With the holiday season upon us, I have been giving this some thought. I would not say that I overindulge the kids with material things but they do generally get what they want but they are not unreasonable and it is not particularly out of whack with many of their classmates. However, as the kids have grown older, the wants have gotten more expensive. Case in point, after internally debating some I bought DD10 the current model ipod touch for Christmas because it was the first item on her list. One of the reasons why I hesitated was because she will be getting her own ipad mini in 2014 and she already has her own laptop (since before 3rd grade), Kindle Fire and Nintendo DS as well as shared other game consoles with her sibilings.

DD was adamant that she really wanted the ipod touch. The funny thing was that she recently refrained from sharing her real Christmas list in class after she heard a classmate with very young parents and many siblings who only had items of clothing on her list. My children, like many middle-class kids, just sort of expect clothing as their right rather than as a gift item. This is the first year that DS/DD were not in a stand-alone gifted class (disbanded due to common core adoption) so they are being exposed to new kids this year - teenage parenthood and large families (>4 kids) were outside their experience.

That is one reason why I would hesitate to enroll DS/DD in a private middle school next year because they would be exposed to some extremely indulged children simply because their parents can afford it.

Okay, well. Here's my opinion.

We try to keep the incoming stuff to a minimum, but it's hard when relatives send Xboxes and iPods. I've asked them to dial it down in the past, and they've done a good job of it. So this is good.

My kids are used to having a lot of nice toys. However, we also make a huge effort at purging as a way of reducing their attachment to material things. Oddly enough, the Christmas lists this year are super-short and none of my kids is really dying for something, apart from a Calvin and Hobbes book my 11-year-old wants. "Cell phone" has topped the other two lists, and I'm all for it.

I think it's normal to for kids to want more expensive things as they get older. Let's face it: it's hard to spend hundreds of dollars on a toy for a pre-schooler. Whereas there are umpteen things costing that much that a twelve-year-old would appreciate. One thing we're careful about is to talk to our kids about how most other kids don't have what they do. I think this helps.


I don't think I'd use this idea to decide against a private school. Overindulged kids are everywhere. If you live in a high-income area, your public schools will likely have a lot of them (e.g. I knew a very-high-net-worth guy with a paid-off house worth at least $2 million whose teenager complained about how poor they were because so many kids at her public school were outrageous conspicuous consumers. Not the first time I'd heard this about the schools in that district.). A lot of people who send their kids to private schools struggle to afford the tuition.

There is spoiled....and there is spoiled rotten...and the two are very different.

My children want for very little, however, they're far from the most indulged children in their respective age groups. What they've learned is gratitude and that they actually OWN nothing until they've paid for it out of their own pocket from their own work, that anything they haven't paid for from their own earnings is a gift....and personally in our family, we own NOTHING, we're just managing God's blessings to us.

There isn't anything wrong with giving your kids more "stuff" than their average classmate, so long as:

A. They realize it's a gift and a blessing.
B. Someone else worked very hard to provide that blessing for them.
C. They don't use their "stuff" as a means of status among their peers
D. They take care of their "stuff" (which shows respect and gratitude)
E. They share what God has blessed them with, or, if you're not of a religious mindset, do unto others.

Money (read stuff) isn't the root of all evil, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

Are you being true to your values and the values you want to impart to your children? That's what I ask myself frequently. Sometimes the kids seem so self centered! And I worried, really worried about over indulgence causing the "mom, it broke, I need another one" attitude. And not practicing piano but expecting piano lessons anyway. And wanting to go out to dinner and order whatever they want. Those things went against my values. Others might see no big deal. So, we worked on changing them. If you are true to your values, you are doing fine.

But, I too struggle with the private school option. DD can compete for a high school scholarship to a prestigious private school. But, do we want that? I would guess some people would say that you do better in life when your friends have influence and means. If she wins a spot, will I send her? Is the education really better when you cut out 2/3rds of the population? You have to be above 70Percentile academically and wealthy enough to afford tuition.

We get DD what we're comfortable getting her. She has some things that some of her peers don't, and some of her peers have things that she doesn't. That's real life, so we don't try to shield her from it. We do teach her that each family makes spending decisions based on their resources, and on what's important to them.

For instance, the only Christmas decoration we have in the house is the (fake) tree. Many families spend a lot of time, energy, and money decorating their houses, inside and out. The fact that we're not doing this means more resources for the things that go under the tree. We know a number of families who could not make this choice, because they place an importance on visual mood setting and/or conspicuous display that we do not share. That's who they are, and this is who we are.

We too have a small fake tree that only went up yesterday. It was supposed to go up the day of the church play but we were too busy.
I buy presents because I want too but at least half the presents are clothes bought on sale. They have a big Lego set to share and a smaller educational toy each that they will share after the first week. The only non sharing toys in our house are teddies/dolls and things less than a week old. I come from a background where things are automatically passed down so the idea of permanent ownership doesn't exist for me. I would have loved to get them new scooters and a cheap tablet but finances didn't stretch to that this year.

