What is a myth that should be dispelled because it is costing us all money?

[Cannot Wait!]

Interesting points nereo; I agree.

Hopping back to EFs...
The thing about emergency funds is that people have them, or try and build them, WHILE ALSO CARRYING CREDIT CARD DEBT!!!  So on one hand they are paying 19% interest on a cc while making 2% interest in a savings account.  This is where Dave Ramsey loses all credibility for me.  Not to mention his snowballing - JUST DO THE MATH!
And so many people classify 'emergencies' incorrectly confusing it with 'maintenance' (ie replacing appliances at some point) or 'really want to's.
Pay down those CCs - then they become your emergency fund.

[HPstache]

Interesting points nereo; I agree.

Hopping back to EFs...
The thing about emergency funds is that people have them, or try and build them, WHILE ALSO CARRYING CREDIT CARD DEBT!!!  So on one hand they are paying 19% interest on a cc while making 2% interest in a savings account.  This is where Dave Ramsey loses all credibility for me.  Not to mention his snowballing - JUST DO THE MATH!
And so many people classify 'emergencies' incorrectly confusing it with 'maintenance' (ie replacing appliances at some point) or 'really want to's.
Pay down those CCs - then they become your emergency fund.

Dave Ramseys plan is as follows:

Baby Step 1: $1,000 emergency fund
Baby Step 2: Eliminate all non-mortgage debt
Baby Step 3: 3-6 month fully funded emergency fund
.
.
.
.

I don't think have $1,000 buffer in the bank is so bad before killing credit card and other debts.  I think you must be mistaken...

[Cannot Wait!]

But why not pay that $1000 on to the CC and then rack it back up if an 'emergency' occurs?

[HPstache]

But why not pay that $1000 on to the CC and then rack it back up if an 'emergency' occurs?

I don't think there is actually anyone that would advocate for having $0 in funds available at any given time.  It's OK that you did not know that paying off all debts comes before a fully funded emergency fund in the DR baby steps.

[maisymouser]

I'm shocked no one has mentioned health care yet.

Specifically, the myth that we cannot afford to offer basic health care to everyone in the US, or that doing so would be prohibitively expensive. Fact is we are already spending this money (and spending it about as inefficiently as possible).  Most of it is spent by employers - compelled by legislation - which amounts to a health care tax anyway.  For the uninsured (e.g. for someone recently unemployed), forgoing routine and preventative care winds up costing everyone more down the road.

Came here to post this. Ya beat me to it.

[HenryDavid]

When I put my car in a show or do a race event, I'll often get a Tshirt that has all the sponsors logos on it.  I'll wear the Tshirt after the fact and I am not trying to fool people into thinking that I'm sponsored by Hawk brake pads, or whatever.  Might be similar in the cycling world...

N'ah, I've seen the imitation sponsored gear at bike shops. It's not cheap, people pay very good money to look fake sponsored.

It’s a tribal identity thing. When I raced bikes all us guys shaved our legs. You just did. I mean obviously. For skiiers, Skateboarders, even walkers, ffs—there are tribal emblems so the others will say “Cool, cool, one of us. Serious walker dude. Cool.”

Doesn't the gear itself connote this though?

I know among my old motorcycle racing friends, the folks who bought the faux-sponsored bikes were pretty heavily laughed at. And motorcycle folks are deeply tribal.

Oh yes, the gear was always the first marker for the committed boy racer. Serious "kit," as the Brits say, = serious rider. But show up on a beautiful bike with baggy shorts, a K-Way and fluffy legs? Perplexed looks all round. Just as bad as riding a lead-pipe frame with a World Champion striped bike jersey. It was the whole package.
Hence the relief when mountain bikers chucked the whole serious thing and just rode in jeans. That lasted  . . . for a while. Now there are lots of new expensive myths about off-road bikes!

[markbike528CBX]

But totally agree with the 'walking billboard' thing.  That's just weird.

how do you feel about it on cycling jerseys? Because I've never understood why amateur cyclists wear clothes emblazoned with as many logos as the pros wear... only they get paid by said sponsors, and the amateurs pay $70+ a jersey to promote another company.

Or:  what's in your closet?

Not a huge fan of that.  I have four cycling jerseys and seven pairs of shorts . . . they're all solid colours with no visible logo.  I also have a Castelli rain jacket which has a couple small logos on the shoulders . . . but generally my preference is to not have big advertising blocks all over everything.  It just looks cluttered.

The only branded cycling gear I wear is branded with the store where I bought and service my bike. I really don't mind being a walking advertisement for them, and that gear is often on steep sale.

I do not understand the imitation sponsored gear though. That makes very little sense to me unless it's supposed to be like wearing a sports jersey?? Like, do cyclists buy imitation sponsored jerseys that match those of their favourite professional cyclists? Is this a groupie thing??

