Frugalwoods - Guilty or Not?

[pantherchams]

I have a huge problem withe these "not for profit" organisations. Fuck them.

If you had any conscience, people should be working here for little or nothing.
Theres plenty of skilled people, early retirees included, who would gladly do these sort of jobs.
That way, most of the funds would go to the real deserving cases.

Doesn't it seem like they would hire quality candidates who would work for "little or nothing" if they could? 

[SwitchActiveDWG]

After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.

I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.

How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:

My husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.

Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?

The quote refers to their parents income, not their own.

Rich is a relative term, they regularly admit to being very comfortable financially. Would I say they are rich? Probably. The fact that she doesn't think so? Not really important as long as she acknowledges that their income played a part in getting them where they are (which she does).

[reader321]

Bullshit. 

First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames.  How did you even determine that is Nate?  Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country?  So that's dubious to begin with.

Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k.  That's $18k/mo gross.  As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year.  So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.

Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.

So yeah, it's up for dispute.  But I applaud your imagination.


------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference.  Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362

/edit

It's incredible to find someone this obtuse in real life.

Actblue's 2016 990 filing shows total compensation of $271k: https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I

As executive director, Nate's income has increased on average 10.2% from 2014 to 2016. Given this trend, he more likely than not makes around $329,103 or $27,425 per month as of 2018. Do you really think that a political donation platform, in a year of midterm elections and unprecedented political donations, is going to start compensation their executive director less??

The link above from the other thread disputes this claim.  So your statement of income is, again, wildly speculative.

However, I agree that he earns a lot of money.  But I still don't see how this is at odds with the fact that they grew up middle class.  I don't see how it's at odds with the claim that they are frugal.  And I don't see how you think that I'm obtuse because I believe that speculative guesses need to be supported with evidence.

It may be at odds with whether they are rich or not, but that's generally based on assets and not income.  Would you like to put your wild speculation skills to work and pull an asset number out of your ass for them?

The link above actually supports my claim. I don't know why you would want to ignore other components of executive pay but even if you did, you would see a 23% increase in base salary from 2014 ($200k) to 2016 ($246k) versus the mere 20.4% increase in total compensation from 2014 ($225) to 2016 ($271k) that I quoted. So again, thank you for correcting my estimate upwards. I should have pulled it out of your ass instead of mine.

Now that you've conceded they are rich, you seem to be moving the goalposts. The conversation is about misleading statements about their income, especially in the run-up to the book release. This conversation isn't about how they grew up or how frugal they are-- I've never questioned that.

[tooqk4u22]

I'm curious, how many people who see the Frugalwoods as willfully misrepresenting their income, also see MMM as willfully misrepresenting his spending.

For me, the latter aggravates me, but the former I just shrug off. Brains are weird.

Those that have quibbles about MMM it is usually about his expenses and loose accounting on the whole lifestyle between home and business and/or the IRP.  I don't think there are issues with his income. 

[Eric]

Bullshit. 

First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames.  How did you even determine that is Nate?  Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country?  So that's dubious to begin with.

Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k.  That's $18k/mo gross.  As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year.  So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.

Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.

So yeah, it's up for dispute.  But I applaud your imagination.


------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference.  Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362

/edit

It's incredible to find someone this obtuse in real life.

Actblue's 2016 990 filing shows total compensation of $271k: https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I

As executive director, Nate's income has increased on average 10.2% from 2014 to 2016. Given this trend, he more likely than not makes around $329,103 or $27,425 per month as of 2018. Do you really think that a political donation platform, in a year of midterm elections and unprecedented political donations, is going to start compensation their executive director less??

The link above from the other thread disputes this claim.  So your statement of income is, again, wildly speculative.

However, I agree that he earns a lot of money.  But I still don't see how this is at odds with the fact that they grew up middle class.  I don't see how it's at odds with the claim that they are frugal.  And I don't see how you think that I'm obtuse because I believe that speculative guesses need to be supported with evidence.

It may be at odds with whether they are rich or not, but that's generally based on assets and not income.  Would you like to put your wild speculation skills to work and pull an asset number out of your ass for them?

The link above actually supports my claim. I don't know why you would want to ignore other components of executive pay but even if you did, you would see a 23% increase in base salary from 2014 ($200k) to 2016 ($246k) versus the mere 20.4% increase in total compensation from 2014 ($225) to 2016 ($271k) that I quoted. So again, thank you for correcting my estimate upwards. I should have pulled it out of your ass instead of mine.

