Did you read this entry on Dave Ramsey's blog?

[LucyStoner]

Well, I look at that list as a "take it or leave it" kind of thing. I don't think it's a smackdown of anyone's mom.

I didn't take it as a smackdown. I take it as intellectually fluffy and condescending. I used my mother's story to illuminate the stress that impacts people's choices and options. Choices that may seem "bad" from the outside but are really not so easily pinned down. Take it or leave it. Black and white. This or that. Not dichotomies that are relevant to living in poverty. There is more to it than simple, easy to digest lists.

[SKL]

The TV and exercise thing intrigues me.

 

Watching *less* TV does not require *more* money.  I used to watch TV, but I quit at some point, and I quickly became a more positive person.  Besides being away from a lot of negativity that nobody needs, it was like shaking off an addiction that was keeping me from more healthy pursuits.  I don't think watching TV is a "bad choice" because its negative effects are not well-known.  I mean, the TV is many people's main source of information, and you're not going to hear "TV is bad for you" on the network news.  But I would love to see what would happen if people would find something else to do during their leisure time.  Read, exercise, play the old instrument that has been in the family for decades, or just meditate over the cloud formations through the window.

 

As for exercise, sure it can be done without cost.  You don't need equipment to do calisthenics or yoga or take a walk.  Personally I've never bought shoes (designer or otherwise) for exercise.  Exercise is something I definitely did more of when I had less money.  Whether because I had more time or because my early jobs were very physical.  I do believe that under a certain age (the middle age spread), exercise can largely undo the effects of poor diet.

[Dandelion]

Never mind.  Thought I'd have some fun highlighting the absurdity of the DR post, but decided it's not helpful to this discussion. 

[Joanne]

 

Assuming that one person has it easier because they dress better, can take fancier vacations, drive a better car, etc. is just faulty. That person may have huge stress. Higher income does not alleviate stress. In my own life I've found it means more stress. I've been on both ends of the spectrum.

No, sorry. It is much easier to handle life's stress when you don't have to decide between your own eye care and your dd's. It is much easier to access coping skills when you CAN vacation - of any kind - than if you can't.

 

Lower middle class (and below) stress about co-pays, utilities vs. groceries and extracurriculars.

 

The stress of driving a beater car in the Houston metro area when any tow and repair will be a choice between transportation and rent is a markedly different life. Please don't try to assert otherwise.

 

I celebrate success: financial and otherwise. But higher level living is a by product of luxury - of being out of survival mode.

 

Lack of financial stress is of huge benefit in terms of health, self care, food and exercise choice, sleep, etc.

[elegantlion]

The problem sometimes is that habits don't develop in a vacuum. For most people, there are two adults who bring or build habits into a relationship. For the relationship to ebb and flow there most likely has to be compromise of some sort. How many people here agree with their spouse 100% of the time. 

 

I didn't read the article, I don't care for DR. 

 

I'm broke and poor and my daily habits would not indicate as such. Life has just been a 3itch for many years. Looking at Maslow's Hierarchy of needs my psyche should have probably died of neglect years ago.  

[elegantlion]

For those that missed Psych 101, here's a summation of the Heirarchy of Needs. Some people struggle to meet their physiological and safety needs. Even educated people with Mp3 players can fall into those lower levels through no fault of their own. The ability to get up at 4am and ride on their exercise bike while listening to an audio book doesn't change the fact that if your job doesn't afford you to pay the gas the bill you may be exercising to stay warm not stay fit. 

 

http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

[LucyStoner]

There have been interesting studies about the epigenetic impacts of poverty related stress. These impacts include obesity, IQ and more, even once a generation is totally out of poverty. Facinating stuff.

[Miss Marple]

No, sorry. It is much easier to handle life's stress when you don't have to decide between your own eye care and your dd's. It is much easier to access coping skills when you CAN vacation - of any kind - than if you can't.

 

Lower middle class (and below) stress about co-pays, utilities vs. groceries and extracurriculars.

 

The stress of driving a beater car in the Houston metro area when any tow and repair will be a choice between transportation and rent is a markedly different life. Please don't try to assert otherwise.

 

I celebrate success: financial and otherwise. But higher level living is a by product of luxury - of being out of survival mode.

 

Lack of financial stress is of huge benefit in terms of health, self care, food and exercise choice, sleep, etc.

Good grief!  Silly me!  I have no idea of what I speak and I guess I should just bow to your otherwise superior knowledge, intelligence, and experience :svengo:

 

Apparently my living below the poverty level for a time is irrelevant 

:001_rolleyes:

 

[susankenny]

 

Good grief!  Silly me!  I have no idea of what I speak and I guess I should just bow to your otherwise superior knowledge, intelligence, and experience  :svengo:

 

Apparently my living below the poverty level for a time is irrelevant 

:001_rolleyes:

 

 

:grouphug:  You have every right to share your experience.  No one has the right to invalidate your input as null and void.

[LucyStoner]

Good grief! Silly me! I have no idea of what I speak and I guess I should just bow to your otherwise superior knowledge, intelligence, and experience :svengo:

 

Apparently my living below the poverty level for a time is irrelevant :001_rolleyes:

 

Given Joanne's current situation, as in this very minute, your response here just makes you look kinda like a jerk. It is possible to disagree with someone without rolling eyed smilies and sarcasm.

