We may try to fight it, but it’s a natural part of the human life cycle to think everything our parents do is weird. (Apologies, Dad, but I’m still trying not to laugh every time you start off your voicemails with, “Ryan, this is your dad calling.”) There’s also a good chance your parents, regardless of generation, have different approaches to saving money—and there might be 100 reasons for that, from their technology preferences to their level of handiness around the house.

It’s an interesting exercise to think about these differences. What are some frugal practices of our parents’—or even grandparents’—generation that seem totally old-fashioned or bizarre to you? Can we learn something from lifestyle choices that feel outdated? Maybe we need some perspective—or, in some cases, just a good laugh.

One Redditor recently explored this topic, asking in a viral thread, “What common frugal habit practiced by your parents’ or grandparents’ generation do you think is completely obsolete or inefficient in the modern economy (due to cost, time, or hygiene)?” People were apparently eager to vent, as hundreds of responses poured in, covering everything from dishwashing to grocery shopping.

1. Washing dishes

For decades, people have been debating the pros and cons of hand-washing dirty dishes versus throwing them in the dishwasher. In this case, many Redditors voted for the latter. “I’m a firm believer in dishwashers,” one person wrote, earning the thread’s top comment. From there, the conversation evolved into a point-counterpoint involving statistics, dishwasher settings, and the volume of water used when washing by hand. There are numerous factors to consider here (like, for example, the specific hand-washing technique), and it doesn’t appear the argument will stop anytime soon. However, in February 2025, testing by UK consumer organization Which? found that “even the least water-efficient dishwasher still only uses half the amount of water compared to washing by hand.”

2. Saving containers

Lots of Redditors mentioned their parents or grandparents saving plastic containers—one user wrote that their grandmother “had stacks of” them in her kitchen cabinets. “I save a few of these,” someone else countered. “They’re good for sending leftovers home with people because I don’t need it back; they can just throw it out. I get these big ones with sliced turkey from Costco, and they are the best because they are rectangular, stackable, clear, and hold a lot. But I only keep about 5 or 6 at a time. (Just make sure you don’t reheat the food in the container).”

My wife and I tend to keep several of these around as well—in fact, I sometimes find myself struggling to throw out what feels like a “perfectly good” Thai-food container even though it would certainly languish in the bowels of our kitchen.

3. Clipping coupons

As a bona fide coupon junkie, I take even the most minuscule savings as a source of pride—and I’m happy to flip through the stacks that show up in my mailbox every other day. But some Redditors find physical coupon clipping outdated. “It seems most grocery stores just run sales rather than running coupons in their papers,” one user wrote. “Most discounts now are instant rebates or rely on point accumulation in a rewards system. (At least where I live.)”

Maybe we have indeed shifted to a society of digital savings, but that fact doesn’t erase the past: “I remember coupon clipping being such a big deal that you had to go through the newspaper carefully,” someone noted, “and there were wallet-sized filing folders with tabs for organizing coupons.” Side note: If recent data is to be believed, there are still plenty of coupon lovers out there. A 2025 Talker Research survey of 2,000 Americans found that 56% of people approved of using coupons on a first date. Additionally, 28% considered the practice “sexy.”

4. Hunting for gasoline

Growing up, I can vividly remember my dad driving to specific gas stations to find the cheapest prices. Was it worth it? By whose definition? Regardless, it probably left him with a feeling of satisfaction, knowing he worked hard to make those dollars stretch. But many Redditors, naturally, feel there’s a line to deal hunting. “My grandpa in the 1980s and early ’90s would waste gas driving 5 to 25 miles to find the cheapest gas,” one person wrote. Another added, “My 77-year-old mother who drives barely a few miles per week still obsesses over 5¢ differences in gas prices between stations,” and someone else called this practice “leftover trauma from the gas prices in the late ’70s.” Those seeking the cheapest gas prices might want to read some articles on the topic, like one from Consumer Reports, which offers tips such as using gas-station apps, checking your tire pressure, and reducing the number of car trips.