Now that you've conceded they are rich, you seem to be moving the goalposts. The conversation is about misleading statements about their income, especially in the run-up to the book release. This conversation isn't about how they grew up or how frugal they are-- I've never questioned that.

I asked for proof of their income that you seemed so sure of that it was "not up for dispute", as if you're their fucking accountant or something.  You have provided some, but of course that doesn't match to your original claim.  That I refuse to accept your made up numbers as facts is not moving the goal posts.  You claimed $40k/mo in income.  I asked for proof.  You have yet to substantiate the claim.  Same posts, same place, bud.

I of course did not concede that they are rich, since again, I don't have enough information to know one way or another.  This is how rational people operate.  They don't jump to conclusions based on partial information, and then get so cocksure about their "facts" that they think they are indisputable.  I do know that you seem to be making way more misleading statements than the Frugalwoods ever have.

And yes, you absolutely questioned how they grew up.  Here's what you wrote:

After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.

I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.

How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:

My husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.

Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?

Notice how the statement, which was bolded by you is taking exception to them being middle-class kids.  It's right here in black and white.  But I'm not surprised that you would deny your own statements, since the your line between fact and fiction is pretty darn blurry. 

[westtoeast]

I do wonder what the typical household income for FW readers is.  Given that the whole concept of FI seems to attract above average earners (see: this forum), I'm guessing the median FW reader has a household income that is well above median.  They're probably bringing in more $$$ than most of their readers, but I somehow doubt this is a case of a family that makes $400k/year doling out advice largely to families that make <$50k/yr.  I would guess more a case of family making $400k advising other families who are also in the 6-figure bracket (how many of the people here posting that FW are misleading also make a median or less household income?).

I think you’d be surprised. Based on those who send in case studies, the readers seem very middle class. (BTW I love the case studies). 

I also think the Uber Frugal Month Challenge is the type of thing that will bring in a lower or middle income group who needs to optimize in order to save at all! But I could be totally wrong!

I’m one of the folks that felt a tad misled, and I do not make a 6 figure salary. I’m a teacher. I’m below average for my education/location but definitely above the average single income of 31,000 as estimated by the Census Bureau.

As I’ve said on the other thread, I simply want Liz to use consistent honest language. Yes, she says “high income” in one (excellent) post. But she says “typical” and “normal” and “not rich” in other places. She can easily remedy this problem, and hopefully will (I’m going to assume she is reading this). Then she can get back to providing great content, and we can stop adding to this thread— ha!

Ok, I’m now done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooqk4u22]

Let's everybody turn the anger down just a notch, talk about what we know for sure.

We should also realize that their *current* income isn't all that relevant to the way they got to where they are, and what their current *spending* is.

Toque.

+1 and I started this thread.   I have no issue with the fact that they made a lot of money or continue to make a lot of money.  They are probably nice people and are certainly living in an intentional way that is good for them.  She/he puts out a lot of blog posts and wrote a book and they managing through his job and the homestead - she may even still be working part time from what was eluded to in one of their posts - so they are clearly hard workers.  They may even be working harder now than they did in Boston.  I respect all of that. 

The issue is for me (and others apparently) is their misleading presentation (maybe intentionally misrepresenting or hiding) of the themselves - come from nothing, generally average, not rich, non-profit do gooders.  The emphasis on the non-profit thing is IMO is scripted intentionally to emphasize their averageness (or more likely to convey a below averageness) and become more endearing to the people.  Then they try to cover off on all of this by restating we acknowledge privilege.

Off topic of the OP, but I also don't believe they are truly FI and this whole life was based on a year or two of extreme frugalness and a need for his income and ability to work remotely (with blog income that may not be the case anymore though). 

[SwitchActiveDWG]

https://www.physicianonfire.com/coming-clean/

It’s as if he were reading this thread

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: Getting angry at internet strangers about other internet strangers is, well, strange.

Chill out, or bans will be coming.

Calmly present what you think, or don't post. Don't attack other posters.

Cheers!

[wageslave23]

MOD NOTE: Getting angry at internet strangers about other internet strangers is, well, strange.

Chill out, or bans will be coming.

Calmly present what you think, or don't post. Don't attack other posters.

Cheers!

I think this thread is evidence that we all need more engaging jobs (myself included).  LOL!