 

There are studies comparing the stress of long hour white collar jobs to long shift work. The stress was found to have far more acute impact when people lack control over their choices, got to make few decisions and the work lacked variety. When I worked long hours, I directed my department. I had a lot of autonomy and choice and built in moments of downtime. I might work 12 hours but do many different types of tasks, all involving skill and judgment and some creativity, in a day. If I were cleaning hotel rooms, I would have very little control over my time, making few decisions and doing the same thing again and again. I certainly wouldn't be on a message board during work hours.

 

Also given that many low wage workers string together 2-4 part time jobs, the idea that low wage workers work way less hours overall isn't quite accurate.

 

Yay me. I made choices that allowed me go from being a nanny and scooping ice cream and ironing sheets and cleaning bed and breakfast rooms to making decisions and managing financials and operations. Choices are great. But there are plenty of people who made the same or better choices than me and didn't get the same result. People who are still in poverty. No one is saying choices don't matter. I am saying that choice is not all that matters.

[SKL]

No, sorry. It is much easier to handle life's stress when you don't have to decide between your own eye care and your dd's. It is much easier to access coping skills when you CAN vacation - of any kind - than if you can't.

 

Lower middle class (and below) stress about co-pays, utilities vs. groceries and extracurriculars.

 

The stress of driving a beater car in the Houston metro area when any tow and repair will be a choice between transportation and rent is a markedly different life. Please don't try to assert otherwise.

 

I celebrate success: financial and otherwise. But higher level living is a by product of luxury - of being out of survival mode.

 

Lack of financial stress is of huge benefit in terms of health, self care, food and exercise choice, sleep, etc.

 

Although money does prevent some of this, working long hours (whether for high or low compensation) can often have a similar effect.  In particular, one's personal health is often the last consideration for working people in all income groups.

 

I'm not sure how many people along the income spectrum actually reach that sweet spot where they have both enough money AND enough time to enjoy life.  I know I don't expect that to happen for me any time soon.

[Joanne]

 

Good grief! Silly me! I have no idea of what I speak and I guess I should just bow to your otherwise superior knowledge, intelligence, and experience :svengo:

 

Apparently my living below the poverty level for a time is irrelevant :001_rolleyes:

 

Would you like to respond to the *content* of what I posted, as I did to your post? I will not engage with you in terms of passive/aggressive insults.

 

The reality is that life can be stressful at any socio-economic level. But when basic stability and money issues are not a problem, responding to life's situations in a healthy manner is easier.

 

When I have to seek medical care for my dd, far away in a beater car that I can't pay to tow or fix (and I lose income I taking her to the appointment) that does change the pact of stress on my body and family. I simply have less access to 1 they 20 because my resources of all kinds are used on the daily survival

 

That does not demonize wealth or discount the existence of stresses in a wealthy person's life.

 

If you would like to discuss content and not character, I will.

[Miss Marple]

Would you like to respond to the *content* of what I posted, as I did to your post? I will not engage with you in terms of passive/aggressive insults.

 

The reality is that life can be stressful at any socio-economic level. But when basic stability and money issues are not a problem, responding to life's situations in a healthy manner is easier.

 

When I have to seek medical care for my dd, far away in a beater car that I can't pay to tow or fix (and I lose income I taking her to the appointment) that does change the pact of stress on my body and family. I simply have less access to 1 they 20 because my resources of all kinds are used on the daily survival

 

That does not demonize wealth or discount the existence of stresses in a wealthy person's life.

 

If you would like to discuss content and not character, I will

 

Sheesh, I thought I had addressed the content - I bolded what I addressed.  It's obvious that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot (experience from being on these boards for over 13 years).  

 

Hey, I'm good with not engaging.  Perhaps you should have considered that before addressing my post.  You know we never agree :)

[Dmmetler]

My first question is "Define Poor". When. I was working for Head Start while in grad school, convinced I was saving those poor kids, I was a little shocked to find that a graduate fellowship and teaching at Head Start would have made our child, if we had one, eligible for the program. When I started teaching in Memphis, with a still damp master's, my salary would have qualified a single mother with kids for Free lunch and Title I services.

 

DH and I actually fit most of the "rich" side of the list, but we also did so when we were grad students. If anything, we fit it better then-we couldn't afford cable and our TV was a $20 one purchased at a yard sale!

[susankenny]

Would you like to respond to the *content* of what I posted, as I did to your post? I will not engage with you in terms of passive/aggressive insults.

 

The reality is that life can be stressful at any socio-economic level. But when basic stability and money issues are not a problem, responding to life's situations in a healthy manner is easier.

 

When I have to seek medical care for my dd, far away in a beater car that I can't pay to tow or fix (and I lose income I taking her to the appointment) that does change the pact of stress on my body and family. I simply have less access to 1 they 20 because my resources of all kinds are used on the daily survival

 

That does not demonize wealth or discount the existence of stresses in a wealthy person's life.

 

If you would like to discuss content and not character, I will.

