cute knees! But not in the winter. Too cold. I have a favorite sweater with holes in the shoulders. I wear that too.
> IMO, wearing shabby clothes to school or work, if you can afford > better, conveys that you don't take school or work seriously,
If I went to work or to school I would dress approriately. I think it is dumb for people to attribute anything to attire, but they do. So I play the game for my own best interest.
> and > teachers and supervisors, as well as peers, may treat you accordingly. > There's a reason you don't show up in sweat pants to white-collar > jobs. It's not nice to needlessly inflict ugliness on others, either. > What's the point of my wife and I earning good money if our kids > aren't dressed well? By "dressed well" I don't mean wearing designer > labels.
I think dressing nicely is fine, if you want to. But I think the notion of appearance being at all important is backwards. There is nothing inherently (sp?) valuable about being attired or looking like everyone else. There is nothing wrong with long hair on boys, or black clothing or a rip in an article of clothing.
>enigma wrote: >> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't >> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd >> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam >> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items >> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can >> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, >> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack >> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am >definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand in >hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before >it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton of >hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
Which is GREAT!
When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be gotten in a Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding and self-backpatting!??
I think the point is a fair one, that a lot of folks who wouldn't know a badly constructed garment from poor materials would therefore think they're getting wunnerful value because there's lots of new shtuff in their basket for relatively little $$$$. I made the point that good quality stuff *is* to be found in second hand stores, when people who have bought quality in the first place have taken the care to recycle the stuff. Instead of landfilling the stretched out, stain-holding crap bought at Walmart (or going to second hand stores with the crap, only to have it sorted out laboriously there and ending up in the landfill anyway!).
And, no, I never signed on to this idea that kinder, gentler, enlightened, 'centered', whatever-the-hell-else-adjective-people-like-to-self-congratulate-for people would be oblivious to questions of asthetics or fashion.
>>>> if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his >>>> clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson. think about it. >>>> where *do* kids learn instant gratification? where do they >>>> learn responsibility?
>>> I think you missed her point. *He*, doesn't *care*. It's >>> not very useful for one to leave a responsibility in the >>> hands of someone who cares a lot less about the outcome >>> than you do! And that doesn't go just for kids. Goes for >>> husbands, roomates, employees to. It's just human. If >>> he's happy to run outside and go to school in broken up >>> shoes, he's not going to penny over his own $$$ because >>> mommy does. So much better to keep that up to mom, and >>> give him an allowance for the things *he does* care about.
>> my parents bought my clothes, and the fabric i chose to make >> my own when i started doing so at 11 or so. they did not >> object to what i chose, for the most part. my mom did put her >> foot down about an all black wardrobe when i was in high >> school, so we compromised on dark navy blue... but i was, much >> like my son, a bit rough on my clothes & i patched & >> lengthened for myself. >> the point i'm making is that there is no shame in neatly >> repaired clothing, not that it's fine to wear rags.
>Why it it not fine to wear shaggy clothing if you don't care about >appearance. I have holes in the knees of some of my jeans. So does my son.
Well, goody. So what. You don't have a problem then.
>>>> peer pressure around clothing is pretty strong. i suspect >>>> your SS would find himself caring about his manner of dress >>>> in quite short order (assuming he's 9 or older).
>>> Not necessarily. And what if he cares too much? As in, >>> wanting to wear goth or emo stuff.
>> so? i'm goth. i don't see a problem there ;) >> besides, at that point his clothing choices might be a bit of >> a 'first alert' to his parents as to who he's associating with >> & what he's into outside of the home.
>>>> and refusing to allow a child to wear clean, neatly >>>> repaired >>>> & patched clothing is really silly (not to mention >>>> wasteful). as long as a child is clean & neat (well, as far >>>> as kids are ever neat), it shouldn't matter if the clothes >>>> are repaired or new.
>>> Good for mom. Kid might not care :)
>> i don't know much about kids now, but when i was in school, >> they were pretty damned *nasty* to kids who were dirty or >> dressed differently. i think the kid *would* care (unless they >> were like me & decided if i was going to be an outsider, i'd >> be as outlandish as possible)
>Kids are evil.
Some of them. Something that nonetheless has to be dealt with.
|
