Published: Friday, Dec. 28 2012 11:40 a.m. MST
How about they move out and get a job? That's pretty cheap for all
Hutterite: Your comment reveals your age. Things have changed, greatly, from
when this was done regularly ending in about the 1980's.
hutty-not enough eggnogg this year? Yeow!I suspect that many of these
young people that this story applies to are still in high school, hence they are
still at home.For those in college, I say let them live at home as long as
they are actively pursuing an education or working to save money for a
mission.It's pretty tough for a young person to save when they are
paying rent and expenses.For me, just the thought of my sons being
on their missions was a great source of peace and comfort to me. I always felt
that for now, they were where they needed to be. I never worried...too much over
their safety or well being. Once they got home I was more anxious with what they
would do now after their mission such as relationships, educations, jobs, cars
etc etc.Turns out, in large part that due to their missions, they
know very well how to save, how to budget, how to study and how to work hard.Truly the best two years of "our" lives.
LOL. Good one Hutterite. Kids don't move out and get jobs because it is too
darn painful on their doting parents. The same parents that made sure their kids
had rides everywhere, same parents that allow their teenagers to sleep in until
noon. Kids are fragile and must be treated as such.
As much as my teenagers eat, leaving lights on, car insurance, etc, them leaving
on missions will mean a pay raise to me. I have two leaving in the next 14
months. I must be getting old.
This article is at best incomplete and misleading.Let me explain
with a tale of two sons.I saved for my sons' college educations
and had the full amount put away by the time each graduated high school. Son #1
did not go on a mission, graduated college within 4 years of high school
graduation, and got a job earning $65k/yr. Son #2 went on a
mission, came back, graduated college, and got a job with a starting salary
roughly the same amount as son #1. I paid a lost less (for the mission versus
tuition) for the 2 years while son #2 was gone, but while he was away the cost
of tuition inflated at a greater rate than his college savings earned, and he
permanently lost 2 years wages ($65k times 2).So from a strictly
financial perspective, the mission was a LOT more expensive than continuing
school, graduating and beginning work.The only way a two-year hiatus
would have been financially beneficial was if I had not saved the tuition by
graduation (and thereby had two more years to save while #2 was gone). But I
had #3 coming up behind #2, so that was not an option for me.
I really don't think these numbers add up. I suspect if you add in the
initial costs of going on a mission it's not as cheap as they say it is.
Looking at the numbers I would bet that it cost more like $6,000 a year to keep
a missionary out. It depends on the country your in. There is a lot of work
and sacrifice to send a missionary out on a mission. Let's not give people
false hopes of how much it will cost. Most of us don't make six figure
salaries like these guys do. Most of us have cars and houses to make payments
on and illness comes into the equation. Most of the families I know have had to
sacrifice a great deal to send their sons and duaghters on missions. Reading
this article you would think it was simple and easy.
"The age limit for women was lowered from 21 to 19."Shouldn't this sentence read "The age requirement was lowered from 21
to 19" ??I thought the "Limit" or oldest that someone
could go was 26.
A parent needs to see the overall picture of what "cheaper means. It's
not just financial. I was sooooooooo grateful to have sons in the mission
field when they were most vulnerable to the pressures of life, the excitement of
being on your own, girlfriend situations, decisions of what to do with life,
etc. For those of you who don't know, a mission lines you up to look at
life before partaking. Watching people suffer through their decisions and
attempting to make changes certainly gives some valuable insight to your own
future. Learning to love each other will help all missionaries learn what is
really important. Yes, those years are definitely much more than a monetary
I suspect that if we were to sit down with a calculator, pencil and piece of
paper, there are a great many things that would be way too expensive to do or to
invest in. Personally, I can't see how people can afford Cable or
Satellite TV. Nor can I comprehend how people can afford cigarettes. It all
comes down to priorities and interests.I think the article was
trying to point out that before we discount a mission that we recognize that not
going on a mission can also still cost money. Personally, if they so choose, I
would prefer that my sons, especially, serve missions and I'm willing to
help them do so. Of course I hope that they have savings that they can use, but
I'm certainly not going to not help out if their savings come up short.
It's a tough economy.And in conclusion, not all young adults
who live at home are lazy, burdens to the household budget. A great many work,
contribute around the house and care for parents in their declining years.
I have two sons out at the same time not a big deal. As for being cheaper. Then
living at home yes to a degree. My oldest turned 19 a few months after high
school so he left right a way my other son turned 18 on the day he graduated.