 

 

She shared from her personal life's experience and her husband's job, hours, and stress. How was she not going to take your reply personal?  Telling someone that they are wrong is equally uncalled for, Joanne.  You have never walked in her shoes. 

[Miss Marple]

Given Joanne's current situation, as in this very minute, your response here just makes you look kinda like a jerk. It is possible to disagree with someone without rolling eyed smilies and sarcasm.

 

There are studies comparing the stress of long hour white collar jobs to long shift work. The stress was found to have far more acute impact when people lack control over their choices, got to make few decisions and the work lacked variety. When I worked long hours, I directed my department. I had a lot of autonomy and choice and built in moments of downtime. I might work 12 hours but do many different types of tasks, all involving skill and judgment and some creativity, in a day. If I were cleaning hotel rooms, I would have very little control over my time, making few decisions and doing the same thing again and again. I certainly wouldn't be on a message board during work hours.

 

Also given that many low wage workers string together 2-4 part time jobs, the idea that low wage workers work way less hours overall isn't quite accurate.

 

Yay me. I made choices that allowed me go from being a nanny and scooping ice cream and ironing sheets and cleaning bed and breakfast rooms to making decisions and managing financials and operations. Choices are great. But there are plenty of people who made the same or better choices than me and didn't get the same result. People who are still in poverty. No one is saying choices don't matter. I am saying that choice is not all that matters.

Sorry, Lucy.  There's a long history here...I've never addressed it with her until now.  

[susankenny]

My first question is "Define Poor". When. I was working for Head Start while in grad school, convinced I was saving those poor kids, I was a little shocked to find that a graduate fellowship and teaching at Head Start would have made our child, if we had one, eligible for the program. When I started teaching in Memphis, with a still damp master's, my salary would have qualified a single mother with kids for Free lunch and Title I services.

 

DH and I actually fit most of the "rich" side of the list, but we also did so when we were grad students. If anything, we fit it better then-we couldn't afford cable and our TV was a $20 one purchased at a yard sale!

 

Yes. Define poor. Define rich.  Without that clearly laid out, this thread is coming from many perspectives.

[Alessandra]

I don't really get why people are jumping on Allessandra's post?  I think she's mocking Dave's list in the way that many people are, saying that it might actually be because they're rich that they have these things, and not the other way 'round (which is what he's implying.)

 

 

 

Exactly, thank you!

[LucyStoner]

Even if poor and rich were clearly defined and there was consensus on those definitions, this thread would still be coming from many perspectives. By definition a discussion among a group of people on pretty much anything will come from many perspectives. Such is the intricacy and awesomeness of, get this, being human. We all have a perspective to add. It should be ok to disagree with someone without conflating it with a personal attack. But unless the "conversation" is to be totally parallel soapboxing, it will include disagreement and reactions to perspectives one may or may not personally agree with.

[Alessandra]

Never mind.  Thought I'd have some fun highlighting the absurdity of the DR post, but decided it's not helpful to this discussion. 

 

Actually, I would love to hear what you say.

[zoobie]

Given Joanne's current situation, as in this very minute, your response here just makes you look kinda like a jerk. It is possible to disagree with someone without rolling eyed smilies and sarcasm.

 

There are studies comparing the stress of long hour white collar jobs to long shift work. The stress was found to have far more acute impact when people lack control over their choices, got to make few decisions and the work lacked variety. When I worked long hours, I directed my department. I had a lot of autonomy and choice and built in moments of downtime. I might work 12 hours but do many different types of tasks, all involving skill and judgment and some creativity, in a day. If I were cleaning hotel rooms, I would have very little control over my time, making few decisions and doing the same thing again and again. I certainly wouldn't be on a message board during work hours.

 

Also given that many low wage workers string together 2-4 part time jobs, the idea that low wage workers work way less hours overall isn't quite accurate.

 

Yay me. I made choices that allowed me go from being a nanny and scooping ice cream and ironing sheets and cleaning bed and breakfast rooms to making decisions and managing financials and operations. Choices are great. But there are plenty of people who made the same or better choices than me and didn't get the same result. People who are still in poverty. No one is saying choices don't matter. I am saying that choice is not all that matters.

Also, being a hotel housekeeper is one of the most physically demanding jobs out there. They're usually women, and they have to do things like flip king size mattresses without help. Hands and knees scrubbing. Chemicals. Many low wage jobs are extremely hard on the body. There is a difference between coming home mentally spent and coming home in crippling pain and physically exhausted. It's inevitable that they will get hurt at work, and most people can't afford private disability insurance, and the workers' compensation system may barely keep you from starving. Anyway, just more stressors that I am thankful not to have.

[Alessandra]

Money may not be required but it sure does facilitate a lot of those choices. Calorie for calorie, sugar and oil is the cheapest way to fill a belly. I exercise a lot harder and longer when I go to a boot camp which costs money. I work out more often when I have a YMCA with fun activity rooms to keep my kids occupied. Again, money. To exercise, I need shoes that will allow the level of motion and jumping I do without damaging my ankles and shins. Shoes that are not free.