We know many people who are less affluent than we are-- and some that (in spite of that) send their children to private schools. Also some that (in spite of that) vacation comparatively lavishly, spend indulgently (in our estimation) on clothing, electronics, etc.

We save a lot. We also spend, but on other things. Books, hobbies, theater tickets, music lessons, travel, home improvements, etc. I would never in a million years spend $200 for a haircut for myself (it seems to me that the $10 place does fine)... but I'd buy other things, just as indulgent. It's just that the one is important to ME, and the other isn't.

We've always been rather open about that. People DO make choices when they have disposable income. But this is ultimately about wants... and not NEEDS. We're pretty clear about that as well. Cable and even high speed internet are, at the bottom line, LUXURY items that make life easier, better, or more pleasant, they are not necessities like an emergency room visit or food to eat.

We have also made it a priority-- in fact, DD has from toddlerhood made it HER priority-- to make life better for those in our community who lack any disposable income at all. Food insecurity is her favorite of those concerns, but she is also concerned with domestic violence. She puts her money where her mouth is there, donating HER OWN money, and working hard for that money. She knows that she is fortunate in the family to which she was born.

We indulge her. Yes.

We can afford to. We're honest when we cannot, too, and when we WILL not, simply because something doesn't represent (in our opinion and values) a good value in relation to its expense, or a positive thing in her life (or ours). Museum membership or new Birkenstocks, yes-- tattoo or clubbing to celebrate graduation, no.

We do not possess a fancy gaming system-- but an older (first-gen) Wii. We bought that mostly so that she would have the social commonality. She has a feature phone that is about three years old, and before that, had a flip-phone that she kept for five years. She does own a collection of, I think, eight or nine American Girl dolls, however, and at least $10,000 in musical instruments.


DD is profoundly non- materialistic, in spite of our relative indulgence of her. For example, she (just this week) appeared concerned that her graduation cap and gown would cost $25. She offered to pay for it.

On the other hand, she did not offer to pay for her target 0.22, which was almost 100 times that -- but it was all that she asked for this Christmas, too. Actually, Dad offered and she gratefully seized upon that offer.

We don't ask of her what we won't do ourselves, though-- our cars (non-luxury models) are 8 and 9 years old, respectively, and we'll likely keep them both another 8 years... DD will probably inherit one of them when she is 18.

So yes, we walk the walk as well as having conversations about this kind of thing. I think that helps.

I think materialism doesn't come into effect at a percent of income spent or a number of presents under the tree. Rather, it's a line you cross when you become psychologically more excited for, or dependent upon, receiving gifts than seeing family, religious celebrations, or giving to others.

I tend to get wrapped up in Christmas--probably carried away--and my sanity check is always my charity budget. It helps for me as a Catholic because the weeks leading up to Christmas (advent) is a minor penitential season, so there's a spirit of poverty to the preparations and festivities.

Probably the most grounding experience for our family so far this season was receiving a beautiful handmade Christmas card from a child we sponsor overseas. Out of all the gilt and trappings of our western experience, her simple message of love--shared between virtual strangers--helped put in perspective the meaning of Christmas.

hey Quantum... just another thought on the private school issue. last year DD5 attended a very-hard-for-us-to-afford private school, and i, too, was very conscious of this eventuality. but as it turned out, i think it did DD a lot of good to be in a place where everyone had more money than us. the contrast between our family and the others was pretty extreme - and there were a lot of frankly mind-bending playdates, but all of this had a real silver lining: it opened a door to talk with DD explicitly about our choices: she fully understood that we were choosing to invest in school ahead of other things.

the school itself didn't actually work out for her, but we did have an amazing series of conversations about money/priorities/wealth distribution, and our points continue to be well taken. i can see it in the way she manages her allowance, and in the way she talks about wants vs. needs - modest requests at gift-giving occasions are usually entertained, but not always fulfilled, so i think she knows what's reasonable. she is still so young, but it's all quite encouraging.

We don't have christmas at all.

For birthdays, we try to do something fun, but we don't have gifts.

We don't have christmas at all.

For birthdays, we try to do something fun, but we don't have gifts.

DD is at the height of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine" phase so this Christmas season, we've been trying to teach her the joy that comes with giving and making someone happy by letting them know that she cared about them and thought about them. It's a work in progress as she thinks everyone should get a copy of Harry Potter.

There is nothing like the culture shock of seeing how others live, and what others value. I am thankful for our public school for offering a cross section of wealthy, poor, greedy, and giving families for my children to learn from.

Growing up, we didn't have lessons, or a steady supply of shoes, or our own bedrooms. And we didn't go on every field trip, and we worked as soon as we were 14. And now, my kids get lessons, their own rooms, field trips, and 4 different kinds of shoes! (boots, sandals, sneakers, dress shoes). It took me a while to agree with DH about the multiple shoes. Felt like giving up important values.

