Anecdote, or actual observational evidence? Do you have stats from past generations to compare with today?

There's no QUESTION that inter-cultural differences exist, but we said inter-generational!

Well I have a physics degree and a psych degree (which I did in eight months even though it is a three year degree) so I believe I do have a good grasp of what constitutes a science as well as what psychology is all about. Don't get me wrong there are sub-fields within the psychology department which I believe are legitimate science but the bulk of psychology is just complete BS.

Sociology is just an excuse to have somewhere to put pretty but dumb girls who want a degree and an opportunity to meet men in law or business school.

Are you telling me that experiment design in psychology is held up to the same rigour as physics, chemistry or any of the real sciences?

You should know how to answer that:

Repeatability, statistical generalizablity, falsifiability...there's a big difference in how results are interpreted though. And that's probably where you lose respect for psych.

How did you do a psych degree in 8months?

I was allowed to take pretty much an unlimited course load after first year so most years I had between 300-450% of a normal course load. I was also given considerable flexibility with prerequisites so I just took all three years of the degree concurrently including all the electives.

Observational. The quality of the worker 25 years ago was superior to the worker today. They were willing to show their abilities to earn pay raises and promotions, as opposed to today, where employees want their pay set prior to actually accomplishing anything for their employer. This wouldn't necessarily be an issue if the workers today agreed to a claw back clause if they are not able perform as advertised. It's almost impossible to lower someones pay after they are hired.

It was my shop. My customers provided the revenue to pay for the operations of the company, but it was my money that paid the wages and benefits to my employees. From my experience, I received better value for my money then, as opposed to now. It was harder for them to embellish their abilities when they actually had to prove it.

Well, the avg work week has kept going up. Also, I don't think minimum wage has kept up with inflation, has it?

Minimum wage has been a political football in BC for the last decade. For skilled workers that benchmark doesn't apply. I don't see your point on the work week though.

We're talking about work ethic and whether subsequent generations work as hard as previous ones. If work weeks increase, pay doesn't...would you expect people to be as chipper about workin for the man?

you sound like you're just trying to slam him to slam him

He LOVES online purchases cause you can get good deals and recommends them all the time.

I mean, he's not perfect, no one is...and his show has faults. Some people don't like the fact he's a pretty hardocre Jesus fan. (and other reasons ldo)

My house is a tiny part of my "RE portfolio"....so paying it off doesn't actually change my leverage ratio too much at all.

Also...I look at my own home as a liability, not an asset. (Robert Kiyosaki's way of thinking) so my house isn't there to "make me money."

But you are right, if I made $40,000 a year at a traditional 9-5 job...I would not be paying off my house. I'd instead use it as my anti inflation move

I graduated from a state school in '05. I have a BS in finance. It is completely worthless. The classes were unbelievably easy and repetitive. Many classes were just copies of each other with a different course description and the same students that didn't understand basic concepts.

The vast majority of finance classes allowed you to bring a sheet of paper with notes for tests. People would write really small and cover both sides. These people would the proceed to take the entire allotted time to take their tests to end up getting D's and C's at best. I would scribble down whatever formulas I needed to know before the class started, finish the test first and get an A. That's not right.

I got an A in a class were I didn't own the textbook. For many classes I just went to the midterms and final. I get upset thinking about it because it was a waste of time. The classes could easily be passed with less than 10 hours of effort. Where is the challenge in that? What does that do to people's expectations about life? I take no pride in my degree.

That movie sucked. The people I watched it with liked it. I tried to explain why is was a bunch of nonsense but that was worse than trying to explain poker to a random idiot. People love fancy bull****.

In regards to the use of credit cards I think many of you are TOTALLY missing the point.

the 12-18 months it takes to get out of debt dave recommends cash

the REST of your life dave recommends a debit card (which have cash rewards, which allows you to dispute charges, which allows you to track spending easily) I still agree that cc > debit card but it's the whole "don't play with snake" analogy why dave "blanket recommends" not using them

When getting out of debt he recommends cash because

1.) he DOES want spending money to be a hassle.

2.) he WANTS people to see all that cash leaving their wallet and making them "hesitate"

3.) only way the envelope system works (and it's great for getting your budge accurate/under control)


Basically...cash is a means to an end...and the end is getting your spending under control and your budget accurate. If you already have those 2 things, then using a debit card is fine.

With respect to the mortgage debate, I can only speak from experience. I just paid mine off in 6 years and that of course earned me a decent return with after tax dollars. If I had invested the mortgage prepayments (every year 15%+ two big repayments at the three year anniversaries when they reset) in the market the last 6 years I'd be under water about 30K and made a minor dent only on the mortgage balance.

Yea in theory you should be able to invest the funds and beat the interest savings on your mortgage, but there is no certainty to that as shown in the last year. I now can plow all the money I'm saving with no mortgage payment into my investing strategy. Having said that I still of course invested some funds in the last 6 years, but not to the extent that would not enable me to get rid of the mortgage.

I could not care less about the state of the economy...with my emergency fund and no mortgage I could sit on my ass for a very long time with no worries.

This is Dave's ultimate goal...and yes it costs a price...but like he always says, "it's worth it"

These "gurus" aren't writing for people who are competent, if we can all agree their advice is either self-evident or generally sucks for anyone who doesn't have massive personal finance issues, we can just venture onwards.

The thing is that the movie got everything WRONG...so if you're going to be 'into' something, at least be into something informative. Stewart is informative, Bleep wasn't.

I don't think a single person on here has disputed that. That's because that's not the point. Just because it's self evident to smart people, doesn't mean it's self-evident to the average person.

Look, you learn these sorts of things (maybe even just critical thinking in general) from your parents or role models as you grow up. As it stands, MOST people aren't being taught about money, borrowing, investing, etc etc. So, to those of us who either: were taught about it, had good role models, or just have the right mindset to think this way...it's self evident. But, the point here is that we're in the minority. That's where a lot of the friction seems to be coming.

Not a single person has ever said in this thread (IIRC) that what he's saying isn't REALLY obvious...the point is that it's not obvious to enough people!

The ONLY way to rise above the middle class...
And become wealthy and successful...
Is to use OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY...
While taking creative, calculated risks...
In the context of a lifestyle of hard work.

But most people choose to just "sit on their ass".

I don't think this is true at top schools, which are more competitive now than ever before in addition to all of the advantages of technology.

not true at all

take a median income in america

assume no student loans, and never borrowing a penny

save 15% for retirment

assume 11% gain in their IRA/401K/whatever

at 65 how much is their net worth?

I actually did the math and was VERY surprised

Okay, don't leave us in stitches now, tell us already! It's been 20 minutes!

What does net worth at 65 matter? By then you are way too old to enjoy it.

Rika is very correct, its able to be pretty miserly and grind out a decent NW. 11% ROI is pretty lol for an inflation adjusted number. Actually its super lol, but the point remains you can amass a lot of money simply by just saving it and not spending anything.

That's the whole point of "millionaire next door." I kinda prefer to balance future reward with present reward. I picked a career where I get a decent pension, but can also work into my 80s if I so choose (and I'll likely keep working well into my 60s, even if only a limited capacity - professor) so I can afford to enjoy myself along the way too. Basically, once I max out my RRSP, there's nearly no point in investing anything more. My pension would be enough on its own, and maxed RRSPs would be big time gravy.

So, although you could be frugal all your 'prime' years to have a fat retirement, I'd prefer to have a comfortable retirement, with a comfortable prime years (as opposed to fat prime years, frugal retirement).

I think the interesting part of this debate is for what percentage of people is Ramsey's advice useful? Sadly, I think it's like 80%.