 

My mother didn't work out and ate a lot of really crappy quality food. She also walked the car camps with food and help and ran a soup kitchen and sleeping bag drive while she was very low income/poor herself. It would be easy for me to look at my well cared for and fed boys and say my mom should have done better for me and for herself. But unlike my mother, I have all I need to care for my sons and then some. I've never had to tell my kids we were "camping" when we really just had no place besides a 25 year old VW van and a tent to sleep. I've never lined my kids up on the one motel bed and piled clothing on top of the blankets because the heat didn't work in January. I've never had nothing to feed my kids besides pasta and rice and day old pastries. If after needing to do all that and so much more, my mother chose to eat a doughnut instead of a roasted carrot, that was her own prerogative. If she chose to numb her pain and ignore her stresses with crossword puzzles and fluffy mystery reading rather than going for a run or listening to War and Peace, I accept that was the best decision she could make. I could make no better choices for her than she did herself. Get this. People act in their own self interest. That includes people without a lot of zeros in their paychecks. Poverty doesn't mean that people don't get to navigate their own lives and circumstances with their own brains. FWIW- my mother was brilliant. People in much better circumstances would often comment on how smart my mom was. She was an amazing conversationalist. Poverty happens even to very smart people.

 

Gosh, I would choose the doughnut too, unless someone had roasted the carrot for me and presented it on a plate, accompanied by a glass of Perrier. Oh, dear, I love puzzles and mysteries too.

 

Your mother sounds like a remarkable woman. I feel honored to have something in common with her. (Not joking.)

[Caroline]

This is the difference between situational poverty and generational poverty. When DH and I were grad students, we had very little money. However, we did have those habits because, truly, we still had a middle-upper middle class mindset. We just chose for that period of time to live on that little money. However, getting out of situational poverty is easy. It's generational poverty that is hard to escape. One tiny error and you are homeless. We were never close to homelessness.

 

My first question is "Define Poor". When. I was working for Head Start while in grad school, convinced I was saving those poor kids, I was a little shocked to find that a graduate fellowship and teaching at Head Start would have made our child, if we had one, eligible for the program. When I started teaching in Memphis, with a still damp master's, my salary would have qualified a single mother with kids for Free lunch and Title I services.

 

DH and I actually fit most of the "rich" side of the list, but we also did so when we were grad students. If anything, we fit it better then-we couldn't afford cable and our TV was a $20 one purchased at a yard sale!

[LucyStoner]

Also, being a hotel housekeeper is one of the most physically demanding jobs out there. They're usually women, and they have to do things like flip king size mattresses without help. Hands and knees scrubbing. Chemicals. Many low wage jobs are extremely hard on the body. There is a difference between coming home mentally spent and coming home in crippling pain and physically exhausted. It's inevitable that they will get hurt at work, and most people can't afford private disability insurance, and the workers' compensation system may barely keep you from starving. Anyway, just more stressors that I am thankful not to have.

And just because that isn't hard enough, some special people leave their used condoms strewn everywhere, vomit in the trash instead of the toilet and do jerky things like come onto you. Also, there is an inverse relationship between the size of the mess and the size of the tip. Huge messes? No or small tip. Rooms that are left in good condition and nearly clean? Biggest tips. Ask me how I know. Oh wait, don't. I don't need to relive it. ;).

[mytwomonkeys]

This is the difference between situational poverty and generational poverty. When DH and I were grad students, we had very little money. However, we did have those habits because, truly, we still had a middle-upper middle class mindset. We just chose for that period of time to live on that little money. However, getting out of situational poverty is easy. It's generational poverty that is hard to escape. One tiny error and you are homeless. We were never close to homelessness.

 

 

That's a very good point!  When money was tight for us, it was because I quit my job as a social worker and our income was cut in half. It was an intentional choice and an adjustment.  We were able to do it though, because we had control over it. Plus, my husband's income has grown substantially over the years.  We worked to pay off debt (that made living too tight) & we will soon be debt free from everything (and then we can build our house, yay! :) )

 

Even the friends I have here are all educated, but the average income here still puts them in poverty according to the government definition and their family size.  As I stated earlier, no one I know would even consider themselves as poor.  

 

Anyway. I think your observation is excellent.

[Renee in NC]

Well I hope we all agree that hard work is better than the opposite.

 

Pointing out the exceptions and extremes don't disprove the overall realities.  I mean, yeah, we could go down his list and say "but look, 3% of poor people eat well and they are still poor!  30% of rich people eat a ton of junk and they are still rich!  Screw all that nutrition BS!"

 

You know your series of unfortunate events is not typical.  They don't change the fact that in general, everyday people making everyday choices can impact their long-term success.  In fact, based on what I've read here, your educational choices did improve your life.  The fact that you had a car accident doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea for others to make some of the positive choices you made.

 

This is true.  Unfortunately, when poor choices are made, it is VERY hard to "undo" them.  

 

A good example - you can't undo a felony.  I have a good friend that did something really stupid at 16 and was convicted of a felony.  It has followed him throughout his life, and makes his getting a job VERY difficult.  It was 22 years ago, does not represent in any way who he is today, yet it keeps him from taking advantage of many opportunities that could lead to a higher income.