And advocacy. We advocate for our kids. My mom put out fires for us, but didn't really advocate for anything but to please not suspend or expel us. Will advocating for my kids make them feel entitled? I worry about that too. Yet, I see other parents go and insist that their child get things I'd never dream of asking, just as they would probably never dream of asking for what I ask for.

Seeing others helps my kids realize it's not what you have that's important. Really. My dd has a best friend who has an iphone and her parents own a business as well as a large house, and another best friend who is homeless, and another....They all hang together. I love that about our school. And I KNOW we'd give that up if she went to private school. How valuable is this to her? It always seems like social and academic values collide these days.

One thing I always question myself on is whether the GIFT takes away more than it gives.

Our circumstances allow us to provide more for our DS than our parents did for us…BUT, should we and to what extent?

We are grateful to have the luxury of a choice. However, we also know that living with limited resources as children gave us more in the long-run – creativity, initiative, independence, opportunity to learn, etc.

Recently, an Amazon box arrived with HH goods, and I watched my DH twist the packing paper into fully recognizable dinosaurs. DS3 was delighted. I knew DH was creative before we had DS, but I didn’t realize the degree of his ability to whip something out of nothing until I saw all his invented games and creations for DS over the last few years.

DH's toys were very limited as a child to mostly just paper, pen and markers, and he had to create his own entertainment. I always wonder if DH’s imagination and creative problem-solving would be as well-developed if he grew up under more advantaged circumstances.

I do not think that money or the object itself is the qualifier for whether it's materialism or spoiling. I think it is the intention behind what is bought.

My wife looks at things differently and would like to shield our children from lifestyles she disapproves of. The children have been told that you are "not allowed" to have children before you are married. When our daughter noted that she had an afterschool teacher who was an unwed mother, my wife was a bit annoyed with the center employing her (but did not say anything). The children rarely go on playdates (there are three of them, close in age, so they entertain each other), but she would be more likely to accept a playdate with a child from a "good family" which is academically inclined.

ROFL... good luck enforcing that one!

There is nothing wrong with engaging in education, ownership, or activities that are "privileged" by virtue of financial status so long as the child doesn't consider their privilege a right.

I think unknowingly, one of the best things my lovely wife and I did for our kids is to send them to the daycare located on the campus of the local community college. We live in a pretty typical Iowa community, fair to say not a lot of diversity racially, financially, or really any other difference, for lack of a more politically correct term, our area is about as "White Bread" as it comes, however, because the daycare was located on the community college campus, the mix of children there was simply perfect with children of widely varied ethnic, financial, physical, and educational backgrounds. My kids grew up blind to the differences because of that and carry that on to this day thankfully.

Knowingly, perhaps the best thing we've done is involve them in volunteerism, that tends to keep anyone humble and with a firm sense of gratitude in their hearts which combats any ill effects of being "privileged" quite nicely.

When my kids were very young, I also wanted to protect them from a lot of public school stuff-- advertising, bad behavior, "tolerance"/acceptance of ideas that I didn't want the kids indoctrinated with. And I think it's important to instill strong values in kids and the ability to say no and reject lifestyles that are not what we would consider appropriate. Including teen pregnancy, throwing perfectly good things away, etc.

But once you feel your kids are well grounded in who they are and are making good decisions, I think it's important to open them up to other ways of thinking and being. It seemed to happen naturally. The kids became more in tune to how others live as middle school hit. We discussed how kids react to form their identity, etc. Lots and lots of parenting that couldn't happen if we didn't have a wide variety of humans around us.

But, back to the materialism. It is elementary school that drove me nuts with the materialism. Asking for and sometimes insisting on brand name school supplies, ridiculous field trips to commercial places--and then charging for it! We opted out of many field trips, but the assemblies were no better. One had a yo-yo demonstration and told the kids to bring in 2.00 to buy a yo-yo. For one family I know, that was the last straw that caused them to reject public school.

It's tough to teach our kids to be financially responsible, delay gratification, and to stay off the road to more stuff, and then more room for the stuff, and then more stuff to fill the space.... Sort of counterculture in our affluent community here.

I think "materialism" is one of those words that means something different to everyone, and our personal values come into play.

Ds12 wrapped up his DS game player (This is probably not what they're called) and brought it to school for a friend.