[afox]

Around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals $277,000 in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income. 

Just sayin...

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

MMM never misrepresented himself as an "average" income earner. He not only showed us what he earned and what he saved, but has fully acknowledged that he had a high income and that's what allowed him to FIRE in his thirties. Even said it in the last paragraph of the link you posted: 

"Other people will scoff at the high salaries involved, compared to the US median level. I won’t deny that – we had it easy, which is why we retired in our early thirties."

Again, this thread isn't about their income numbers past or present, or even them not disclosing those numbers. Its about misreprenting themselves as "average income earners". Does it matter. Meh...maybe not. But it's the same to me as it would be if a very low income person who claims to be FIRE and self supporting on that income fails to disclose support, opportunities or freebies they have gotten or may still get that allowed them to FIRE on that low income.

I DO NOT think MMM has misrepresented himself as an average income earner either.  I never wrote that, you did.

I DO think that many people have an erroneous notion that MMM and family were average income earners during their working years.  Im not sure where this notion originated from since the numbers are right there in the post and as you point out he even said says he had it easy.  In general I think that "hope" sells eyeballs.  Eyeballs are what this is all about.  The idea that anyone can retire in their early thirties is very powerful and contributes to the popularity of this website and the frugalwoods website and others.  And the idea is true, but MMM and the frugalwoods aren
't rags to riches (in time or money) stories.  These are two examples of exceptionally successful families who gave up their lucrative day jobs to start even more lucrative websites.

[afox]

my only point was that the fact that MMM & family were exceptionally high income earners during their working years is often overlooked.

[Gone Fishing]

Not here to pass judgement on FW as I do not follow them, but I have noticed that the truth tends to get skewed (more than usual) whenever profit is involved, blog, book, or otherwise. 

Reminds me of a once presidential candidate who loved to remind everyone that he was the son of a mill worker, and as such, understood the plight of the common man, despite being worth millions.

It's fairly routine to hear about some high ranking individual fired for "fluffing" their resume a bit too much. 

I think people creative enough to tell entertaining stories about themselves, by their nature, are "prone to hyperbole".  A publisher, who also stands to profit, has little incentive to tone down a good story.  A blog's best critical review is the readership.  Any decent financial blogger should be well aware that their readership probably has a large percentage very detail oriented readers that appreciate accuracy.  No one wants to be sold a story, represented as the truth, only to later find out that it was "over fluffed". It's disappointing.  Intentional or not, material or not, I do hope the Frugalwoods read this thread and understand what accuracy, even in a seemingly benign statement, means to their reading community.

That said, whatever the story, the FI formula does work exceptionally well.  If you live off of 1/2 your income and invest the rest wisely, within a couple of decades, you'll be ready to either retire and pursue your dreams or leverage your net worth to go on to make millions more (perhaps that is your dream?).  Investing in yourself to raise your earnings will only get you there quicker.

Profit incentive aside, I am thankful to the financial writers who take the time and energy to do the research, publish their findings, and hang themselves out for the world to scrutinize.  Without them, my FI journey would have been much longer!

[MrThatsDifferent]

This all seems remarkably tacky to me. These people, like MMM, make the case for living frugally, despite what they make. Yes, the fact that they make more helps them achieve FI faster, but that is in relation to them saving more and making smarter decisions about their spending. Sheesh, if anything they should be applauded for not ramping up the spending just because they can. Calling them frauds is so cruel. I just read a case study on FW where they gave incredible advice and hope to a couple that was living paycheck to paycheck on a $100k salary. If they didn’t walk the walk they wouldn’t know how to advise anyone. Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish. To me, anyone chipping away at these people, instead of applauding them are just working off of jealously and insecurity and I recommend focusing on getting your own act together instead of attacking people who ate making positive contributions in this world. Tacky!

[sui generis]

Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish.

Of course it wasn't!  If they had said that, the image they fostered of having "standard" "typical" salaries and of not being rich would be blown away!  As has been said many times on this and the other thread, many people like their blog, appreciate their humility with respect to certain privileges they have and fully admit they actually are quite frugal and have some good tips and motivating advice.  But to falsely present that salary (or even salaries half that) as typical and standard, no matter how much you like everything else about them, well...it's a fair complaint!

[MrThatsDifferent]

Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish.