[TechWife]

I never said that wealth = success. But I would venture to say that the person who spends his time drinking, gambling, watching reality television, and eating nothing but junk food, without attempting to make himself a better person, is not successful. Again, the point of the blog post is to show us things that we could improve in our lives. Many people just go about their days without examining what they are doing or why they are doing it. We can sit around with our bag of chips, drown our sorrows in alcohol, and make excuses, or we can try to actually do something about our situation. Obviously, the homeless man living under a bridge is simply focused on survival, but that is not who is reading the blog. In America, it is possible to change one's situation in life. I have seen it happen many times.

 

 

You're deciding what success is based on your own cultural framework.  If that person had been raised in poverty and now has the money to do those things, then they may very well be successful in their framework. You're also making some assumptions about what success is - it's impossible for us not to make some assumptions, but we should be aware of the assumptions we are making and what they are based upon. Likewise, the activities that each of us consider to be ones that will lead to us being "a better person" are individual. Additionally, people who are content with who they are and how they are living might not see a need to work on making themselves "better." Maybe that person who drinks, eats chips and makes excuses is perfectly content. Maybe what someone sees an excuse is the persons' way of saying "MYOB." Engaging in an activity or behavior and examining what we are doing and why we are doing it are not mutually exclusive activities, either. Perhaps someone who engages in drinking, eating chips and making excuses has absolutely no idea of how to start changing their situation, or even if it's possible. 

 

There are many people who engage in the behaviors you describe that are also solid members of their families and their communities. Do these behaviors mean that they aren't successful at all? 

 

There are so many scenarios that are possible that I hesitate to make generalizations about what determines whether or not a person is successful. Perhaps, like beauty, success is in the eye of the beholder? 

[Joanne]

Sheesh, I thought I had addressed the content - I bolded what I addressed. It's obvious that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot (experience from being on these boards for over 13 years).

 

Hey, I'm good with not engaging. Perhaps you should have considered that before addressing my post. You know we never agree :)

Actually, I don't. Our history, which seems in the forefront of your mind, is not on mine. I don't even know what you are referencing.

 

I responded to ideas in your post. The only possible inappropriate line of mine was "don't try to assert" and that was not a statement of character and it was not PERSONAL.

 

You did not address the ideas in my post at all.

[Joanne]

She shared from her personal life's experience and her husband's job, hours, and stress. How was she not going to take your reply personal? Telling someone that they are wrong is equally uncalled for, Joanne. You have never walked in her shoes.

Her response was a sarcastic character slam. I have been engaging with the ideas in the thread; not her personally.

 

I did not say anything personal about her at all.

 

She later admits that she perceives a long history of issues - I don't even know what she is talking about. But, regardless, this thread, or any other, is not the appropriate place for the content of her current posts

[Scarlett]

These threads about money never go well.  :)

 

As far as having more money equaling more stress, um, ok.  You might have different stress but you won't have the stress of choosing between feeding your family or paying the electric.

 

Having money doesn't stop all stress, but it can make that stress managable whereas having stress and no money is almost unbearable at times.

[Scarlett]

This is true.  Unfortunately, when poor choices are made, it is VERY hard to "undo" them.  

 

A good example - you can't undo a felony.  I have a good friend that did something really stupid at 16 and was convicted of a felony.  It has followed him throughout his life, and makes his getting a job VERY difficult.  It was 22 years ago, does not represent in any way who he is today, yet it keeps him from taking advantage of many opportunities that could lead to a higher income.

 

 

This happened to my sister....she was with the wrong boyfriend at age 20 and ended up with a conviction that haunted her.  She lost a $100K job she had had for 10 years because she couldn't pass the background check...even though she had revealed the conviction on her original application and her bosses all knew about it.  She did get another similar job but she took a pretty hefty cut.

[Alessandra]

You forgot manicures, pedicures, spa treatments, massages, underpaid hired help to clean your house and take care of your kids.....

 

OMG, how could I forget that1?

[idnib]

Raise your hands if you've heard of Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People.

 

Lately (even before this thread) I've been thinking that he would have been lambasted had he tried to publish that book in today's environment.

 

"I never did any of those things and I still have friends."

"I know lots of influential people who do the exact opposite so the book is useless and insulting."

"I did those things and have more friends but it didn't make me more influential."

"I gained more influence at work but I got in a fight with my best friend. This book sucks."

"This book is only for people who have regular access to people they don't know. I don't, so the book is BS."

"I have these personal obstacles to meeting new people, so the book itself is nonsense. It needs to address X problem because that's what I have."

"This book is for people who are involved in lots of negotiations. I'm not, and that's the problem with this book."

 

 

I'm pretty sure the target audience for Carnegie's book was people who are regularly in contact with other people, people involved in negotiations, people who don't have crippling social anxiety, etc.

 

Maybe poor people are not the target audience for DR's blog post. He talks about what wealthy people do. He doesn't say anything about the poor, nor does he assert whether the wealthy have these habits as a result of wealth or vice versa. He doesn't say that if you do these things you'll be wealthy, nor does he say you cannot be wealthy without doing these things.