This has never happened before. Sure we've given birthday gifts to friends, but ds has never initiated this kind of thing before and has never given a Christmas gift before. At first I reminded him giving gifts isn't an intrinsic part of friendship, that he could be a good friend and that is enough. But he told me he wanted to do because he really likes this kid and his family is struggling.
I think he is so delighted to have friends who get him this year and he is free to be himself, which at times is wonderfully, whole-heartedly generous.
With a heart like this, I hope he survives middle school/

Our family is rather like HowlerKarma's. We spend a lot in areas that we really care about: books, music, concerts, museums, any learning resources needed, vacation, etc. But we spend little on material goods. The kids have some electronics, not fancy, not new model, but they can play the games that they want to play (Minecrafts only these days). I think maybe we did influence them, maybe they are just similar to the parents, but my kids never really asked for much "stuff"--not when they were little and not when they are older now, and I'm really happy that they share our values. They do have friends who have tons of stuff. I remember once we did a yard sale together with a friend's family (whose kids were exactly the same ages as my kids), mostly kids toys and books. And oh my, the amount of toys that the other family wanted to sell was more than all the toys my kids had. And there are some families like this around. But my kids seem to be OK with that. But the thing is: in those families who are much more materialistic than we are, some have kids who really can't care less about academics or anything serious, and some have kids who are awesome students. So I guess it's just that we will accommodate our own comfort levels.

I, personally think some of the electronics have almost become a necessity (for school, keeping up with technology, etc..) and that is somewhat aggravating to me.

My DD is not wanting for anything, but she understands what it is like to go without. She has been taught humility, so she would not brag or make fun of anyone who has less.

She is a very generous person, she gives 30% or more of her allowance to charity every week, which is her own decision (I just ask that she give something, she determines the amount) and she is always thinking of others.

If she ever starts to demonstrate a sense of entitlement, I might have to revisit my gift giving strategy, but for now, we are on a budget and as long as what she requests falls within the budget, then we can accommodate.

I am in awe. What beautiful spirit, and what hope for humankind is revealed through many of these posts.

When the focus is on the "stuff"? When we lose sight of each other as persons, and only see the pile of stuff, net worth, circumstances, or title of an individual? When there is greed, when there is envy; These are two sides of the same coin. When the prevailing attitude is that the amount of stuff implies superiority? For this reason, I'm not fond of what the Santa story has come to be: As the poor and underprivileged may not receive gifts (or comparable gifts) are these children to understand they are on Santa's "naughty" list?
A parallel can be drawn between materialism and giftedness: When achievement is used as the measure of a person, when a gifted label is coveted as a badge of superiority, when character is forsaken. What is seen on the outside does not reveal what is inside. Continuing the parallel, redistributing material goods and enforcing equal educational outcomes may change what is observable on the surface, but it does not tend to bring about good things in character as it changes the locus of control.

Internal locus of control, motivation to strive and persist, hope of achieving something which is personally rewarding*, cultivating personal satisfaction, experiencing joy at another's success, volunteering to ensure others have opportunity, and ultimately finding something in common with others despite differences... may be the antithesis of materialism.

*personally rewarding meaning: internally congruent, based on one's own values, not imprinted or dictated by another. Not meaning: self-centered or narcissistic.

As concerns about materialism may apply to the OP considering enrolling children to attend a school which may have a very different SES:
1) Families have been doing this for generations, with parents and kids emphasizing the good found in it
and sucking up the rest. The book at #4 can be helpful in interpreting some situations so there is less to suck up, misunderstand, or feel frustrated about.
2) Every opportunity has both good and bad.
3) You may find differences to be less about materialism, more about observing other's "norms".
4) Parents may wish to read the book "Crossing the Tracks for Love" by Ruby Pane, which discusses some SES differences, and tips for recognizing, interpreting, negotiating them, often from her personal experiences. I found the discussion of food quite interesting.

Personally I would read the book, and save the money for college.

Why is enjoying stuff, such as a big television, or a beautiful house, car, or piece of jewelry, bad? Materialism is only problematic when it causes someone to steal or to spend so much time working that he neglects other aspects of life. A coworker friend lives in a mansion. After we visited him, my middle child said he wants to live in a mansion someday. If that dream motivates him to work hard, good for him -- and for society.

That's a great point, Bostonian-- not everyone thinks that "materialism" is inherently without redeeming impact.

Many of our children, by virtue of OE, may be quite hedonistic or take a great deal of joy in luxurious experiences or possessions.

Some of us do believe that materialism is negative, but it's a good reminder to bear in mind that it is a belief-- and not one that is universal.

Enjoying stuff is fine until 1) getting it becomes an end in itself and 2) large societal inequalities begin to develop. It's also a problem when people with said stuff get so self-focused, they forget about the less fortunate people around them (or blame them for not working hard enough when many of them either have two minimum wage jobs or can't find a job).

I'm not arguing that everyone should be paid the same amount and everyone should have the same things, though as a nation, we aren't doing a good job of meeting minimum requirements right now. I'm saying that too much focus on material things, IMO, is bad individuals and bad for a society (e.g., thnk of the "Americans, go shopping!" response to 9/11 and the fact that our economy is based too heavily on retail sales. It could all collapse very easily). Which I kind of think the OP was getting at (the first thing, anyway).

It is not wrong for a child to dream of living in a mansion. However I hope if my child ever has 15 million foe a mansion that they buy a 2 million dollar house (still a minor mansion) and put the rest in a fund for those who need things they can't afford (operations, education, housing etc). If they don't I will start to be a bit worried about their sense of entitlement because nobody needs a house that expensive.

Agreed!

At the same time, I did not say it crosses the line into materialism when one enjoys stuff or when one is motivated to work hard to earn stuff. But simply "when the focus is on stuff". I then took the time to define focus as meant in this context: When we lose sight of each other as persons, and only see the pile of stuff, net worth, circumstances, or title of an individual. When there is greed, when there is envy; These are two sides of the same coin. When the prevailing attitude is that the amount of stuff implies superiority.

Merriam-Webster offers these definitions - a way of thinking that gives too much importance to material possessions rather than to spiritual or intellectual things. a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things.

I hope my child grows up and purchases at least one $15million estate in at least three different countries.

And perhaps he'll give something away to charity -- which is fine. And 100% up to him.

Along the way, though, I am certain to be more impressed by the countless lives that benefit from his purchase & ownership of the (at least) three estates.

Think of the people he will employ. The woodcarvers, framers, painters, glaziers, gardeners, plumbers, locksmiths, farriers, mechanics, carpenters, electricians, architects, roofers, tile-setters, bricklayers, housekeepers, chefs, chauffeurs, accountants, bookkeepers, tax attorneys, estate attorneys, insurance agents, piano tuners, private tutors, etc., etc., etc.

Ooh -- and if he also owns a private jet. And also a yacht. Think of the countless people that would be helped by the purchase and maintenance of those things that nobody needs?

Charity is great. But providing employment opportunities to those who need things they can't afford ain't too danged shabby either.

"The Price of Privilege" by Madeline Levine, Ph.D., a Marin County practicing clinical psychologist, is a worthwhile read.

Materialism in the sense of "lots and lots of STUFF" is counter to our family's values as committed environmentalists and people who are concerned about where "stuff" comes from and what is done to the humans who produce it. Haven't seen this mentioned, but it is something we talk about a lot with our kids.

If I had money to throw around it would go to art (visual art or attending performances), or to services like massages, etc. I actually ask for most of my gifts to be art now, anyway. (Etsy makes this affordable for anyone.)

My kids are really not materialists. It doesn't seem to be in their makeup at this point. Not sure if this is nature or nurture. I will say that they don't see any commercial TV and their friends are from all over the economic spectrum, but mostly not rich. The one thing DD has sometimes expressed is a wish for a larger, "cooler" house, with a pool.

She has one classmate who is wealthy and uses this wealth to impress the other kids, including DD, whom he seems to have a crush on. DD is both mytified and unimpressed by this ("Why does he think I care about what kind of laptop he has?") I find it sad, to be honest.

Oh, and DD9 has no electronic devices other than a waterproof, shockproof digital camera, which was a much-requested gift last year and a worthwhile investment for a visually oriented child. We do have an (old) family Wii. She was begging and begging me for an ereader last year till I finally asked her why she was so interested. It turned out that she thought you could get ANY BOOK IN THE WORLD FOR FREE AND ON DEMAND, FOREVER with an ereader. No wonder she thought I was a jerk for saying no! (I have an ereader, too, so she kept saying, "But YOU have one!! It's not FAIR!") When I explained that it didn't work that way, she was like, "Oh. Never mind."

Well, my Nook (with overdrive installed) does sort of work that way, though-- I can check out ANY available book from my state's digital collection anywhere that I have WiFi. It's pretty sweet, I must say.



UM also mentions something that I've noticed in DD-- she simply isn't much a material girl.

I mean, sure-- she expressed a desire to have a flat in London... and a house in the Marina district... but only for the access that those things provide to places and activities that she LOVES... for non-materialistic reasons.

We are not materialistic, either, though-- we like to be comfortable, however.

My DH hates to feel that others are looking "down" at him, and is susceptible to one-upsmanship in a way that DD and I do not seem to be.

OOooooo-- LOOK at my new ______!! It's shiny and big and VERY expensive/exclusive/rare/special/you-don't-have-one-of-THESE-do-you?

DD or I, generally; "Oh wow-- I'm thrilled for you! How exciting! Tell me all about it!"

{shrug}

I'm kind of thinking that "envy" really isn't part of her makeup or mine on some fundamental level. It's not lack of exposure to commercialism, either... We find marketing to be fairly ham-handed and amusing in its intent to convince people to buy-buy-buy things that nobody actually needs. We've trained her to be a VERY skeptical consumer of mass media content, in general.

Compare how many people it would employ to build 3 $15M houses versus 225 $200k houses, or 450 $100k houses.

C'mon, Dude -- does anyone really need a $100K house?

Besides, what's my son gonna do with 450 homes? Doesn't seem fair that he should be able to own all those homes, while others can't afford so much as a water-tight tent.

Huh--really? I can't do that on mine! (I also have a Nook with Overdrive.) At least, I don't think so. Just the ones fromk my local library system, and the books I want are often out. And the damn books are always dematerializing on me when they get due. Yes, even in airplane mode. There's nothing worse than having your book vanish before your eyes. (Okay, yes, there is. First-world problem.)

