Parents and children

Family values

Sep 30th 2004 From The Economist print edition

Rich kids have little time for their elderly parents. The ingratitude!

WHY was King Lear treated so cruelly by his daughters? Until recently, most of the answers have come from scholars with scant knowledge of economic theory. Fortunately, John Ermisch, an Essex economist, is working to remedy this deficiency. His research proves what many parents have long suspected—that increased wealth goes along with filial ingratitude. –Topic sentence

Using data from the British Household Panel Survey, Mr Ermisch shows that affluent parents are slightly more likely to supply offspring with money and help with child-rearing than poor parents. But success seems to have precisely the opposite effect on children. The mere possession of a university degree makes children 20% less likely to phone their mothers regularly, and more than 50% less likely to pay them a visit.

This is puzzling because self-interested children might be expected to behave in precisely the opposite way. Most wealthy people are descended from wealthy parents, which means they have a lot of patrimony to lose by cutting back on the fawning. “Nothing will come of nothing,” as a pre-retirement and still sane King Lear put it when his youngest daughter dared to withhold her affections.

So why are rich kids such brats? There are two likely explanations. The first is that, as their income rises, the marginal cost of providing services goes up. It simply isn’t worth their while to help with the shopping, particularly since affluence tends to increase distances between parents and children. And, since personal contact correlates with telephone contact, they are less likely to phone, too. Out of sight, out of mind.

Another answer comes from an obscure branch of economics known as strategic bequest theory. This predicts that children will provide only enough services to ensure they get a reasonable share of the inheritance. But that point is reached sooner by those who have only one sibling rival, or none at all. Wealthier families, which tend to be smaller, simply fail to ensure the optimum amount of competition.

Given these iron laws, what are parents supposed to do? Good results might be achieved by having more children, or expressing a sudden interest in the local cats’ home. But Mr Ermisch is not optimistic. “The only thing they can do is follow their children around,” he says. And don’t make King Lear’s mistake by handing over the cash first.

为什么李尔王遭到了女儿们的残忍虐待?直到最近为止，大多的答案还都是来自于那些缺乏经济理论知识的学者们。幸运的是，埃塞克斯(Essex)的一位经济学家，John Ermisch，正在尽力解决这一问题。他的研究表明，财富越多，随之而来，子女就越不孝顺—这正是长久以来许多为人父母者将信将疑的。

依照英国皇家陪审团调查委员会的数据，Mr. Ermisch指出，和穷人比起来，有钱人在养育孩子时往往给子女提供更多的金钱和帮助。然而在孩子身上所起的作用却好像正好相反。仅以拥有大学学位这一项为例，有大学学历的人通常给妈妈打电话的次数要少20%，去看看妈妈的次数就要少50%以上了。

这实在是令人困惑，因为我们通常都认为自私的孩子可能会表现得正好相反。大多数有钱人都是从有钱的父母那里继承到财富的，这也就意味着他们如果不是阿谀奉承就会失去大笔财产。“无风不起浪”，就像依然健壮时却提前退休的李尔王，在他最小的女儿敢于拒绝花言巧语表达她对父亲的爱时的处理方式是一样的。

那么为什么富人的孩子如此讨人厌?有两个可能的解释。第一个是，由于收入的增长，他们尽孝道义务的边际成本也就同样提高。陪人购物好像就变得很不值了，所以富裕往往会显著拉大父母和子女之间的距离。并且，既然亲自看望都可以以电话问候代替，他们好像连电话都懒得打了。眼不见，心不烦。

另一个答案来自于一个叫做策略遗产理论的经济学模糊分支。据预测，孩子们只会付出足以确保获得一份合理比例的遗产所必需的孝顺。可是那些只有一个或根本没有同胞兄弟姐妹与之竞争财产的人会更容易达成目的。越有钱的家庭，往往也是越小的家庭，就越难以确保适宜的总量用于竞争。

既然有这么多铁定的规律，父母们又应该做些什么呢?可能多生些孩子会得到好的结果，或者突然对当地的宠物机构表示浓厚兴趣。不过Mr. Ermisch却并不乐观。他说，“他们唯一所能做的就是围着孩子转。”并且不要犯李尔王那样的错误，先把钱交出去了。

Note: 《李尔王》是莎士比亚四大悲剧中最成熟的作品，讲述年老的李尔把国土分给三个女儿，但恩赐之前先要女儿声言多么爱他。大女儿二女儿都讲出一番动听言词，小女儿则不愿花言巧语，结果应得的国土被两个姊姊分去，在毫无嫁妆的情况下嫁给赏识她的法国皇帝。李尔逊位之后受到大女儿二女儿虐待，最后在暴风雨中发疯。小女儿听到父王受虐，领兵入侵欲救李尔，最后兵败遭擒被害死，李尔王也在忧伤中死去。