 

In the olden days people used to buy/borrow books or subscribe to paper newsletters or buy magazines. They had more limited access and invested more time/effort before getting the content. Now so much information/opinion is free and easily accessed it's as if people think everything was directed at them personally when it's not. Spend $6 for a copy of GQ or Robb Report and you'll wonder why you bought this content that obviously doesn't apply to you. But if it's on the Internet, it's all directed at everyone!

 

I am currently out of shape and have medical problems. I can read an article about the "Top 5 Habits of Fit People" and not feel like it's directed at me personally. Because I have two non-functioning endocrine glands I've already excluded myself from the target audience. That doesn't mean it's not useful information, and perhaps it's even true that these are the top 5 habits of fit people, rather than just a pithy headline. Great! Why am I going to run around complaining that this article doesn't take medical, financial, family, or neighborhood situations into account? Don't they know some people have non-functioning glands? That some neighborhoods are dangerous for getting fresh air? That some areas are un-walkable due to lack of sidewalks? How could they not take everyone's needs into account when dispensing information?

[Embassy]

 

 

70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month vs. 3% for poor

:lol:   Kids have jobs in poor families - a lot more than 10 hours a month.  

 

Some of these statements can be quite misleading!

[Caroline]

Situational poverty can be tough also, especially when it isn't related to personal choice but to health and market issues.

You are right. That was insensitive of me.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

These threads about money never go well.  :)

 

As far as having more money equaling more stress, um, ok.  You might have different stress but you won't have the stress of choosing between feeding your family or paying the electric.

 

Having money doesn't stop all stress, but it can make that stress managable whereas having stress and no money is almost unbearable at times.

 

Hey, look.  I will have you know that choosing between the grey and camel leather for my Aston had be in fits.  But my troubles are too lofty for the teeming hoards.

 

Why I think this hot button is especially close to blowing out the top of the thermometer is that the gap is more apparent than ever.  That little gap that started around 1980-ish did not exist for my parents, and I don't remember a sub culture that oozed the message "Here you are, but here's where you really should be, so do this, because otherwise you are other, you are not in the club, you have missed the train only because of what you did or are doing." 

 

We just finished the section in DD's logic book that dealt with "bandwagon" and "testimonials," and those other fallacies. She said it sure seems like everyone is trying to sell you something.

 

Yup.

 

 

(Source)  And if you really want to geek out, go to OECD.

[Catwoman]

First of all, Dave Ramsey didn't write this; it was something he posted from another blog. Second, if 80% of a group does something, that means that 20% does not. Nobody said, "All rich people do such-and-such." The point of the thing is just to cause us to examine our habits. If we want to be successful in life, maybe we should consider trying to improve ourselves by setting goals, educating ourselves, and eating right, rather than filling our time with mindless television and our stomachs with empty calories.

 

 

Well, if Dave Ramsey posted the information on his blog, it seems pretty clear that he agrees with it.

 

Frankly, I think the list is a crock and the "statistics" are completely made up.

 

 

Well, I found it interesting and inspiring!  I have been needing some inspiration to get my life back on track lately.  (Though one does wonder where those statistics came from.)

 

I then looked at the comments above and found them even more interesting.

 

And although I know this is not gonna make me any friends, I'm going to say it:

 

90% of successful people read that list and nodded their heads through most of it.  (Granted, not all of it.)

90% of people who feel less successful read that list and said, "what a load of elitist BS."

 

Hmmm.

  

 

Quite frankly, I think your 90% "statistic" is as ridiculous as the ones posted on that blog.

 

 

Um...

 

-- designer clothing - No

-- designer shoes - No

-- houses with 5+ bathrooms - No

-- vacation houses or timeshares - No

-- vacations - Guilty! But I work every day of my vacations so maybe not...

-- luxury cars - No

-- limousines, owned or rented - No

-- private planes, or fractional ownership therof - No

-- boats - No

-- sports like tennis, golf, skiing, sailing and horseback riding - No, except I did put my kids in riding lessons

-- investment accounts - Yes, I will be 60 when my kids are 20 and I'd like to send them to college and still retire.

-- stockbrokers - If you count the company that sends me the annual statement for my retirement account.

-- insurance agents - Well yeah, is that some kind of problem?  Insurance is the devil now?

-- good healthcare - Not as good as many blue-collar workers have, and who has time to go anyway

-- good schools - Parochial, yep, shame on me, but since they won't accommodate my dd's needs, we may switch to public

-- good seats at the opera - No

 

Where are you getting all these ideas?  The highly taxed people I know don't have time for all that.  When they aren't working or sleeping, they are usually doing charity work.

I'm not sure how many wealthy people you actually know, but based on your responses to this thread, I would have to assume that you don't know very many of them.

 

Alessandra's made-up list seems far more accurate than the idiocy posted on Dave Ramsey's blog.

[Miss Marple]

:lol:   Kids have jobs in poor families - a lot more than 10 hours a month.  

 

Some of these statements can be quite misleading!

 

But the assumption it seems that you are making is that rich parents don't have children who work and therefore have more free time to volunteer.  Anectdotal, but all my kids have held jobs from around age 14 - anywhere from 10-20 hours per week in the school year to full time in the summer, they also had a lot of responsibility around our 100+ acres.  In addition, they did a lot of volunteer work.  And, that seems to hold true for all the "rich" people I know.  My kids buy their own cars, purchase their own gas...Many "rich" people have their kids work because they know the correlation between their own work level and their success. 