(Probably my backwards state.)

An important reminder. We've been without commercials/cable for years now and that helps. Ds doesn't have a lot of stuff either though his bookshelves are full.
He has everything he needs and then some and we're grateful.

It is important to make responsible decisions like the ones you and your family make. I'd like to do more of that in our family.

Thank you for posting this. There is a website and it offers an excerpt to read. (link- http://madelinelevine.com/the-price-of-privilege/)

I also looked it up on amazon and found 80 reviews, 55 of which were 5 stars (the highest possible rating). One review shared that for purposes of this book, affluent was defined as $120K.

Being frugal I put the book on hold at a local library.

UBB threads really needs a +1/thumbs up function.

It depends upon where you are, but $120K does not sound affluent (unless this book was written decades ago). Not sure where the $100K houses are either - even in some questionable areas of the nearby major city, prices are at or above $100K. In this area, $120K is well below the median family income (and is why we are the "poor people" in the area).

That being said, while there are materialistic folks here, my kids have found plenty of friends (and some are very wealthy) who are not materialistic. You would never realize that these families have money to burn. Some of them are very down to earth and use their money for philanthropic causes.

While my kids like nice things, and they have some, they also see folks who could afford all sorts of stuff, but choose to purchase only the things that they really want and use. These folks often have large investments in corporations - which employ a lot of folks.

120K a year puts you in about the top 10-15% of American households, IIRC. Many people who travel primarily in upper-middle class circles fail to realize this.

It's not the 1%, but it's wealthier than most.

You can buy a modest, decent 3/2 house (older housing stock) in a safe neighborhood for 100K in my city. (You couldn't have in 2008--but you can now.)

I believe the book is from 2006 or thereabouts.

The only problem is that when the median income is $150K and the median home price is $500K in a community, everything is more expensive in that community. If we had our income and our home in some areas of the country, we would be living well.

The real problem arises with college financial aid and FAFSA. They don't take into account where you live and a reasonable approximation of your expenses. Some schools ask for the CSS Profile and other info and do take your location into account - location makes a lot of difference to whether one is affluent or not.

In any case, while there is a lot of excess in this area, there are also plenty of folks who aren't the flaunting, nouveau riche types.

If wealthy people are house-poor because they're spending too much on housing, that doesn't make them not wealthy. That simply reflects their choice on how to spend the wealth they've got.

Well, I guess you could find a home here for less than $300K, but maybe it is condemned or needs $100K worth of work (foreclosure on our street that needs that much work).

Then I guess we could live in a community with lousy schools and use our savings from the house purchase on private school. But at $30K/year per kid, and three kids, the costlier home in the good school district starts to look like the better deal.

We are in the Northeast. When we lived in the Southwest in a similar community, our home was one-third of the cost of our current home. All the other expenses seemed to be less too - groceries, various activities, etc.

My understanding is that materialism means defining success / superiority / identity in terms of material possessions. But it can cut two ways... Some people cultivate a sense of superiority based on the things they have and some people feel superior for the things they do NOT have. Both types of materialistic thinking can be found at all income levels.

I recall my grandmother, way back when, being very proud of her piano. This possession signified "making it" in her mind. But she would never, ever be caught owning a dishwasher... Only a lazy, disorganized, self-indulgent sort of person would purchase that sort of a thing. So, that is an example of a very materialistic person, who also happened to be financially constrained.

Speaking of dishwashers, I don't know anyone, including myself, that feels grateful for their dishwasher. Maybe the problem is that we have a tendency to appreciate what we have RELATIVE to the people directly around us. And we take for granted all the luxuries that seem standard in our area.

Anyway, I'm not sure it "works" to tell our kids to be grateful for their presents because other kids don't have as much. Doesn't this just reinforce the idea that being "fortunate" is signified by having more material possessions than some other person?

Here's an interesting TED talk that I think is relevant to this discussion. The speaker is from Africa and she talks about how, when people hear where she's from, they automatically pity her because they assume she had a poor / deprived childhood. But that wasn't her experience at all. And she also talks about how she had learned to pity certain people growing up, and later realized that the stereotype she'd learned was not a full picture.

I totally feel grateful for my dishwasher. I also feel grateful for my washer and dryer. I have lived without these appliances. Maybe that's why.


NO effect? Am I misunderstanding you? I doubt this very much indeed. Even if you live in an extremely expensive part of the country, if you make $120K, dollars to donuts you are experiencing some privileges that someone making 20K is not--unless perhaps you are in the throes of bankruptcy/foreclosure.

I often hear people making 100K+ per year talking about how close to the financial edge they are. I do realize that they have much bigger mortgages than I do, and that some have large debts that I do not (we are debt-free other than the mortgage). But I look at their cars, their iPhones, their vacations, and how they clothe and feed themselves and I don't really feel that they are that close to the financial edge. I was a little surprised to read about the Food Stamp Challenge, where people try to feed their families on the "food stamp budget of $1-1.25 per person per meal per day" (so, about $130 per week for a family of 4) to make a point about how hard this is. That's about my food budget; actually, I think I probably spend less.