I'm actually asking, I want to know.

When I was racing motorcycles I removed the helmet logo (pretty obvious when photographed).  Did this hurt the company in any way... nope.   
The company standing was probably _enhanced_, since my status as a slowly moving obstacle would not have helped the company in any way.
However, I did see lots of club-level racers who had logos of companies that would never have sponsored them.

Gas myth, from a page ago....
I used premium pump gas in my racebike not race (vs leaded super high 110+ octane), because it had a stock engine. Did it slow me down? Nope.
When you are pinning the throttle, even in a high efficiency, small 600cc engine, your gas mileage goes way down (20mpg)   
I do have a favorite gasoline company.   
I refuse to buy Exxon, even for regular use, since the Exxon Valdez f***up.  Yes, it is a bit silly, but my karma feels better for it. 

 

[markbike528CBX]

When I put my car in a show or do a race event, I'll often get a Tshirt that has all the sponsors logos on it.  I'll wear the Tshirt after the fact and I am not trying to fool people into thinking that I'm sponsored by Hawk brake pads, or whatever.  Might be similar in the cycling world...

N'ah, I've seen the imitation sponsored gear at bike shops. It's not cheap, people pay very good money to look fake sponsored.

It’s a tribal identity thing. When I raced bikes all us guys shaved our legs. You just did. I mean obviously. For skiiers, Skateboarders, even walkers, ffs—there are tribal emblems so the others will say “Cool, cool, one of us. Serious walker dude. Cool.”

Doesn't the gear itself connote this though?

I know among my old motorcycle racing friends, the folks who bought the faux-sponsored bikes were pretty heavily laughed at. And motorcycle folks are deeply tribal.

Fancy paint (logos or no) are known in motorcycle racing  as "crash bait" in the same vein as "jail bait".
My first practice on a brand new bike, stock (logo'ed) fairing plastic, ... yup, crashed at ~100mph, totally screwed up the fairing/bodywork.
Corner worker (safety guy) walked up, said "Are you OK?".  My reply, "yep I'm OK, but my wallet hurts pretty bad ", as I saw my bike upright on top of the 4 ft tire wall on the outside of the turn.

[Missy B]

That owning the place you live in is a good financial move and an "investment".

+1
This attitude is responsible for a lot of pain and suffering in Canada, and it is basically a religion. Suggest that capital gains on primary residence should have taxes applied and a torrent of righteous holy-jihadists will descend upon you.

[Missy B]

Has anyone mentioned brand names?  The myth of brand names always meaning a better product or necessary for social leverage costs a lot of people a lot of money.

In many cases, the generic brands are the same product in different packaging that the brand name companies are required to make in order to sell their product on that store's shelves.

Yes. Buy the same two products and compare them side by side if you're not sure.

The one place this doesn't hold is pharmaceuticals. The off-brand version are made by a different company, and while you would think that theoretically ibuprofin is ibuprofin, the purification process is actually different (and cheaper) with the off-brand. So London Drugs ibuprofin made by Apotex is not quite as clean as Advil. Should you care? it depends on whether you happen to be sensitive to the impurities. Some people aren't, some people get rebound headaches.

For prescription meds the drug isn't usually exactly the same, chemically. That's why people who are forced to change their med to a cheaper one by their insurer or provincial health plan may not do very well. The entity paying the bill will insist its the same, but it isn't.

[Zikoris]

The one place this doesn't hold is pharmaceuticals. The off-brand version are made by a different company, and while you would think that theoretically ibuprofin is ibuprofin, the purification process is actually different (and cheaper) with the off-brand. So London Drugs ibuprofin made by Apotex is not quite as clean as Advil. Should you care? it depends on whether you happen to be sensitive to the impurities. Some people aren't, some people get rebound headaches.

For prescription meds the drug isn't usually exactly the same, chemically. That's why people who are forced to change their med to a cheaper one by their insurer or provincial health plan may not do very well. The entity paying the bill will insist its the same, but it isn't.

I just learned this recently, and it blew my mind because I'd always thought they were exactly the same. Then my boyfriend tried switching to a store brand of allergy medication with exactly the same active ingredient and amount as the brand name he'd been taking, and it totally did not work for him at all. A doctor friend of mine explained the production process to me, and it was super interesting. Boyfriend went back to the normal brand and has been fine.

[dreadmoose]

I just learned this recently, and it blew my mind because I'd always thought they were exactly the same. Then my boyfriend tried switching to a store brand of allergy medication with exactly the same active ingredient and amount as the brand name he'd been taking, and it totally did not work for him at all. A doctor friend of mine explained the production process to me, and it was super interesting. Boyfriend went back to the normal brand and has been fine.

Though they are not 100% identical you are talking more like 99.9% identical. My mother is a pharmacist and this has always been a sticking point (with me on the brand name side until I aged into being able to look at both sides). The only thing that can differ is inactive ingredients, I'd actually be liable to say it is ingrained myth within us that makes us believe the differences are real (ie, the placebo effect would be vastly more significant than the actual difference as it's regulated for all factors as outlined below).

The FDA requires that they are "pharmaceutically equivalent to its reference listed drug (RLD), i.e., to have the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength, and route of administration under the same conditions of use; bioequivalent to the RLD, i.e., to show no significant difference in the rate and extent of absorption of the active pharmaceutical ingredient; and, consequently, therapeutically equivalent, i.e., to be substitutable for the RLD with the expectation that the generic product will have the same safety and efficacy as its reference listed drug"

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/psg/index.cfm

I believe there is a Freakonomics podcast episode on this that digs into it a bit but pharmacists buy generic over brand name drugs 91% of the time with comments ranging from "my family thinks the store brand tastes yucky" to "the packaging is easier to open so I'll spend on that" to "it's not much money so who cares".

Pharmaceutically equivalent means it's the same, there can not be differences in how it works, purity, results, etc.

[nereo]

I just learned this recently, and it blew my mind because I'd always thought they were exactly the same. Then my boyfriend tried switching to a store brand of allergy medication with exactly the same active ingredient and amount as the brand name he'd been taking, and it totally did not work for him at all. A doctor friend of mine explained the production process to me, and it was super interesting. Boyfriend went back to the normal brand and has been fine.

Though they are not 100% identical you are talking more like 99.9% identical. My mother is a pharmacist and this has always been a sticking point (with me on the brand name side until I aged into being able to look at both sides). The only thing that can differ is inactive ingredients, I'd actually be liable to say it is ingrained myth within us that makes us believe the differences are real (ie, the placebo effect would be vastly more significant than the actual difference as it's regulated for all factors as outlined below).

The FDA requires that they are "pharmaceutically equivalent to its reference listed drug (RLD), i.e., to have the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength, and route of administration under the same conditions of use; bioequivalent to the RLD, i.e., to show no significant difference in the rate and extent of absorption of the active pharmaceutical ingredient; and, consequently, therapeutically equivalent, i.e., to be substitutable for the RLD with the expectation that the generic product will have the same safety and efficacy as its reference listed drug"

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/psg/index.cfm

I believe there is a Freakonomics podcast episode on this that digs into it a bit but pharmacists buy generic over brand name drugs 91% of the time with comments ranging from "my family thinks the store brand tastes yucky" to "the packaging is easier to open so I'll spend on that" to "it's not much money so who cares".

Pharmaceutically equivalent means it's the same, there can not be differences in how it works, purity, results, etc.

Can't help but point out the distortion that our health insurance systems have on Rx drugs.  My plan has $15 co-pay for brand-name and $10 for generic, so it's very easy for me to say - as a consumer - "it's not much [difference in] money so who cares."  But the full price of a generic might be $40 for an antibiotic but $215 for the brand name, so by choosing the brand-name my insurance (and by extension my employer) pays 70-85% more.  And of course there are some medicines that my insurance will not cover the brand-name for

[Zikoris]

I just learned this recently, and it blew my mind because I'd always thought they were exactly the same. Then my boyfriend tried switching to a store brand of allergy medication with exactly the same active ingredient and amount as the brand name he'd been taking, and it totally did not work for him at all. A doctor friend of mine explained the production process to me, and it was super interesting. Boyfriend went back to the normal brand and has been fine.

Though they are not 100% identical you are talking more like 99.9% identical. My mother is a pharmacist and this has always been a sticking point (with me on the brand name side until I aged into being able to look at both sides). The only thing that can differ is inactive ingredients, I'd actually be liable to say it is ingrained myth within us that makes us believe the differences are real (ie, the placebo effect would be vastly more significant than the actual difference as it's regulated for all factors as outlined below).

The FDA requires that they are "pharmaceutically equivalent to its reference listed drug (RLD), i.e., to have the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength, and route of administration under the same conditions of use; bioequivalent to the RLD, i.e., to show no significant difference in the rate and extent of absorption of the active pharmaceutical ingredient; and, consequently, therapeutically equivalent, i.e., to be substitutable for the RLD with the expectation that the generic product will have the same safety and efficacy as its reference listed drug"

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/psg/index.cfm

I believe there is a Freakonomics podcast episode on this that digs into it a bit but pharmacists buy generic over brand name drugs 91% of the time with comments ranging from "my family thinks the store brand tastes yucky" to "the packaging is easier to open so I'll spend on that" to "it's not much money so who cares".

Pharmaceutically equivalent means it's the same, there can not be differences in how it works, purity, results, etc.

In my boyfriend's case it's not really subjective at all - he takes the stuff to control hives outbreaks, so it's kind of a yes or no question. He either breaks out in hives or he doesn't. It was a pretty shocking difference in results between the two in his case.

[Gerard]

I also don't get why some people put ENORMOUS logos on their cars/trucks/t-shirts/whatever, and often spend a lot of money to do so.  The only way I'm serving as a walking billboard is if I get compensation to do so.

...or if I'm paying less for the product (which I guess is kinda the same thing?).

We just bought a couple of big good-quality umbrellas for five bucks each, less than we'd pay for crappy drugstore brollies. Ours are blue and yellow and have the name of a large Nordic wobbly-furniture store on them, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I also don't get why some people put ENORMOUS logos on their cars/trucks/t-shirts/whatever, and often spend a lot of money to do so.  The only way I'm serving as a walking billboard is if I get compensation to do so.

...or if I'm paying less for the product (which I guess is kinda the same thing?).

We just bought a couple of big good-quality umbrellas for five bucks each, less than we'd pay for crappy drugstore brollies. Ours are blue and yellow and have the name of a large Nordic wobbly-furniture store on them, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

High-end brands are usually pretty low-key about branding. It's the cheap/low-rent brands that scream it out.

[Metalcat]

I also don't get why some people put ENORMOUS logos on their cars/trucks/t-shirts/whatever, and often spend a lot of money to do so.  The only way I'm serving as a walking billboard is if I get compensation to do so.

...or if I'm paying less for the product (which I guess is kinda the same thing?).

We just bought a couple of big good-quality umbrellas for five bucks each, less than we'd pay for crappy drugstore brollies. Ours are blue and yellow and have the name of a large Nordic wobbly-furniture store on them, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

High-end brands are usually pretty low-key about branding. It's the cheap/low-rent brands that scream it out.

Not in my experience, at least not anymore. This used to be true in the 90s, but Chanel, Versace, Fendi, Cartier, Gucci, Prada, Dior, etc, all have tons of heavily branded merchandise. I was actually laughing in a store the other day that Gucci seems to have turned into Louis Vuitton with its heavy lean into its branding. Even Hermes has turned their "H" into a heavily, heavily branded logo on most of their newer products.

[nereo]

I also don't get why some people put ENORMOUS logos on their cars/trucks/t-shirts/whatever, and often spend a lot of money to do so.  The only way I'm serving as a walking billboard is if I get compensation to do so.

...or if I'm paying less for the product (which I guess is kinda the same thing?).

We just bought a couple of big good-quality umbrellas for five bucks each, less than we'd pay for crappy drugstore brollies. Ours are blue and yellow and have the name of a large Nordic wobbly-furniture store on them, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

High-end brands are usually pretty low-key about branding. It's the cheap/low-rent brands that scream it out.

Not in my experience, at least not anymore. This used to be true in the 90s, but Chanel, Versace, Fendi, Cartier, Gucci, Prada, Dior, etc, all have tons of heavily branded merchandise. I was actually laughing in a store the other day that Gucci seems to have turned into Louis Vuitton with its heavy lean into its branding. Even Hermes has turned their "H" into a heavily, heavily branded logo on most of their newer products.

Similar to my observations as well.  Of course it’s not universally true - plenty of luxury brands do very little branding, and it’s hard to walk a few blocks in my city without seeing someone wearing the iconic Old Navy. Hoodie with 8” letters across the front.  But in general I see the high-end luxury companies flouting their logos, advertising the crap out of their ‘brand experience’ and the most ‘in-your-face’.

[Metalcat]

I also don't get why some people put ENORMOUS logos on their cars/trucks/t-shirts/whatever, and often spend a lot of money to do so.  The only way I'm serving as a walking billboard is if I get compensation to do so.

...or if I'm paying less for the product (which I guess is kinda the same thing?).

We just bought a couple of big good-quality umbrellas for five bucks each, less than we'd pay for crappy drugstore brollies. Ours are blue and yellow and have the name of a large Nordic wobbly-furniture store on them, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

High-end brands are usually pretty low-key about branding. It's the cheap/low-rent brands that scream it out.

Not in my experience, at least not anymore. This used to be true in the 90s, but Chanel, Versace, Fendi, Cartier, Gucci, Prada, Dior, etc, all have tons of heavily branded merchandise. I was actually laughing in a store the other day that Gucci seems to have turned into Louis Vuitton with its heavy lean into its branding. Even Hermes has turned their "H" into a heavily, heavily branded logo on most of their newer products.

Similar to my observations as well.  Of course it’s not universally true - plenty of luxury brands do very little branding, and it’s hard to walk a few blocks in my city without seeing someone wearing the iconic Old Navy. Hoodie with 8” letters across the front.  But in general I see the high-end luxury companies flouting their logos, advertising the crap out of their ‘brand experience’ and the most ‘in-your-face’.

Yep, a lot of lower or mid level brands don't have much labeling because their labels don't carry any social currency.

Club Monaco hasn't labeled anything since they got rid of their iconic 90s sweaters, Gap too, Guess also virtually eliminated branding a few years later as they moved more towards copying more expensive brands, Le Chateau and several other cheaper brands never put labels on anything, ever.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I definitely think LV has gone downmarket. I thought Gucci was always gauche to begin with. Haven't noticed super distasteful branding from Chanel and Chloe and Fendi and Hermes but maybe I need to look more closely. I'm sure this Christmas season will give me lots of opportunity for observation (not that I buy any of that stuff).

[nereo]

I definitely think LV has gone downmarket. I thought Gucci was always gauche to begin with. Haven't noticed super distasteful branding from Chanel and Chloe and Fendi and Hermes but maybe I need to look more closely. I'm sure this Christmas season will give me lots of opportunity for observation (not that I buy any of that stuff).

Whether you find a particular company's branding efforts "distasteful" seems besides the point.  All luxury brands want to make their products seem desirable and exclusive and immediately recognizable - they just go about it in different manners.  With rare exception, their logos are integrally incorporated into the design (often gold or chrome plated), which is what I was talking about upthread.  A big chunk of corporate law is defending one's brand, and it's typically only the luxury and upscale companies that spend time defending theirs.

[Metalcat]

I definitely think LV has gone downmarket. I thought Gucci was always gauche to begin with. Haven't noticed super distasteful branding from Chanel and Chloe and Fendi and Hermes but maybe I need to look more closely. I'm sure this Christmas season will give me lots of opportunity for observation (not that I buy any of that stuff).

Okay...*you* might not like LV or Gucci, but whether or not you like them or consider them gauche doesn't mean they aren't very expensive high-end brands.

Also, they are still very popular among the very wealthy. I socialize with a ton of very wealthy 8+ figure net worth folks and I see A LOT of LV, Gucci, and plenty of other logos.

Some very wealthy folks are into heavy branding and some aren't.

[YttriumNitrate]

But why not pay that $1000 on to the CC and then rack it back up if an 'emergency' occurs?

Dave Ramsey gives a lot of advice that isn't mathematically ideal, but is emotionally correct. While it costs a bit in extra interest, establishing a $1000 emergency fund early on gives much more of a sense of accomplishment than dropping a credit card debt down from $8603 to $7603. Paying off the credit cards from smallest to largest regardless of interest rate is another example.

[GuitarStv]

But why not pay that $1000 on to the CC and then rack it back up if an 'emergency' occurs?

Dave Ramsey gives a lot of advice that isn't mathematically ideal, but is emotionally correct. While it costs a bit in extra interest, establishing a $1000 emergency fund early on gives much more of a sense of accomplishment than dropping a credit card debt down from $8603 to $7603. Paying off the credit cards from smallest to largest regardless of interest rate is another example.

If you get emotional about money, you're probably using it incorrectly.

[frozen]

Emergency Funds - I don't know why this silly idea is so popular, it loses you money for no reason.

Please explain why you believe emergency funds to be a bad idea. Is it the idea of having cash in a chequing account earning no interest, or the broader idea of having easily accessible money to handle emergencies / unexpected expenses with?

There is a huge and predatory market for the issuance of high-interest loans to people who find themselves in a bind without an emergency fund. Are you suggesting that no one needs an EF, or just that some people don't?

If you have 5X, 10X or 20X annual expenses saved up that is your emergency fund.  An emergency happens you can put it on a credit card, sell some stocks/bonds, even take a margin loan against your securities.  An emergency fund sitting idle just looses you return.

I agree with you, but I don’t think you’d want to risk selling your investments in a down market like we had in April this year. Maybe consider putting some of the emergency fund into conservative investments or CDs. I needed to tap my emergency fund to pay a $10K condo board special assessment last year. It was nice to have the cash.

[nereo]

But why not pay that $1000 on to the CC and then rack it back up if an 'emergency' occurs?

Dave Ramsey gives a lot of advice that isn't mathematically ideal, but is emotionally correct. While it costs a bit in extra interest, establishing a $1000 emergency fund early on gives much more of a sense of accomplishment than dropping a credit card debt down from $8603 to $7603. Paying off the credit cards from smallest to largest regardless of interest rate is another example.

If you get emotional about money, you're probably using it incorrectly.

^^this.
Look, I get how some people are unable to take a rational approach to money, and I fully accept that DR's approach works for them and many people are better off for it.  So, credit where credit's due.  However, this emotional approach to money that DR advocates also gets to the heart of the problem - people let their emotions guide their financial decisions. As much as possible we ought to be teaching people to approach money for what it is - a bunch of relatively simple math problems. Constantly telling people to do the sub-optimal thing because it will "feel better" is reinforcing bad behaviors.

[DadJokes]

You can tell people that money is a series of relatively simple math problems all you want. People already know that and are still bad with money. Different people are motivated differently. They aren't computers that can just be programmed.

[GuitarStv]

You can tell people that money is a series of relatively simple math problems all you want. People already know that and are still bad with money. Different people are motivated differently. They aren't computers that can just be programmed.

Yet.

[nereo]

You can tell people that money is a series of relatively simple math problems all you want. People already know that and are still bad with money. Different people are motivated differently. They aren't computers that can just be programmed.

I'm not sure I agree.  We learn, especially while we are young.  There's a lot of evidence that shows children of fiscally-responsible parents do much better with money, and that discussing finances with our children early and often results in lifelong wealth-building.  Either that's nature or nurture, and I'm going with nurture here (i.e. we teach kids how to handle money, and they make rational rather htan emotional decisions.  Learned behavior).

Instead we've got a bunch of so-called financial gurus countering this with emotional approaches to money. 

Like I said, I get that it's effective for some, but I worry that by doing so it doesn't get at the root of the problem. Given how many people I hear about going through these 'financial makeovers' only to slip back into debt a few years later, I think his methods are far less effective than many acknowledge.

[DadJokes]

You can tell people that money is a series of relatively simple math problems all you want. People already know that and are still bad with money. Different people are motivated differently. They aren't computers that can just be programmed.

I'm not sure I agree.  We learn, especially while we are young.  There's a lot of evidence that shows children of fiscally-responsible parents do much better with money, and that discussing finances with our children early and often results in lifelong wealth-building.  Either that's nature or nurture, and I'm going with nurture here (i.e. we teach kids how to handle money, and they make rational rather htan emotional decisions.  Learned behavior).

Instead we've got a bunch of so-called financial gurus countering this with emotional approaches to money. 

Like I said, I get that it's effective for some, but I worry that by doing so it doesn't get at the root of the problem. Given how many people I hear about going through these 'financial makeovers' only to slip back into debt a few years later, I think his methods are far less effective than many acknowledge.

Is there some evidence that any significant portion of those who have gotten out of debt via DR's method have slipped back into debt?

[Metalcat]

You can tell people that money is a series of relatively simple math problems all you want. People already know that and are still bad with money. Different people are motivated differently. They aren't computers that can just be programmed.

I'm not sure I agree.  We learn, especially while we are young.  There's a lot of evidence that shows children of fiscally-responsible parents do much better with money, and that discussing finances with our children early and often results in lifelong wealth-building.  Either that's nature or nurture, and I'm going with nurture here (i.e. we teach kids how to handle money, and they make rational rather htan emotional decisions.  Learned behavior).

Instead we've got a bunch of so-called financial gurus countering this with emotional approaches to money. 

Like I said, I get that it's effective for some, but I worry that by doing so it doesn't get at the root of the problem. Given how many people I hear about going through these 'financial makeovers' only to slip back into debt a few years later, I think his methods are far less effective than many acknowledge.

Trying to get people to be financially responsible is similar to trying to get unhealthy people to live a healthier lifestyle.

Of course some people slip back into their old spending habits, the same way a lot of people who lose a large amount of weight gain it back.

Also, you can't take the emotions out of money. People who think they're "completely rational" about money are laughable. Nobody is completely rational about anything, it just means that the emotional relationship you have with money is relatively healthy.

Money decisions are deeply emotional. Whether or not to stay in a job, what kind of house to buy, whether or not to spend on international travel, etc, etc.

The spectrum of relationships with money can range from healthy to deeply unhealthy and self destructive, and those can manifest in myriad forms. The emotions *are* the root of the problem.

[dreadmoose]

I just learned this recently, and it blew my mind because I'd always thought they were exactly the same. Then my boyfriend tried switching to a store brand of allergy medication with exactly the same active ingredient and amount as the brand name he'd been taking, and it totally did not work for him at all. A doctor friend of mine explained the production process to me, and it was super interesting. Boyfriend went back to the normal brand and has been fine.

Definitely sounds like an exception, I had a line in there saying results may vary and everyone knows their situation much better but removed it as it was too wordy already. I hope you didn't think I was saying your boyfriend should keep taking the drugs that don't work for him and suffer the psychosomatic (not really) discomfort.

I wonder how nuanced it is or if that one generic version has some inactive ingredient that negates it for him. Unfortunate, but at least he tried the one that worked before defaulting to generic and getting no results.

[Dicey]

I also don't get why some people put ENORMOUS logos on their cars/trucks/t-shirts/whatever, and often spend a lot of money to do so.  The only way I'm serving as a walking billboard is if I get compensation to do so.

...or if I'm paying less for the product (which I guess is kinda the same thing?).

We just bought a couple of big good-quality umbrellas for five bucks each, less than we'd pay for crappy drugstore brollies. Ours are blue and yellow and have the name of a large Nordic wobbly-furniture store on them, but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

Saw the same at Home Depot last week. They looked to be black and white (or maybe light gray). Ther did not seem to be emblazoned with their name. Didn't buy one, because: do not need, but did note the relative value and large size.

