Going into debt for Christmas

I give both my children £100.00 to cover them,their spouses and they each have two children. The money is to pay for some family time for them to spend together. Maybe a home movie night with a takeaway or else to add to a treat like a special day out or something that they want to do together. I could not afford to give all eight of them more than 25.00 per head for a present each and you cannot get much with that but as a joint family present they can do something together in their own little nuclear families.

kwest

I give both my children £100.00 to cover them,their spouses and they each have two children. The money is to pay for some family time for them to spend together. Maybe a home movie night with a takeaway or else to add to a treat like a special day out or something that they want to do together. I could not afford to give all eight of them more than 25.00 per head for a present each and you cannot get much with that but as a joint family present they can do something together in their own little nuclear families.

That sounds like a lovely,thoughtful gift

It’s not just a case of generosity. Always indulging sets their expectation high for life and feeds the entitlement.

Goodness, Sarahr, what a horrible woman your MiL was!

I like to think that in such a case I’d have said, ‘Well, actually, the materials cost £X and it took me X hours to make it, but since you don’t like it, I’ll have it back, thanks.’

Only I know I’d almost certainly have thought of all that too late!

Following on from the joint present idea - although I’ve bought my lot individual gifts, I’m also enclosing IOUs - for a years family pass to Northumberland Zoo for DD1 and her family and a years family pass to WhiteHouse Farm for DD2 and her family.
They prefer April to April, so that’s the plan.

I can remember my Mum buying stuff from the catalogue as presents so I don't think debt is anything new, maybe irresponsible lending is more of a problem?

I think consumerism is more prevalent now than in 'our day'. The 80s were all about being defined by what you owned, and 'labels' took off as identity signifiers.

It's easy to be smug when you weren't subject to that pressure. I was a teenager in the 70s and it was starting then, but on nothing like the scale of later. For us it was about having Levi or Wrangler jeans, as opposed to cheaper brands - there were no £200 trainers. Also, it was absolutely normal to only get presents at Christmas and on your birthday.

But for those who have grown up with consumerism, alongside a huge explosion in the number of 'things' available to buy, it must be very different. It's not something I would advocate, and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford never to have been in debt, but the pressures are very strong these days (both on earning and spending), so I do have sympathy, and don't see it as a moral failing to want a lot for your children, particularly at Christmas.

Oh but there were £200 trainers in the 70s and in the early 1960s and earlier, just they were not traainers and the prices were different.

In 1963 ish Mary Quant launched her Ginger Group clothing, not rock bottom cheap but available in department stores and the like. With my summer earnings burning a hole in my pocket I couldn't get to my local department store fast enough to buy the look. Until I saw the prices.

A nice dress was gong to cost me 10 guineas, nearly £300 in todays values. I had the money but I wasn't prepared to pay that much for a dress - but plenty of girls like me, university students, on a grant admittedly and with a summer job snapped them up.

Things do not change half as much as we think they do, Nor do people's motives. or desires.

The difference is that (as I remember it anyway) not everyone had the top end stuff - most people didn’t - and young people weren’t mocked for not wearing certain brands. Of course there were coveted items but there wasn’t 24/7 tv telling us what was available, and that we were defined by our possessions.

People might envy the girl in the MQ dress, but they didn’t pick on the ones who shopped at C&A.

Everyone complains about the advertising industry but if it didn’t work it wouldn’t be worth the money it is. We are always hearing on here that ‘the youth of today’ want everything when they start out, whereas we saved and got what we could afford. That’s true - but in both cases people were/are doing what everyone else is doing. As you say, motives don’t change too much, and humans want to fit in. The difference is that these days fitting in means having far more consumer items than were normal in the past.

It’s not lack of moral fibre that makes young people behave as they do. They are doing exactly what we did, which is fitting in with their friends, and adopting the values of the times.

Of course there will be posters whose children and grandchildren are paragons of virtue - there always are on threads like this . But on the whole, we are pack animals who don’t want to stand out from the rest of the tribe.

When I was a child we lived on a council estate, as did quite a few other children in my class, some came from private estates, quite a few from farming families, wealthy and not so wealthy.
At Christmas I don’t think there was a lot of difference in what Father Christmas brought us, usually a main present, in my case, probably an annual, maybe a hairband and some socks, and I don’t remember anyone having an excessive amount of anything.
Now two of my granddaughters are very much into labels, and having the right trainers, coats, makeup etc
I don’t really agree with buying a fourteen year old a coat for £300 but I do understand the need to fit in.
I am also surprised when I see them all pouring out of school wearing these coats, it seems most families seem happy to buy them.