Ultramarina, I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

In a place like the SF Bay Area, though, you really do need a lot more money to survive. Rents are insanely high, as in an average of $2K for a one-bedroom apartment. The cost of fuels and food are higher than elsewhere, and taxes are very high (e.g. ~9% sales tax, high income tax). Then there is insurance and so on. Add it all up, and you really need to be making $60K gross just to survive here. Add in a child (or two), and that number goes up. Child care will run $180-$200 a week. You can forget buying a house until your income is way over $100,000. An apartment or a townhouse, maybe (maybe, at the $90-100K mark).

People with low incomes end up living with family or sharing apartments/houses.

$120k is top 15%
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html

When scientists say the universe is made of "stuff", they don't mean "stuff" you buy at the mall.

I agree that you need substantially more money for a similar standard of living somewhere like the SF Bay, but the US is very big. Most places are not SF. And let's not forget that there are still poor people in the Bay Area--a lot of them.

We lived in Berkeley for a bit, and it's a great place! Boy, we were broke, though, and not very able to enjoy many of the nice things about it. So we moved somewhere else. (To be fair, we were young, childless, and highly mobile, so this was easy.)

I think a lot of people who are well educated, ambitious, and smart get a little stuck in the mindset of "But I HAVE to live in this pricey, high-status, UMC area (of the country, or of my region) because..." I mean, I get it to some degree, but it's also a little bit fear-based, and sort of a kind of provincialism.

Also, it's only fair to acknowledge that you (general "you"!) are probably living there in part because you really want the advantages that you perceive as coming along with that area. So do a lot of people--so you're paying for them. There are other choices, but you don't want to make them. Which is okay. But they do exist.

Yes, you're right. In our case, we're here for the jobs and the weather. DH and I are from the snow, and we'd had enough of it. We made a choice and we don't complain about the costs here on a personal level.

Yes, we do have a lot of poor people around here, and a lot of them are working at jobs that wouldn't put them there if they were living in Kokomo, IN or Laconia, NH. That's really awful. But the thing is that a lot of these people are FROM here, and moving to New Hampshire would mean severing ties with family and friends.

I agree that spending choices can be unwise, though. I DEFINITEY agree with that.

Wow! I really appreciate all the thought-provoking posts and the varied opinions. For once, it isn't even feasible for me to respond to each one.

Clearly, personal values and priorities play a pivotal role for this issue. I would also venture to say that the characteristic as well as the age of the child also make a major difference. I would not worry about puting my two DS among peers who are far more advantaged but it is a real concern for my DD (at least at a young age as oppose to college age) due to her personality and her attitude towards "stuff".

I do understand that many private school parents struggle to pay tuition and that there are some public schools with extremely high income demographics. However, we are not in one of those public schools and the private school is a high-end school with tuition close to $30,000 per child per year.

I have lived all over the country and have found the cost of living differences astounding. $120,000 in Des Moines, Iowa or Baton Rouge, Lousiana is far different from $120,000 in New York City or Washington, D.C. There is also the factor of one-income versus two-income as well as the number and ages of children. In my area even a decade ago, childcare costs for two babies and before/aftercare for one elementary student total around $700 per week. I am not talking nanny here but good quality center-based care. $100,000 around here would buy an old house in the equivalent of a "ghetto."

We moved out of the silicon valley partly because our income would not allow us a comfortable life there, but it would when we moved to a region where cost of living is much lower, but we still get what we care most (educational opportunities, academic center, great cultural events, much less materialistic, etc). Some of my friends though would never want to move away from the bay area. Personal choice is definitely an important part. Even in a very expensive area, one can choose to not keep up with the neighbors on certain things.

OH, I don't know about that.

Anyone that has been without one for any length of time appreciates a dishwasher. Particularly anyone who has lived with children and without one.

It doesn't take long, either-- a few days is all.

I also VERY much appreciate my refrigerator.

So if you buy spiritual stuff at the mall, you're not being materialistic?

Only if it's at the metaphysical mall.

Oh, snap to Milhouse when he buys Bart's soul!

This is the kind of stuff I like about this forum.

Your daughter understands real LIFE. Living in the moment and projecting oneself into another to feel THEIR LIFE. She is a treasure.

God Bless Your Daughter and Your Family, HowlerK.

I'm a Christian and believe where one's treasure lies, so lies one's soul.

Assuming one's needs are met: (shelter-not ostentatious; food-not extravagant; clothing-not show-off designer.)

All else is up to one's own own conscience.

If only most would seek the needy in their community, they would realize how shallow their own "needs" really are.