  • Denmark’s generous parental leave policies erase eighty percent of the ‘motherhood penalty’
    A Danish mom drops her young son at his school in Copenhagen.Photo credit: Sergei Gapon/AFP via Getty Images
    , , ,

    Denmark’s generous parental leave policies erase eighty percent of the ‘motherhood penalty’

    Paid leave and universal child care help moms stay attached to work, even as reduced hours trim pay.

    For many women in the U.S. and around the world, motherhood comes with career costs.

    Raising children tends to lead to lower wages and fewer work hours for mothers – but not fathers – in the United States and around the world.

    As a sociologist, I study how family relationships can shape your economic circumstances. In the past, I’ve studied how motherhood tends to depress women’s wages, something social scientists call the “motherhood penalty.”

    I wondered: Can government programs that provide financial support to parents offset the motherhood penalty in earnings?

    A ‘motherhood penalty’

    I set out with Therese Christensen, a Danish sociologist, to answer this question for moms in Denmark – a Scandinavian country with one of the world’s strongest safety nets.

    Several Danish policies are intended to help mothers stay employed.

    For example, subsidized child care is available for all children from 6 months of age until they can attend elementary school. Parents pay no more than 25% of its cost.

    But even Danish moms see their earnings fall precipitously, partly because they work fewer hours.

    Losing $9,000 in the first year

    In an article to be published in an upcoming issue of European Sociological Review, Christensen and I showed that mothers’ increased income from the state – such as from child benefits and paid parental leave – offset about 80% of Danish moms’ average earnings losses.

    Using administrative data from Statistics Denmark, a government agency that collects and compiles national statistics, we studied the long-term effects of motherhood on income for 104,361 Danish women. They were born in the early 1960s and became mothers for the first time when they were 20-35 years old.

    They all became mothers by 2000, making it possible to observe how their earnings unfolded for decades after their first child was born. While the Danish government’s policies changed over those years, paid parental leave and child allowances and other benefits were in place throughout. The women were, on average, age 26 when they became mothers for the first time, and 85% had more than one child.

    We estimated that motherhood led to a loss of about the equivalent of US$9,000 in women’s earnings – which we measured in inflation-adjusted 2022 U.S. dollars – in the year they gave birth to or adopted their first child, compared with what we would expect if they had remained childless. While the motherhood penalty got smaller as their children got older, it was long-lasting.

    The penalty only fully disappeared 19 years after the women became moms. Motherhood also led to a long-term decrease in the number of the hours they worked.

    Motherhood, Safety net, Income inequality, Denmark, Gender inequality, Scandinavia, Government benefits, Mothers Day, Mother's Day, motherhood penalty
    The u2018motherhood penaltyu2019 is largest in the first year after a momu2019s first birth or adoption. Kristian Tuxen Ladegaard Berg/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Studying whether government can fix it

    These annual penalties add up.

    We estimated that motherhood cost the average Danish woman a total of about $120,000 in earnings over the first 20 years after they first had children – about 12% of the money they would have earned over those two decades had they remained childless.

    Most of the mothers in our study who were employed before giving birth were eligible for four weeks of paid leave before giving birth and 24 weeks afterward. They could share up to 10 weeks of their paid leave with the baby’s father. The length and size of this benefit has changed over the years.

    The Danish government also offers child benefits – payments made to parents of children under 18. These benefits are sometimes called a “child allowance.”

    Denmark has other policies, like housing allowances, that are available to all Danes, but are more generous for parents with children living at home.

    Using the same data, Christensen and I next estimated how motherhood affects how much money Danish moms receive from the government. We wanted to know whether they get enough income from the government to compensate for their loss of income from their paid work.

    Motherhood, Safety net, Income inequality, Denmark, Gender inequality, Scandinavia, Government benefits, Mothers Day, Mother's Day, motherhood penalty

    We found that motherhood leads to immediate increases in Danish moms’ government benefits. In the year they first gave birth to or adopted a child, women received over $7,000 more from the government than if they had remained childless. That money didn’t fully offset their lost earnings, but it made a substantial dent.