Of course it wasn't!  If they had said that, the image they fostered of having "standard" "typical" salaries and of not being rich would be blown away!  As has been said many times on this and the other thread, many people like their blog, appreciate their humility with respect to certain privileges they have and fully admit they actually are quite frugal and have some good tips and motivating advice.  But to falsely present that salary (or even salaries half that) as typical and standard, no matter how much you like everything else about them, well...it's a fair complaint!

Present evidence or a quote that they represented that their salaries were typical and standard. These people aren’t delusional, they know that their salaries are exceptional. They can’t change that. However, their success is based on their frugality and savings, far more than their earning. They choose to not emphasize their earnings because then people focus on that instead of the savings/frugality and dismiss their advice. I don’t blame them. You people have 2 posts going solely because some of you are incredibly jealous because of how much they make and how it helped them attain FI earlier, when combined with the savings/frugality. Again, tacky.

[sui generis]

Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish.

Of course it wasn't!  If they had said that, the image they fostered of having "standard" "typical" salaries and of not being rich would be blown away!  As has been said many times on this and the other thread, many people like their blog, appreciate their humility with respect to certain privileges they have and fully admit they actually are quite frugal and have some good tips and motivating advice.  But to falsely present that salary (or even salaries half that) as typical and standard, no matter how much you like everything else about them, well...it's a fair complaint!

Present evidence or a quote that they represented that their salaries were typical and standard. These people aren’t delusional, they know that their salaries are exceptional. They can’t change that. However, their success is based on their frugality and savings, far more than their earning. They choose to not emphasize their earnings because then people focus on that instead of the savings/frugality and dismiss their advice. I don’t blame them. You people have 2 posts going solely because some of you are incredibly jealous because of how much they make and how it helped them attain FI earlier, when combined with the savings/frugality. Again, tacky.

I'm certainly not going to dig that up for you.  People have quoted it a dozen times on this and/or the other thread.  Specifically the words "typical" and "standard".  Read the threads.

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

I've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama.  Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV.  I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.

Haha, I agree.  I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of.  I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract.  I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal.  Better lock me up too!

  I''ll get a gang of $40,000 a year families together and ask them if they think 
a family making $200,000 is average, like them.
 Do you have a preferred sight for your lockup?
                            :-)

Incomes are highly relative based upon region. Cost of living is highly relative thus the conversations about geographic arbitrage.  40k household income in New York City is broke.  I suspect Boston, where they were, is a similarly expensive area.  A low six figure household income could likely be middle class in their area and thus arguably what many Americans consider average-ish.

  They’re not that high income that it justifies the critical response I’ve seen from folks.

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

MOD NOTE: Getting angry at internet strangers about other internet strangers is, well, strange.

Cheers!

This exactly... it’s just not that crazy one way or the other.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances.  I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential).  Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc.  I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile. 

Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal.  I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent.  But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.

[Eric]

It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances.  I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential).  Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc.  I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile. 

Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal.  I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.

Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world.  Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances.  I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential).  Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc.  I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile. 

Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal.  I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.

Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world.  Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.

Meh.  When you only share one side of the story (spending) you get to write the narrative.  When you share the whole story, the reader gets to write the narrative.

[Eric]

It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances.  I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential).  Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc.  I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile. 

Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal.  I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.

Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world.  Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.

Meh.  When you only share one side of the story (spending) you get to write the narrative.  When you share the whole story, the reader gets to write the narrative.

Which has nothing to do with your criticism of their frugality because of their income.  They did a remarkable job spending very little in an expensive city.  If there's one thing that posters on this forum should know, it's that income does not drive spending.   This is the central tenet of FIRE.  Frankly, you should know better.

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances.  I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential).  Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc.  I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile. 

Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal.  I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.

Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world.  Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.

Meh.  When you only share one side of the story (spending) you get to write the narrative.  When you share the whole story, the reader gets to write the narrative.

They have written a  very detailed aaccount of their spending. I tabulated each month and they spent a bit over $54k a year ($4500/month). That includes a mortgage and high property taxes.

Relatively frugal for the area and the property investment.

[I'm a red panda]

Incomes are highly relative based upon region. Cost of living is highly relative thus the conversations about geographic arbitrage.  40k household income in New York City is broke.  I suspect Boston, where they were, is a similarly expensive area.  A low six figure household income could likely be middle class in their area and thus arguably what many Americans consider average-ish.

  They’re not that high income that it justifies the critical response I’ve seen from folks.