Even families on the same income will behave differently.
My daughter is very careful with money. She buys clothes for herself from vintage or charity shops rather than designer clothes to save the planet as well as money and is delighted with bargains whereas her brother is totally the opposite. Neither would go into debt for Christmas, however.
Some families feel they have no choice. Once in that situation it is very hard to get out.

I’ve no problem with starting to buy little things very early in the year and by the time christmas comes I’ve got all I need and I have a great time with my family I’m off to Aberdeenshire this Christmas my dd is taking me to her house for an overnight it’ll be bittersweet without my dear departed other half of near 53 yrs

Have a good Christmas my dear friends 💐

Clothes have got cheaper surely? My friend said to me yesterday, can you remember when matalan was the 'cheap shop' to get clothes? it isn't anymore is it?

Doodlebug you lived in a lovely world. My memories of the 60s and 70s included everything that happens now, not as extreme, perhaps, but there all the same.

I can remember being bullied and excluded for not conforming with everyone else.

M0nica

Doodlebug you lived in a lovely world. My memories of the 60s and 70s included everything that happens now, not as extreme, perhaps, but there all the same.

I can remember being bullied and excluded for not conforming with everyone else.

Because of not owning things? Really? My recollections are that it was starting in the 70s, as more things were available. There were fewer 'brands' (as opposed to designers, which have been there since Chanel, if not before) so as a teen we shopped at Chelsea Girl and similar, and it was jeans that had 'cool' labels and 'uncool' ones. When my children were born in the 90s (teens in the 2000's) there were so many more brands, all signifying something or other - tribal bonding, really. Converse shoes and fashion trainers, Quicksilver jackets and more all cost a fortune, and those wearing clothes from the market stood out, and still do, although the fashion has obviously changed. My cleaner said yesterday that she has just paid £200 for trainers for her son, and she is a single parent on a low income. She was very proud of being able to do that (and she works hard to be able to do it) even though I'm sure she will do without herself.

Non-conforming in other ways has always led to bullying, but I genuinely don't remember the 'wrong' clothes mattering too much - if you could follow a style it wasn't crucial that it had the right label. FWIW my world wasn't lovely, but that's neither her nor there, really, is it?

I can’t remember any kind of brand bullying when I was young, mostly my clothes all came from hippie shops, cheap and cheerful. I had a coat from Snob which I loved, but I had no interest at all in brand snobbery.
My oldest children, much the same, I hated trainers, and they never had any, and my daughter followed in my footsteps of buying from the hippie shops, also wearing, and dying a lot of my old stuff.
My third child was the era of everything Jack Wills, their little group wouldn’t be seen not wearing a Jack Wills hoodie, to be fair, twenty years on, she still has some.
My grandchildren however, are a different breed altogether, much harder to cut costs with them.

Bullying is bullying, whether it is because you do not have the right brand or do not like the right music.

I have 2 teenage grandchildren. perfectly normal state-educated children and neither of them has shown any interest in having the right brand in order to conform.

DGD is 16 and definitely in to clothes and make-up, but I have just rechecked her Christmas wish list - 'cute jewellry, black purse, bath bombs'. Not a designer name to be seen.

I was in a charity shop this morning, there was a couple there with a son of about four. He was playing with a truck and wanted to keep it. The mum said no, but got the dad to distract him while she paid for it, whispering to the assistant that it would be a Christmas present. Perfect, he will think it is magic and not know or care it is secondhand.

M0nica

Bullying is bullying, whether it is because you do not have the right brand or do not like the right music.

I have 2 teenage grandchildren. perfectly normal state-educated children and neither of them has shown any interest in having the right brand in order to conform.

DGD is 16 and definitely in to clothes and make-up, but I have just rechecked her Christmas wish list - 'cute jewellry, black purse, bath bombs'. Not a designer name to be seen.

Of course bullying is horrible, whatever the so-called 'reason. But that wasn't my point. What I was saying is firstly that the reason many people spend comparatively more on their children than in the past is that nowadays there is more to buy, and secondly that people generally do what others like them do, so not over-indulging children in the days when few people did so is no more virtuous than people now also conforming and spending a lot. As you said yourself, people's motives and desires don't change much over time.

The reason people spend more on their children now than in the past is because they have more money.

The desire to do it was always there, the wherwithal was not.

It's down to ads.

TV ads are prevalent and insidious. I don't believe people have higher salaries or many more material possessions relative to inflationary numbers regarding incomes since I was a child in the 40-50s.

Apart from 2 cars, I see no difference. Dad drove us to school, mum had no car, my grandparents were the same. However, we both have cars.

Dad's income provided relatively the same as my husband's business. One set of grandparents were in London and well off, the other set of grandparents worked and lived at normal standards.