    The gap between the money that mothers received from the government, compared with what they would have received if they remained childless, faded in the years following their first birth or adoption. But we detected a long-term bump in income from government benefits for mothers – even 20 years after they first become mothers.

    Cumulatively, we determined that the Danish government offset about 80% of the motherhood earnings penalty for the women we studied. While mothers lost about $120,000 in earnings compared with childless women over the two decades after becoming a mother, they gained about $100,000 in government benefits, so their total income loss was only about $20,000.

    Benefits for parents of older kids

    Our findings show that government benefits do not fully offset earnings losses for Danish moms. But they help a lot.

    Because most countries provide less generous parental benefits, Denmark is not a representative case. It is instead a test case that shows what’s possible when governments make financially supporting parents a high priority.

    That is, strong financial support for mothers from the government can make motherhood more affordable and promote gender equality in economic resources.

    Because the motherhood penalty is largest at the beginning, government benefits targeted to moms with infants, such as paid parental leave, may be especially valuable.

    Child care subsidies can also help mothers return to work faster.

    The motherhood penalty’s long-term nature, however, indicates that these short-term benefits are not enough to get rid of it altogether. Benefits that are available to all mothers of children under 18, such as child allowances, can help offset the long-term motherhood penalty for mothers of older children.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income
    Martin Luther King Jr. became involved not just in fights over racial equality but also economic hardship.Photo credit: Ted S. Warren/AP
    , , , ,

    Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income

    He believed UBI could go a long way toward helping those oppressed by unjust systems.

    Each year on the holiday that bears his name, Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered for his immense contributions to the struggle for racial equality. What is less often remembered but equally important is that King saw the fight for racial equality as deeply intertwined with economic justice.

    To address inequality – and out of growing concern for how automation might displace workers – King became an early advocate for universal basic income. Under universal basic income, the government provides direct cash payments to all citizens to help them afford life’s expenses.

    In recent years, more than a dozen U.S. cities have run universal basic income programs, often smaller or pilot programs that have offered guaranteed basic incomes to select groups of needy residents. As political scientists, we have followed these experiments closely.

    One of us recently co-authored a study which found that universal basic income is generally popular. In two out of three surveys analyzed, majorities of white Americans supported a universal basic income proposal. Support is particularly high among those with low incomes.

    King’s intuition was that white people with lower incomes would support this type of policy because they could also benefit from it. In 1967, King argued, “It seems to me that the Civil Rights Movement must now begin to organize for the guaranteed annual income … which I believe will go a long, long way toward dealing with the Negro’s economic problem and the economic problem with many other poor people confronting our nation.”

    But there is one notable group that does not support universal basic income: those with higher levels of racial resentment. Racial resentment is a scale that social scientists have used to describe and measure anti-Black prejudice since the 1980s.

    Economic self-interest can trump resentment

    At the same time, the results of the study also suggest that coalition building is possible, even among the racially resentful.

    Economic status matters. Racially resentful whites with lower incomes tend to be supportive of universal basic income. In short, self-interest seems to trump racial resentment. This is consistent with King’s idea of how an economic coalition could be built and pave the way toward racial progress.

    Race, Income, Safety net, Martin Luther King Day, Universal basic income (UBI), Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), Affordability
    As mayor of Stockton, Calif., Michael Tubbs ran a pioneering program that provided a basic income to a limited number of residents. Rich Pedroncelli/AP

    Income is not the only thing that shapes attitudes, however. Some of the strongest supporters of universal basic income are those who have higher incomes but low levels of racial resentment. This suggests an opportunity to build coalitions across economic lines, something King believed was necessary. “The rich must not ignore the poor,” he argued in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, “because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny.” Our data shows that this is possible.

    This approach to coalition building is also suggested by our earlier research. Using American National Election Studies surveys from 2004-2016, we found that for white Americans, racial resentment predicted lower support for social welfare policies. But we also found that economic position mattered, too.