And was working six days a week ten hours a day to pay for his. Mission that
all changed for him in October and he put his papers in that month. And left
right a way. As for college. All my boys plans are after missions military and
use the GI bill to pay for school.sorry but my financial obligation ends when
they come home from their missions. No living at home get a job what ever. And
don't ask for money. Purse strings are cut.
My mom couldn't afford to send me on a mission and now I'm glad I
never went. It would of been a total burden on her financially and I'm a
firm believer that not every young person should go if they truly do not want to
go. I had mixed feelings about the whole idea.
It costs to send a young man out before he enters the MTC is right at close to
one thousand dollars. Then it is five thousand per year. Or four hundred a month
no matter were you go. I don't know the cost for sisters. So if any knows
those costs it would be helpful to know as well. For clothing for one of my sons
was eight hundred dollars a bike because that is all they use for transportation
five hundred dollars. An no he did not have a bike before. So that right there
is 1400 start up cost. Then the 400 per month. I save more in food costs per
month. Plus it is so much more cheaper to send them out and have grow up doing
that. Then have them out any were else.
Oh good grief! You go on a mission because you have a personal conviction that
it is what you should do. As for the financier who thinks that most parents
spend more than $500 / month per child to have them at home, all I can say is he
needs to spend more time with the average American.
We have been going through this and we are going to break even. The cost of
having our sons at home is pretty close to $400 a month. The article is right
on. I would gladly pay double that for the experiences they are going to have.
It really is life changing and will set the tone for the rest of their lives.
@Dadof5sons"Plus it is so much cheaper to send them out and have grow
up doing that than have them out anywhere else."I think it is a
bit of a generalization saying it is cheaper sending a son on a mission than
having them out anywhere else. I think it depends on each child. I was poorer
by $12K for the cost of the mission and the increased cost of college tuition
(due to inflation) as a result of him serving. In addition, the mission cost
him approximately $130K in permanently lost salary (versus what he
hypothetically would have earned) by graduating two years later than originally
scheduled.@Hutterite"How about they move out and get a
job? That's pretty cheap for all concerned."I hope
you're kidding. Kicking kids out on their own may work for a few, but if
your kids have worthy goals (as many young people do) and we can help them
reach their goals and become prosperous adults, shouldn't we do that?
Isn't that better for our society and our future economy? @JRJ and Orem - I agree, but this article was about financial costs/benefits,
not non-financial aspects.
cpafred understands the concept of opportunity cost.
In all likelihood going on a mission will be more "expensive" than if a
child stays home. But in reality, it won't be the $400 more like some
people think. It is likely in this economy most children ages 18-24 will live
at home for most or all of that time. It is likely this will cost the parents
money. I don't think people need to fear financial destitution to send
their children on missions is what this article is saying because if they stay
home they are still going to cost parents money most likely.
On an overnight trip we took when I was a coach we asked athletes to pay $30.
We had parents say they can't afford this. I always countered with this
argument. If your child stays at home and doesn't go on the trip are you
still planning on feeding him? Is he likely to have his lights on his bedroom
while he stays? How about use your car? Maybe, he'll want to go on a date
an want $20. Well, if he is with us, we plan on feeding him two to three meals,
he won't be using your car, leaving the lights on or asking for money. I
suspect it will be a wash financially if you figure it out. But he will having
a great experience with us on this trip (hopefully)...I think this
is analogous to the mission situation but on steroids so to speak. The cost of
the mission won't be that great when you think that child will still have
to be fed, clothed, etc. Plus the experience of the mission will likely be life
changing in a beneficial way which is hard to put on price on that.
Hutterite... I agree.Our namby pamby culture has decided that 19 year olds
are still kids. They're not. If your kids didn't work hard enough in
school to get a scholarship or at least a partial scholarship, too bad. Get out
of the house. There are no "worthy" goals to be attained living by the
shirt tails of mom and dad. You're right vegaspam, this went out in the
80's. The reason it went out is baby boomer parents stopped parenting and
placing expectations of excellence on their children. I went to college because
I got a job and paid for it. Very simple. Today's generation, and
I've hired dozens of them have very little work ethic, less ambition, and
all want something for nothing. Imagine sending these kids out to the mission
field and the headache it give mission presidents. It's time to start
"parenting" not long term "babysitting".
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments