Bad parenting or just being sensible?

[dquan97]

I dont have a problem with either one, given no other info.

 

[vi edit]

#1 does seem a little mean. If the kid (and not the parents) won the bike, let him have it. Take his bike, put it in storage, and let the younger one have it when he gets to that point.

#2 Can't blame them...I'm cheap too.

But this isn't really "bad" parenting. A little on the cheap/frugal side yes. But bad? Absolutely not.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Why does everyone think 1 is responsible? They are NOT saving any money! They are simply taking one kid's cool prize and giving it to the other kid! Why can't the younger brother get the old bike in a couple years?

They won't have to buy the 5 year old a new bike in 2 years, hence money saved.

plus, the kid may be ok with doing it this way. he might like his current bike just fine.
shocking idea, i know.

yes, most 7 year olds are fiscally responsible and couldn't care less about shiny new bikes.

you give the kid for too little credit. what's to say he doesn't LIKE THE BIKE HE HAS?!?!

just because it's used it's not shiny and cool?

cripes. :roll:

Having known hundreds of 7 year olds as a camp counselor and uncle, I'm sticking with my answer.

 

[blackdogdeek]

i wouldn't call either case bad parenting. however, i would never do #1. i'd actually call that mean. but if they feel they are trying to teach the kids a lesson then that's their prerogative. i wouldn't do #2 either. i'd rather stay home than show my kids all the rides they won't be going on.

and just because kids don't remember something, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it.

 

[Electric Amish]

I don't know that it's bad parenting (I'm not a parent), but it seems stupid. Saving a few dollars by not letting the kids ride some rides at the fair? I mean if $10 is going to make or break you, you shouldn't be at the fair in the first place.

I'm a cheap SOB, but sometimes you have to put it in perspective. Like the person that watches for that 1-2 cent savings in gas. We're talking a whole 20c savings on a 10 gallon tank. I really don't see the point of going through the effort for so little return.

 

[torpid]

People who say #1 is ok because it saves money are probably the sort that fail on simple logic tests I guess. Let's examine it in more detail since no one seems to get it.

Idea 1: Let 7 year old keep the new bike, place 7 year old's bike in storage
Result now: 7 year old gets a new bike, 5 year old keeps his old bike
Result 2 years from now: 7 year old still has a newer bike, 5 year old uses the bike the 7 year old used to use which is in the EXACT SAME SHAPE that it was when put in storage, 5 year old bike is discarded
Net result:
2 years less put on 7 year old's original bike
2 years more put on 7 year old's new bike

Idea 2. Make 7 year old who won the damned bike ride his old bike and then give the new bike to the 5 year old after 2 years
Result now: 7 year old rides his old bike, 5 year old rides his old bike
Result 2 years from now: 7 year old rides his old bike, now worn 2 more years, 5 year old gets a new bike he did not win, 5 year old's bike tossed
Net result: 2 years more put on 7 year old's bike, 2 years less put on new bike. Person who won bike does not get to use it.

WHERE IS THE MONEY SAVINGS? If anything it's more money because the 7 year old's original bike is closer to failure.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: Gibson486
I remember stuff when I was 5....if they are cheap, they are cheap. Nothing you can do.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I'd have saved the 7 year old's old bike. And would've gone on atleast a couple key rides. The kids will remember, and even just a couple is a great memory to have.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: torpid
People who say #1 is ok because it saves money are probably the sort that fail on simple logic tests I guess. Let's examine it in more detail since no one seems to get it.

Idea 1: Let 7 year old keep the new bike, place 7 year old's bike in storage
Result now: 7 year old gets a new bike, 5 year old keeps his old bike
Result 2 years from now: 7 year old still has a newer bike, 5 year old uses the bike the 7 year old used to use which is in the EXACT SAME SHAPE that it was when put in storage, 5 year old bike is discarded
Net result:
2 years less put on 7 year old's original bike
2 years more put on 7 year old's new bike

Idea 2. Make 7 year old who won the damned bike ride his old bike and then give the new bike to the 5 year old after 2 years
Result now: 7 year old rides his old bike, 5 year old rides his old bike
Result 2 years from now: 7 year old rides his old bike, now worn 2 more years, 5 year old gets a new bike he did not win, 5 year old's bike tossed
Net result: 2 years more put on 7 year old's bike, 2 years less put on new bike. Person who won bike does not get to use it.

WHERE IS THE MONEY SAVINGS? If anything it's more money because the 7 year old's original bike is closer to failure.

i think you are makeing this far more complicated then it needs to be.

the savings come fromt he fact that the 7yr old now already has a almost new bike. so there is no need for the new one. they put the one that was won into storage.

in 2 years the 7yr old now 9 needs a new bike anyway so they buy one and give the "new" bike from storage to the now 7 yr old. savings? not having to buy the younger kida bike.


sure you can give the new bike to the 7 yr old now but then the 5 yr old is going to want a new one. and why should he want a used bike in 2 years?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: waggy
i think you are makeing this far more complicated then it needs to be.

the savings come fromt he fact that the 7yr old now already has a almost new bike. so there is no need for the new one. they put the one that was won into storage.

in 2 years the 7yr old now 9 needs a new bike anyway so they buy one and give the "new" bike from storage to the now 7 yr old. savings? not having to buy the younger kida bike.


sure you can give the new bike to the 7 yr old now but then the 5 yr old is going to want a new one. and why should he want a used bike in 2 years?

That's not cost savings. Either way the 5 year old gets a bike he can use. This solution does nothing to save cost unless the parents won't give the 5 year old a hand me down - highly unlikely since they won't pay $1 for a fair ride and think kids don't remember things.

Cost savings would be to sell the new bike and use it for something else later and make the 5 year old use the hand-me-down bike.

 

[BeeVo]

Is this the Utah State Fair? They have the exact same deal but the tickets are $1 a ticket and to ride a ride is 4 tickets.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Why does everyone think 1 is responsible? They are NOT saving any money! They are simply taking one kid's cool prize and giving it to the other kid! Why can't the younger brother get the old bike in a couple years?

They won't have to buy the 5 year old a new bike in 2 years, hence money saved.

plus, the kid may be ok with doing it this way. he might like his current bike just fine.
shocking idea, i know.

yes, most 7 year olds are fiscally responsible and couldn't care less about shiny new bikes.

you give the kid for too little credit. what's to say he doesn't LIKE THE BIKE HE HAS?!?!

just because it's used it's not shiny and cool?

cripes. :roll:

Having known hundreds of 7 year olds as a camp counselor and uncle, I'm sticking with my answer.

i've been a coach, a substitute teacher, and i'm an aunt, oh.. and i was 7 years old once myself, so i'm sticking with my answer. not all 7 year olds are unreasonable with material possessions (most are though, thanks to their parents)