 

I wonder if that statement was a statistic that took into account the age of all the kids - rich or poor.  Perhaps they were talking about kids who were not "working" age.  I know many who have their kids volunteer from a very early age. 

[Scarlett]

But the assumption it seems that you are making is that rich parents don't have children who work and therefore have more free time to volunteer. Anectdotal, but all my kids have held jobs from around age 14 - anywhere from 10-20 hours per week in the school year to full time in the summer, they also had a lot of responsibility around our 100+ acres. In addition, they did a lot of volunteer work. And, that seems to hold true for all the "rich" people I know. My kids buy their own cars, purchase their own gas...Many "rich" people have their kids work because they know the correlation between their own work level and their success.

 

I wonder if that statement was a statistic that took into account the age of all the kids - rich or poor. Perhaps they were talking about kids who were not "working" age. I know many who have their kids volunteer from a very early age.

Your kids have bought there own cars with money from 10-20 hours a week of work? How did they get to that job before they saved enough money for said car? Who pays for insurance on the cars?

[Scarlett]

We would have to define rich and that is impossible to do.

[Miss Marple]

 

 

Well, if Dave Ramsey posted the information on his blog, it seems pretty clear that he agrees with it.

 

Frankly, I think the list is a crock and the "statistics" are completely made up.

 

   

 

Quite frankly, I think your 90% "statistic" is as ridiculous as the ones posted on that blog.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how many wealthy people you actually know, but based on your responses to this thread, I would have to assume that you don't know very many of them.

 

Alessandra's made-up list seems far more accurate than the idiocy posted on Dave Ramsey's blog.

 

I'm with SKL here.  I would answer the same as she did and we are considered "rich" by the governmental standards.  We have to supply our own healthcare and retirement.  Then there are health issues we have to deal with, then there are elderly parents to take care of, kids to send to college (which would be much cheaper if we didn't make so "much" money).  Perhaps defining wealth is important in this context.  I have never been in a limo, never ridden in a private plane (never ridden first class either), our newest car is a 2004 Saab which we purchased a few months ago (used).  My youngest drives a 1993 Nissan (keeps the insurance rates down).  I frequent garage sales - why not get something nice for a good price? I'm not sure I even know what designer clothes are - if I can't find it at TJ Maxx, I probably don't own it.   We take vacations because taking time off and staying in town means that people know dh is here and will call him anyway.  We have to leave town.  Vacations are not frequent due to health, staffing, and elderly parents.  I had my first pedicure when my son got married last year.  I think it's a waste of money - money that could go to pay for a new false teeth for the inlaws, etc.  Our social circle consists of similar income families and none of them do the things on that list either.  In fact, the people I know who own time-shares are in the lower middle class income.  Really, we've had some great vacations, but that's because we save on other things.    Based on Alessandra's list, we're not rich.  But the government calls us "rich".

 

[Catwoman]

I'm with SKL here. I would answer the same as she did and we are considered "rich" by the governmental standards. We have to supply our own healthcare and retirement. Then there are health issues we have to deal with, then there are elderly parents to take care of, kids to send to college (which would be much cheaper if we didn't make so "much" money). Perhaps defining wealth is important in this context. I have never been in a limo, never ridden in a private plane (never ridden first class either), our newest car is a 2004 Saab which we purchased a few months ago (used). My youngest drives a 1993 Nissan (keeps the insurance rates down). I frequent garage sales - why not get something nice for a good price? I'm not sure I even know what designer clothes are - if I can't find it at TJ Maxx, I probably don't own it. We take vacations because taking time off and staying in town means that people know dh is here and will call him anyway. We have to leave town. Vacations are not frequent due to health, staffing, and elderly parents. I had my first pedicure when my son got married last year. I think it's a waste of money - money that could go to pay for a new false teeth for the inlaws, etc. Our social circle consists of similar income families and none of them do the things on that list either. In fact, the people I know who own time-shares are in the lower middle class income. Really, we've had some great vacations, but that's because we save on other things. Based on Alessandra's list, we're not rich. But the government calls us "rich".

 

I don't mean any offense here, but you would not be considered at all rich among most of the people we know. Alessandra's list would be pretty accurate.

 

I think it's all definitional. No matter who you are, you're always going to be viewed as rich compared to some people and poor compared to others.

[Miss Marple]

Your kids have bought there own cars with money from 10-20 hours a week of work? How did they get to that job before they saved enough money for said car? Who pays for insurance on the cars?

 

Yes, they purchased cars around $2500.  They may not be "cool", but they are wheels and dad is good at keeping them running.  And he taught the boys how to maintain their cars.  We share insurance costs because of the nature of the type of insurance we have to carry due to dh's profession.  They worked mowing yards, chopping wood - things that require more brawn than brain or connections.  My youngest, though, got his job as a lifeguard because he earned that in scouts.  One worked in a donut store in addition to his lawn mowing/yard maintenance. 