[RetiredAt63]

That a family of 4 neeeeeeds individual bedrooms and bathrooms for everyone. 

That you must have a microwave, dishwashing machine, clothes dryer, coffee pot, toaster, electric can opener, blah blah blah.  I make toast in a skillet!  It works out just fine!

Electric can openers don't work when the power fails.  Use a manual can opener, it takes less space and your hands get a mini workout every time you use it.

[GuitarStv]

That a family of 4 neeeeeeds individual bedrooms and bathrooms for everyone. 

That you must have a microwave, dishwashing machine, clothes dryer, coffee pot, toaster, electric can opener, blah blah blah.  I make toast in a skillet!  It works out just fine!

Electric can openers don't work when the power fails.  Use a manual can opener, it takes less space and your hands get a mini workout every time you use it.

As my dad showed me while camping one time, if you have a hatchet . . . you have a can opener.

:P

[HenryDavid]

Ha! Thought of a good one if you live in an oil/gas area.

It MAY be a myth that fossil fuel industries provide any NET addition to prosperity.
Factor in cleanup costs, health issues, costs borne by taxpayers . . . is a province or state truly better off, over say 60 years, as opposed to leaving the stuff in the ground?
Where I live we have water quality issues, earthquakes (fracking?), flaring-induced air quality probs, toxic abandoned well sites. A generation's worth of work to fix. Worth it? I know thousands of people did enjoy well paid work for a time. I get that. Now renewables are cheaper the tide may have turned.

So is it a myth that’s costing me money? Worth doing the math.

[Travis]

That a family of 4 neeeeeeds individual bedrooms and bathrooms for everyone. 

That you must have a microwave, dishwashing machine, clothes dryer, coffee pot, toaster, electric can opener, blah blah blah.  I make toast in a skillet!  It works out just fine!

Electric can openers don't work when the power fails.  Use a manual can opener, it takes less space and your hands get a mini workout every time you use it.

As my dad showed me while camping one time, if you have a hatchet . . . you have a can opener.

:P

I was in Kuwait a few years ago and one of my soldiers showed me the P38 that he kept on his dog tag chain. It belonged to his father which he used in Vietnam. I thought it was a cute novelty until one day we get a random care package which include a big can of peaches.

[SwordGuy]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

[Metalcat]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

Ugh, I just read an account the other day of people insisting covid was fake...while they died of it.

Like, they insisted they must have cancer instead because they couldn't possibly be dying of covid, and viciously verbally abused the doctor for her "lies".

[nereo]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

Ugh, I just read an account the other day of people insisting covid was fake...while they died of it.

Like, they insisted they must have cancer instead because they couldn't possibly be dying of covid, and viciously verbally abused the doctor for her "lies".

FIL is a physician. On Monday they had a patient for a routine physical who lied about all the screening questions, kept taking off his mask to talk to the receptionist, nurse and doctors. Used the bathroom etc. Under acute questioning from the doctor he revealed that he had most of the Covid symptoms, including loss of taste. When asked why he answered “no” upon entry he said it was all an overblown hoax.
They had to close down the entire wing for the afternoon and now four medical professionals are under 14 day quarantine,including FIL. If there was any justice he’d be billed for half a days revenue but I guess legal says unless there is a death or permanent injury there’s little likely recourse.

Anyone want to guess the color hat he was wearing?

[dcheesi]

I definitely think LV has gone downmarket. I thought Gucci was always gauche to begin with. Haven't noticed super distasteful branding from Chanel and Chloe and Fendi and Hermes but maybe I need to look more closely. I'm sure this Christmas season will give me lots of opportunity for observation (not that I buy any of that stuff).

Whether you find a particular company's branding efforts "distasteful" seems besides the point.  All luxury brands want to make their products seem desirable and exclusive and immediately recognizable - they just go about it in different manners.  With rare exception, their logos are integrally incorporated into the design (often gold or chrome plated), which is what I was talking about upthread.  A big chunk of corporate law is defending one's brand, and it's typically only the luxury and upscale companies that spend time defending theirs.

From what I understand, there's another, entirely practical reason for this move. Legally, fashion designs can't be copyrighted; anyone can make and sell a knockoff handbag or whatever that's seemingly identical to the original luxury item in form and function. However, brand names and logos can be trademarked; any knockoff that incorporates those elements is breaking the law.

By plastering their trademarks all over their goods, they give themselves legal standing in going after at least the most brazen counterfeiters. By incorporating them into the very fabric (or leather etc.) of their bags, they make it harder of the counterfeiters to make and ship unbranded knockoffs and then slap a fake logo on at the point of sale.

