Bad Manners and Brimstone

In a recent Dear Prudence column, one of the letters, titled "Gifting," was from a parent who gives their 40-year-old son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild $100 each on birthdays and was upset about a lack of reciprocation. They also stated that the son and daughter-in-law "make good money." (Note: the letter didn't elaborate what kind of reciprocal gifts the letter writer would expect.)

I found this a weird situation to read about because gifts of cash or checks for "routine" gift-giving occasions like birthdays, Christmas, etc., is something I strongly associate with "unequal" gift-giving relationships, usually from older, financially comfortable relatives/friends to children or young adults with limited funds. E.g., my grandparents sent birthday/Christmas checks to their minor grandchildren; highschool or college graduates would get cash/check gifts from older relatives/older friends of the family (not from peers); my company gives employees Visa gift cards at Christmas. In none of those situations was anything close to equal reciprocation expected--in the personal relationships, an inexpensive or homemade gift might flow in the opposite direction, but certainly nothing approaching the monetary value of the cash/check gift. If "equal" adults want to give a gift and don't know what to pick, IME there is a strong social norm for it to be a gift card rather than cash.

My assumption is that it ultimately traces back to the "thoughtfulness" aspect of gift-giving. For a child or young adult with zero or inadequate income, it is often a thoughtful gift to essentially say "I know there's stuff you want that I don't know the details of and that you have limited funds, so here's money to spend however you want." The gift isn't "just" cash; it's the autonomy of having money to spend without having to justify the expenses. By contrast, two financially-comfortable people giving monetary gifts to one another on routine, annual occasions would largely just be just shuffling money back and forth without really adding anything. Thus, the "thoughtfulness" aspect, if the giver doesn't know what specific item to give, gets shunted into demonstrating an understanding of the person's tastes by picking a gift card to the right place. (Often actually removing some of the freedom of using the funds--instead of the gift being "Here's money to spend on whatever you need or want without having to explain yourself" like for the "poor" child or college student, it's "I know you'd love books--more books than you can justify including in your budget--so here's money you can only use for a fun book. None of that mundane groceries nonsense; only books.  ") One of the few exceptions where monetary gifts between "equal" adults doesn't jump out at me as being unusual is wedding gifts, and that's assumed to be a unique occasion that wouldn't lead to an annual shuffling back and forth between the same two people.

So what do y'all think? In your experience is it common for "equal" adults to give routine monetary gifts to each other or do you also associate those with largely one-way gifting, e.g., from adults to children? Is it common for parents (or other older relatives) to continue giving monetary gifts to the "kids" even after they're well into adulthood? If so, what sort of reciprocal gifts do the "kids" give in return?

I find the whole giving dynamic practised by the original letter-writer as just odd. I agree that continuing to send a cheque to one's children, as though they were still young people starting their working lived on low pay, when in fact for years they have been well-off middle-aged professionals, is weird; the more so since the parents are giving the same amount to their (presumably school- or at most college-aged) son, implying that they see all three of them as being on the same level.

The letter writer doesn't say what kind of birthday presents she thinks her DS and DIL ought to reciprocate with. Also, does she really mean that they don't send any presents at all, or just that their presents are not of equivalent monetary value? If the latter, I think she's being unreasonable. If a wealthy older relative gives you (generic you) money, that implies that they think you need it, and it would be absurd to give them an equivalent sum of money (whether as a cheque or in gift-token form). Your only obligation is, obviously, to thank them when you receive it, and on their birthdays to send something you can reasonably hope they will like.

If her DS and DIL find these cheques from his parents kind of inappropriate, but don't like to say so, they may well find it hard to think how to reciprocate.

My FIL sends cash gifts to me and DH for our birthdays and Christmas.  I don't take it as weird; he can't get to a store easily and doesn't know our taste, so we can pick out something for ourselves.  It could also be thought of as "funny money" for a weekend trip or nice dinner out.

We also give cash gifts for birthdays, or a gift card. We are spread out enough that I don't always know what our kids want or need. Plus, they like it, because they can "splurge" a little on themselves!

ETA: I see that the "kids" are not doing anything for their parents' birthdays. That changes it for me. I'd stop the checks and not say a word.

Gift giving started to feel weird for my FOO as my brother and I became financially stable. We've kind of shifted over the years, and often the gift is something along the lines of "pick a date when you want to see XYZ team play, and I'll buy the tickets." Or most years my mom and I just decide that we're taking each other to the theater as our gifts to each other. Sure it ends up being just a symbolic shuffling of funds around, but we both love it and continue to build happy memories. Some years it is something local, other years it involves flying to Chicago. It's all good.

And I want to say that I really appreciate a PPs wording of giving money to some people as being about the gift of "autonomy". I have understood that idea for ages and ages, but have never been able to put words to it. Now I have those words-- thank you!

Buying someone theater tickets doesn't strike me as odd or as just shuffling money around (even if each party hosts once and is treated once and even if the giver/receiver would otherwise have attended those events at their own expense*). If that were considered equivalent to trading cash, then I don't see any reason the same wouldn't apply to exchanging tangible gifts of similar monetary value. Or, to put it differently, sure, a lot of gift-giving is ultimately "symbolic shuffling of funds," but the symbolism is meaningful--it's when it's literally trading cash/checks that the "symbolic" part disappears for me. I've bought people event tickets as gifts before, and received such gifts. In my experience, not only is it often (but not always) something the giver and receiver attend together (so a shared-time aspect of the gift), but either the giver is choosing/suggesting an event based on knowing what the receiver likes (i.e., the same thoughtfulness element that occurs with picking a good tangible gift) or, if the recipient hints/requests tickets to a specific event, the giver is learning more about what the recipient enjoys (so a relationship-building aspect).