    Economic need can unite white Americans in support of more generous welfare policies, including among some who are racially prejudiced. At a minimum, this suggests that racial resentment does not necessarily prevent white Americans from supporting policies that would also benefit Black Americans.

    Building lasting coalitions

    During his career as an activist in the 1950s and 1960s, King struggled with building long-term, multiracial coalitions. He understood that many forms of racial prejudice could undermine his work. He therefore sought strategies that could forge alliances across lines of difference. He helped build coalitions of poor and working-class Americans, including those who are white. He was not so naive as to think that shared economic progress would eliminate racial prejudice, but he saw it as a place to start.

    Guaranteed income, Social programs, Universal basic income
    Martin Luther King Jr. believed Americans of different racial backgrounds could coalesce around shared economic interests. AP

    Currently, the nation faces an affordability crisis, and artificial intelligence poses new threats to jobs. These factors have increased calls for universal basic income.

    Racial prejudice continues to fuel opposition to universal basic income, as well as other forms of social welfare. But our research suggests that this is not insurmountable.

    As King knew, progress toward economic equality is not inevitable. But, as his legacy reminds us, progress does remain possible through organizing around shared interests.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • People now say that secondhand gifts are classier than those that are brand new
    Giving a secondhand gift is more thoughtful than one would think.Photo credit: Canva

    The economy is such that many this holiday season are spending less on presents for their loved ones. This has caused an upswing in people choosing to go to secondhand stores and thrift shops to buy Christmas gifts. One would think that giving someone else a “used” gift would be seen as a pretty thoughtless purchase, but new research says secondhand gifts are more thoughtful than previously perceived, whether it’s for the holidays or not.

    Research from a study conducted by the University of Eastern Finland found that most secondhand gifts are purchased with more thoughtfulness and intention than newer, more impulsive purchases. They also found that, aside from the better prices, the rise in thrifting for gifts is also due to people valuing the environment and wishing to support small businesses. In these less-popular places, many are finding unique treasures they couldn’t find anywhere else.

    @relauren

    fun thrifted gift ideas ?

    ♬ original sound – ReLauren

    “Our findings indicate that buying second-hand gifts is a well-thought-through decision rather than an impulsive one. It involves the same motive – intention – behavior chain as when buying a new product,” said Assistant Professor Heli Hallikainen.

    “Consumer-to-consumer buying and selling is growing in popularity. This leads to an increasingly diverse selection of products available, with advanced C2C platforms making it easy to find items one is looking for,” stated study co-author Maria Ovaska, MSc (Economics and Business Administration).

    Many people are seeing the value of thrifting holiday gifts, especially Gen Z shoppers. Not only is there a certain chicness in buying secondhand, but there’s indeed more intention and thought behind it.

    Buying a new gift at a regular store or online shop just takes a quick, simple click of the “Add to cart” button. If you mess up the order, your recipient can return it to get the same shirt in a different size. After all, the store likely has multiple versions of the shirt in their stock.

    By comparison, getting a nice, previously owned gift from a thrift store requires more time and discernment. You have to ensure the item is a good fit, literally and figuratively depending on what you find, because you likely won’t be able to return it. It could also be a one-of-a-kind item that can’t and won’t be found anywhere else. Buying a new item says, “I got you this for you;” buying a thrifted item says, “I saw this and thought of you specifically.”

    @ashley_thepinkcottageco

    Thrifting holiday gifts for the man in your life is actually a lot of fun! You can thrift unique and thoughtful pieces! #thriftmas #thrift #thriftedgifts #thriftwithme

    ♬ original sound – ashleythecollectedhome


    Christmas shopping at a thrift shop can bring new memories out of someone’s old treasures. You never know what you’ll find, but your loved ones will be happy you thought about them and what they’d like so deeply. After all, it is the thought that counts.

Explore More Money Stories

Culture

Denmark’s generous parental leave policies erase eighty percent of the ‘motherhood penalty’

Justice

Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income

Editorial

People now say that secondhand gifts are classier than those that are brand new

Everyday Economics

Man breaks down how much he makes from Uber, enraging both drivers and passengers