*How would YOU feel if your child(ren) didn't have warm socks for the frigid winter coming?
*How would YOU feel if your child(ren) didn't have a Christmas Dinner?*
*How would YOU feel if your children knew you are fighting with their extended family at Christmas Time...when "good will toward men is to reign?

My husband and I are in the upper percentile for income nationally. We came from families that struggled during the 1970's...

My husband's parents grew their own food in the Silicon Valley area. They also helped those who came to them for water when it was scarce.

In the 1970's, my parents drew upon barrels of beans to feed my brother and me. I had bean soup at least three nights or more a week.

We SURVIVED and learned that person's value does not lie in their income, but in their family values. (Imagine that.)

My parents are independently wealthy today. My brother and I are debt-free including our homes. We know that VERY hard times are coming to America via the FED and their "easing" policies.

Beware those that will hear.

As parents of gifted kids we strive to make our children's needs known so these needs may be met. Therefore many of us may see the parallel to identifying/understanding others' needs so they may also be met.

Many make "in-kind" donations at Christmas. Within organizations there may be a flurry of volunteer activity to distribute donated food items and children's gifts for the week or so of Christmas and other holidays. (Sore muscles, anyone?) A month later donations are typically down, and the need is typically up.

To make a brief PSA, people may not realize there is often a shortage of storage space at many non-profits, charities, schools, hospitals, etc. Similar to our kids' academics, these entities benefit from an ongoing infusion.

To understand and meet needs, contacting an organization may be helpful. Some may post their requests or wish-lists on their website.

In general, crayon donations may be high,
donations for children age 3-10 may be common,
donations for infants to age 3 may be less common,
donations for teens may be scarce.

Sometimes teens ask for a boxed activity: a teen-level art set, a knitting kit, science set, game, popular book, etc something to keep them mentally and physically occupied while learning something new: something which represents hope, self-improvement, betterment.

Kits, books, and items in even-sized stackable boxes may be easiest to store and transport (as well as to wrap, when that may be a consideration). Oversized or odd-shaped items may present storage, handling, and transporting difficulties.

ETA: Many organizations do not distribute donations of toys which depict violence in any way. This may include swords, guns, dart guns, some action figures, etc, including toys which may be popular at the moment (Halo, Thor).

Just a BTDT tidbit from an advocate for meeting needs.

Y-E-S!

Thank you for highlighting the nuances of giving to those in need. You're so right.

A monthly devotion will make a world of difference to children. They know if someone is "caring" at Christmas, vs. caring every month of the year. (!!!)

A child KNOWS.

I love the spirit behind what you've written, Ametrine and indigo.

I would not like it and have planned my life accordingly. Given that there is already a very progressive tax code in the U.S., and that much federal and state spending goes to entitlements and transfer programs, to what extent is a wealthy person morally obliged to donate his after-tax income? Does he do more good by investing or donating? Earnings depend on the value one creates for others, so helping one's children prepare for high-earning careers is a "socially conscious" form of child-rearing.

I don't want my children to be "materialistic", but that statement is almost tautologous. Very few people consider themselves materialistic or believe they live in a "McMansion". It is easier to identify the garish consumption of others.

Well, personally, I think that many people who work
for relatively low salaries (e.g. about average or less) create a lot of value for others. Examples include firefighters, ambulance personnel, any number of jobs at non-profits, and so on. These people create very high value for others. Good teachers of the same seniority at the same schools earn what bad teachers earn. So there is definitely some disparity in the value-creation:salary ratio there. People who plant food and pick it earn next to nothing, yet how would you eat without their efforts?

Alternatively, you'll have to work very hard to convince me that the guys at Enron created "value for others," unless you define "others" as "my friends in the next offices." Ditto for the bankers who wrought havoc on the world economy. On a more mundane scale, I spent a couple years earning a lot of money writing drivel and managing writers of drivel for a company that was creating software that sells virtual currency to kids. Everyone there was highly paid, and there was ZERO value for others being created. Actually, now that I think about it, that particular field is a negative producer in the value-to-others category.

So your argument is flawed.

Hear, hear, Val.

Illness, divorce, injury etc do not confine themselves to the poor. I know several solo mothers who had their children in a secure family environment comfortably off who are now raising their children alone and in poverty. Depressive illnesses can prevent you from realising your earning potential - and are very common in the gifted.

While it is responsible and laudable to plan for a financially secure future it is not reasonable to claim that everyone who has problems brought them on themselves. And even if they did is it right to leave someone to drown because they shouldn't have gone out so far?

What do you mean by "seek"? What exactly does this "seeking" entail?

Point taken. Where I live a house that expensive would require little more maintenence etc than a house of 2 million because the country is young and the only real difference would be the location. It is unlikely to employ that many people because it would probably be fairly new and would probably only need a gardening contractor. Yes he may employ a chef or other such people but he could also employ them in a $2 million dollar house. Providing money to help someone become a medical professional or a chef etc is probably better long term than employing them as a maid.

This thread really doesn't pertain to gifted education. Locking this one.