[Dandelion]

Maybe poor people are not the target audience for DR's blog post. He talks about what wealthy people do. He doesn't say anything about the poor

 

Actually, he talks about the poor throughout the post.  From the title ("20 Things the Rich Do Every Day: So what do the rich do every day that the poor don’t do?"), to the comparisons made in every single line item.  The entire post is a list of comparisons between the rich and the poor.  For each habit, he gives the % of rich people that supposedly engage in the habit vs. the % of poor people that do. 

 

 

I am currently out of shape and have medical problems. I can read an article about the "Top 5 Habits of Fit People" and not feel like it's directed at me personally. Because I have two non-functioning endocrine glands I've already excluded myself from the target audience. That doesn't mean it's not useful information, and perhaps it's even true that these are the top 5 habits of fit people, rather than just a pithy headline. 

 

I get your point.  But your example is different from the DR post.  

 

An equitable comparison here would be a "Top 5 Habits of Fit People" article that goes on to bash out of shape people while describing each of the 5 habits.  For example, "80% of fit people exercise 5 times a week, while only 10% of out of shape people do".  Is that really necessary?  Is that motivating to an out of shape person reading the post?  Based on the many stories shared on this board, it would seem that there are many, many people who exercise 5 times a week and yet can't seem to get into shape.  Will they be helped by that kind of blog post?

 

The point is that you can share the habits of Group X, and make it motivating and uplifting, without making unfavorable comparisons to Group Y.  Group Y knows their circumstances, and they know what they're doing/not doing.  They don't need to be shamed.  

 

I'm not personally offended by this DR post.  We're doing very well financially.  I can read something like this and take it or leave it.  But we were asked for our thoughts on this post, and my take is that this post is condescending, lacking in substance, and ultimately unhelpful. 

 

[Miss Marple]

I don't mean any offense here, but you would not be considered at all rich among most of the people we know. Alessandra's list would be pretty accurate.

 

I think it's all definitional. No matter who you are, you're always going to be viewed as rich compared to some people and poor compared to others.

 

LOL!  That's probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me today :)  I don't feel rich, but when the government defines us as such, it's hard to deny it :)  But for TWTM boards, I'm now going to amend my status to "not rich".  You cannot imagine how good that makes me feel.

[Catwoman]

LOL! That's probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me today :) I don't feel rich, but when the government defines us as such, it's hard to deny it :)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Completely off-topic here, but I love your avatar!

[msjones]

Dear Dave,

 

You missed a few habits of the wealthy:

 

-- designer clothing

-- designer shoes

-- houses with 5+ bathrooms

-- vacation houses or timeshares

-- vacations

-- luxury cars

-- limousines, owned or rented

-- private planes, or fractional ownership therof

-- boats

-- sports like tennis, golf, skiing, sailing and horseback riding

-- investment accounts

-- stockbrokers

-- insurance agents

-- good healthcare

-- good schools

-- good seats at the opera

 

And in case you need it spelled out -- not all rich people will do/have everything on the list, and poor people may do/have some of the things. But begging, borrowing or stealing the above will not make anyone rich. Thought you'd like to know that acting rich does not guarantee wealth.

Huh? 

[mytwomonkeys]

LOL! That's probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me today :) I don't feel rich, but when the government defines us as such, it's hard to deny it :) But for TWTM boards, I'm now going to amend my status to "not rich". You cannot imagine how good that makes me feel.

If your husband is a surgeon and people wouldn't consider you wealthy, God help me and what people must think!!! lol

[Scarlett]

I'm with SKL here. I would answer the same as she did and we are considered "rich" by the governmental standards. We have to supply our own healthcare and retirement. Then there are health issues we have to deal with, then there are elderly parents to take care of, kids to send to college (which would be much cheaper if we didn't make so "much" money). Perhaps defining wealth is important in this context. I have never been in a limo, never ridden in a private plane (never ridden first class either), our newest car is a 2004 Saab which we purchased a few months ago (used). My youngest drives a 1993 Nissan (keeps the insurance rates down). I frequent garage sales - why not get something nice for a good price? I'm not sure I even know what designer clothes are - if I can't find it at TJ Maxx, I probably don't own it. We take vacations because taking time off and staying in town means that people know dh is here and will call him anyway. We have to leave town. Vacations are not frequent due to health, staffing, and elderly parents. I had my first pedicure when my son got married last year. I think it's a waste of money - money that could go to pay for a new false teeth for the inlaws, etc. Our social circle consists of similar income families and none of them do the things on that list either. In fact, the people I know who own time-shares are in the lower middle class income. Really, we've had some great vacations, but that's because we save on other things. Based on Alessandra's list, we're not rich. But the government calls us "rich".

 

Interesting. I've flown first class and in a private plane. My best friend has a small jet.

 

Oh and btw, I am not rich.

[Miss Marple]

If your husband is a surgeon and people wouldn't consider you wealthy, God help me and what people must think!!! lol

 

Maybe it's like family size.  One church we attended thought we were overpopulating the earth by having 4 kids; the next church we attended thought we were lightweights and possibly not following God's will only having 4 kids. :)

 

But Cat has said I'm not rich, so that's my status and I'm not changing it LOL.