*It seems kind of like the dynamics of friends on a trip together alternately treating one another in a relatively even exchange (rather than going dutch) versus alternating handing each other a $20 bill. Objectively, both could be viewed as just swapping money back and forth because they don't result in a net transfer of money, but IME the former feels like a warm and caring exchange while literally just swapping cash for no other reason would feel empty and pointless. I get together with a friend every year, and we almost always swap covering expenses--food, parking fees, etc.; part of it is convenience in that it's often easier for one person to pay for a given expense rather than split it (especially if we're, e.g., ordering food for delivery), but it's also largely just because it feels nice to offer "Hey, breakfast is on me" or to hear "Oh, don't worry about it. I'll cover lunch."

I see that the "kids" are not doing anything for their parents' birthdays. That changes it for me. I'd stop their checks and not say a word.

So it would for me, IF they are really doing nothing. But the letter-writer only said they 'weren't reciprocating', which can mean different things to different people. For some people, it could mean that the "kids" weren't giving presents of equal value. (For my DH's only aunt, that is exactly what it would have meant. Before every Christmas of his entire childhood, she would hand his parents some money to buy him a suitable present, and if she didn't receive in return a present costing the EXACT same price, there'd be hell to pay.) For all we know they may be sending nice and carefully-considered presents, but just not value-matching. After all, throughout all their college and impoverished early working years, when Mum and Dad sent a cheque there was no expectation that they would send one back! So they may just not have thought of changing from what they always have done.

Quote from: Aleko on April 18, 2020, 05:20:10 am

I find the whole giving dynamic practised by the original letter-writer as just odd. I agree that continuing to send a cheque to one's children, as though they were still young people starting their working lived on low pay, when in fact for years they have been well-off middle-aged professionals, is weird; the more so since the parents are giving the same amount to their (presumably school- or at most college-aged) son, implying that they see all three of them as being on the same level.

The letter writer doesn't say what kind of birthday presents she thinks her DS and DIL ought to reciprocate with. Also, does she really mean that they don't send any presents at all, or just that their presents are not of equivalent monetary value? If the latter, I think she's being unreasonable. If a wealthy older relative gives you (generic you) money, that implies that they think you need it, and it would be absurd to give them an equivalent sum of money (whether as a cheque or in gift-token form). Your only obligation is, obviously, to thank them when you receive it, and on their birthdays to send something you can reasonably hope they will like.

If her DS and DIL find these cheques from his parents kind of inappropriate, but don't like to say so, they may well find it hard to think how to reciprocate.

I get the impression that the son & DIL do not reciprocate at all. Letter writer states they do not "reciprocate with birthday gifts, or Mother’s or Father’s Day gifts". She also questions whether they instilled a since of giving to their son.

Also, the LW doesn't indicate she expects to change her son's behavior but instead is asking about changing her own behavior by stopping gifts. Whether gifts are reciprocated or not, I think it is perfectly reasonable for those moving to a more limited income to modify any and all spending behaviors. I know when that time comes for us, my DD will not be getting a $1000 camera and lenses for a bday anymore.

That sentence was what made me think there was no gift, rather than a gift of a lesser value.

We found it quite easy to stop sending cheques when there was never a gift coming in our direction [not actually a problem], nor a thank you.  That?  Yup, problem.

I tried to stop the gift exchange with my mum/brother, but that was firmly vetoed, so I buy little things she'll like and a gift-card on the National Garden Scheme [accepted over the whole country].

I'm hoping that I will have managed to persuade her to do likewise, as we have too.much.stuff!  There's no way the argument "but we're just swapping money" would do anything other than upset her: she is a giving-as-a-show-of-love person, and I think she likes having the gift card because she has to spend that money on plants.

When we had the original discussion about stopping presents, she said my brother was really upset by the idea.  I said "of course he is!  He gets a present from me".  That led (I suspect via some heavy maternal hinting) to him actually buying a present for us, so I feel much less resentment than I did.

If I were the LW, and my son doesn't give gifts, I'd be putting those funds in my rainy day* fund!

* Or plant; plants are good.

My parents gave us cash gifts. I was a combination of gift giving and parents wanting to help out their children and grandchildren. I think they viewed it as part of the role of parents to help out their children, even when the children were established adults. They would also take us all out for a restaurant meal and pick up the check. Sometimes this involved 10-14 people. My father never allowed anyone else to pay. Because they had no debt, house, cars, and so on all paid off, they were able to do this. At Christmas they always said, don't get us anything, we have everything we need. However, we gave them token gifts, anyway. You have to do or give something to show appreciation. One year three of us rented a steam cleaner and steam cleaned their carpeting. Gifts tended to be things like a "Best Grandma" sweatshirt, restaurant gift certificates,  or a box of candy.

The people in the Dear Prudence  letter should have been doing something. I don't think people want an equal value return on a gift, they just want acknowledgement.

I think that sums it up for me exactly, lakey.

We're now old enough that not giving a gift that won't be appreciated [based on past performance] doesn't cause mental anguish, but we will go above-and-beyond when we know a recipient will enjoy our efforts.

I still remember the year I was so skint at Poly that I made homemade jams/preserves/pickled onions [fierce!]/chutneys: all our (older) friends adored them and put in requests for the following year.  I think then I was time-poor, so they had to 'put up with' bought gifts, but I do know [from things Mum has said over the years] how much my brother's and my gifts were appreciated because they showed that we appreciated the older friend/family member enough to make an effort to gift them, even if [in some cases, especially if] that gift were home made.

Because who can't have too many string jars/homemade aprons/too-short knitted scarves?