[nereo]

I definitely think LV has gone downmarket. I thought Gucci was always gauche to begin with. Haven't noticed super distasteful branding from Chanel and Chloe and Fendi and Hermes but maybe I need to look more closely. I'm sure this Christmas season will give me lots of opportunity for observation (not that I buy any of that stuff).

Whether you find a particular company's branding efforts "distasteful" seems besides the point.  All luxury brands want to make their products seem desirable and exclusive and immediately recognizable - they just go about it in different manners.  With rare exception, their logos are integrally incorporated into the design (often gold or chrome plated), which is what I was talking about upthread.  A big chunk of corporate law is defending one's brand, and it's typically only the luxury and upscale companies that spend time defending theirs.

From what I understand, there's another, entirely practical reason for this move. Legally, fashion designs can't be copyrighted; anyone can make and sell a knockoff handbag or whatever that's seemingly identical to the original luxury item in form and function. However, brand names and logos can be trademarked; any knockoff that incorporates those elements is breaking the law.

By plastering their trademarks all over their goods, they give themselves legal standing in going after at least the most brazen counterfeiters. By incorporating them into the very fabric (or leather etc.) of their bags, they make it harder of the counterfeiters to make and ship unbranded knockoffs and then slap a fake logo on at the point of sale.

True, but protecting one's brand is not limited to corporate logos and insignia.  Burberry's check pattern is one thoroughly litigated example.  Harley Davidson went to SCOTUS to prevent other companies from emulating the distinct sound of their V-Twin motorcycles.  Apple attempted to claim rights to 'swiping' on digital devices, but were thwarted by episodes of Star Trek TNG showing tablet-like devices that officers clearly used the now common swipe gestures.

Almost anything can be protected under corporate law, so long as it's distinct, isn't in widespread use by other companies or products and that the public identifies it with a specific company, product or service.  Logos and insignias, yes, but also shapes, specific color schemes, smells (e.g. perfume), sounds (e.g. the start-up chime on a brand of computer), etc.

[bigblock440]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

[nereo]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

[bigblock440]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

How much money has it cost you?  How much would it have cost you had your governor shut your workplace down?

[Dicey]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

How much money has it cost you?  How much would it have cost you had your governor shut your workplace down?

Oh, shit. I think I'll go make some popcorn...

[index]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

How much money has it cost you?  How much would it have cost you had your governor shut your workplace down?

Oh, shit. I think I'll go make some popcorn...

Right now its costing me quite a bit. I have both my MITL and FITL in the hospital right now with covid. This is due to a trip out of town to attend a funeral. We heard "it's no big deal, we will be safe, you can't tell us what to do". Now 5 of the 11 people we personally know  from the event are in the hospital. "Its a hoax, plandemic, just the flu etc." are getting people sick. Lockdowns and restrictions are necessary because a large portion of the population act like children and get the whole class thrown in time out. Are the 40ish % of people who will not wear a mask regularly taking any other precautions? Would someone many of these people look up to telling them this is serious and modeling good behavior possibly help?   

[nereo]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

How much money has it cost you?  How much would it have cost you had your governor shut your workplace down?

So far, it has directly cost me my job as well as my daycare.  There are lots of other aspects that are costing us money but are harder to carefully quantify, like being unable to have the assistance of our parents. There’s been a hiring and pay freeze at my spouse’s work, so the expected reclassification of her job won’t happen for at least six months. 

[bigblock440]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

How much money has it cost you?  How much would it have cost you had your governor shut your workplace down?

So far, it has directly cost me my job as well as my daycare.  There are lots of other aspects that are costing us money but are harder to carefully quantify, like being unable to have the assistance of our parents. There’s been a hiring and pay freeze at my spouse’s work, so the expected reclassification of her job won’t happen for at least six months.

How is the myth causing that?

[nereo]

Covid is a hoax, it's not serious, it's just like the flu, it will be gone by Easter, it will be gone after the Election.

How is that costing us all money?

Are you joking??l 
People are dying, the US labor-force has lost over 10MM jobs since Feb, global GDP is in the toilet for 2020, and we will have the largest state and federal budget deficits ever.

How much money has it cost you?  How much would it have cost you had your governor shut your workplace down?

So far, it has directly cost me my job as well as my daycare.  There are lots of other aspects that are costing us money but are harder to carefully quantify, like being unable to have the assistance of our parents. There’s been a hiring and pay freeze at my spouse’s work, so the expected reclassification of her job won’t happen for at least six months.

How is the myth causing that?

Feel free to correct me if I am interpreting this differently than you intended @SwordGuy - but there is a large swath of people who think Covid is a myth, or something not to be taken seriously.  This has led to the virus spreading more rapidly in this country than it otherwise would, and relative to most other countries.  Ergo, people who think Covid is a myth and/or need not be taken seriously are ccosting us all a lot of money (the subject of this thread).