The article goes on the so state that the logic behind tying allowances to chores is that since grown-ups get paid to do their jobs, we should pay kids to do their jobs. So, if the chore doesn’t get done, the child doesn’t get paid (smart actually). In turn, it teaches them that a good work ethic shall be rewarded and that a bad work ethic will get you nothing.
Paying kids for doing chores around the house is preparing them for the real world and life as an adult outside the family.
There is a downside to this though. And it could be MAJOR…
The article then goes on to say:
As children get older, what they are capable of contributing around the house will increase. For every new duty you introduce, or even for small favors, you might find your child asking, “How much will you give me?” You shouldn’t have to negotiate “wages” for responsibilities that are shared or for things that just need to get done.
For parents who are concerned that their children won’t learn the value of a dollar if the allowance isn’t tied to household chores, note that there are still plenty of money management skills to be learned from a straight allowance (meaning a set amount of money given weekly or monthly, not dependent on chores). Depending on the age, kids can be made responsible for paying for their own toys, snacks, mall excursions—even cell phone/texting bills. Some parents even require that kids set aside a percentage of their allowance toward savings.
WOW, I could only imagine the look on my dads face if I ever went to him as a kid asking for money to cut the grass….