The median income of San Francisco- the highest cost of living area in the US is $78,378. Cambridge is similar. 
So a 6-figure income for a household is probably middle class still.  But they were not just barely clearing 6 figures.   If their household income was $150k, I could see them saying it was average for the area.  But it was probably twice that.


Eh, I don't care really; mostly this thread is entertaining me why I wait on various computer functions to load.  Their blog is still just as good as it was before. 

[plantingourpennies]

Ugly thread here-getting pretty close to personal attacks.

Almost nobody actually wants FIRE bloggers to have transparent finances.

Readers want attitude, conviction, slick pictures, guys with beards and girls in flannels. Essentially, they want to be marketed to.

Don't hate on the FW for being popular and perhaps not 100% transparent. Hate on the community for wanting to be lied to about FIRE.

[reader321]

Ugly thread here-getting pretty close to personal attacks.

Almost nobody actually wants FIRE bloggers to have transparent finances.

Readers want attitude, conviction, slick pictures, guys with beards and girls in flannels. Essentially, they want to be marketed to.

Don't hate on the FW for being popular and perhaps not 100% transparent. Hate on the community for wanting to be lied to about FIRE.

I think if we can agree on anything, it's that the community is not a monolith. Some want transparency, some don't. Everyone should want a *consistent* story though.

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

Hate on the community for wanting to be lied to about FIRE.

"Boost your income, reduce your expenses to a reasonable level, invest the difference wisely" is a boring, yet effective and proven route to FI. The most interesting FI blogs, in my opinion, highlight the tangential benefits of FI (lifelong learning, freedom, lifestyle design, etc), but the actual mechanics of FI are not very sexy.

Savings rate is the single factor that matters most in how quickly you reach FI. There's a lower bound on how much you can reduce living expenses (the $0/yr freegan that lives in a tent in the woods) and no theoretical upper limit on how much income you can earn. After a certain point of reducing spending, the ability to increase savings rate is largely determined by ability to increase income.

So I don't really understand the outrage - is it the realization that frugal living alone is not the key to financial independence?

[plantingourpennies]

So I don't really understand the outrage - is it the realization that frugal living alone is not the key to financial independence?

No outrage from me.

I think you've hit on it-people are upset b/c they thought the FW were able to accomplish all of that on frugality alone, and had an income more in line with the US median. If you read carefully you could have figured out they have a pretty good income, but people don't want to think critically, engage in math, etc.

They just want to buy into a story that says they can escape the rat race, even on a school teacher's salary.

I think if we can agree on anything, it's that the community is not a monolith. Some want transparency, some don't. Everyone should want a *consistent* story though.

Agree, but nobody was reading the FW for the transparency. From a quick look it's pretty obvious that they don't discuss income or networth, only expenses. I've never read their blog, but it just looks like mostly lifestyle stuff.

Caveat Emptor should apply to readers as well.

[afox]

Maybe the problem is that some of you take these blogs too seriously/literally.  These blogs are ENTERTAINMENT.  They exist to sell eyeballs.  They are not offering financial advice and it would be illegal for them to do so.  Frugalwoods or MMM are not required to divulge their actual income or expenses.  For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.   

I think of these blogs as teasers that are written to attract the masses and hopefully snowball and attract the attention of the media.  The few people that want to take this FIRE stuff more seriously read the forum and do their own analysis and research and develop their own plan to reach their goals given their situtation.

That said, if frugalwoods really did say they are average income/regular folk that is a deceiving way to attract eyeballs.  Its either a premeditated stretching of the truth or a sign of ignorance/cluelessness.  There are worse crimes.  Just for comparison, MMM was in similar financial boat and never said he was average income. 

[I'm a red panda]

For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.   

I'm super impressed this guy hired actors to appear in years worth of stock photos and to do television interviews. These blogs must rake in even MORE than I thought.

[afox]

For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.   

I'm super impressed this guy hired actors to appear in years worth of stock photos and to do television interviews. These blogs must rake in even MORE than I thought.

Dont be a wiseass, you get the point.  And yeah, once you get as many eyeballs as MMM has this shit is lucrative!   

[I'm a red panda]

For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.   

I'm super impressed this guy hired actors to appear in years worth of stock photos and to do television interviews. These blogs must rake in even MORE than I thought.

Dont be a wiseass, you get the point.  And yeah, once you get as many eyeballs as MMM has this shit is lucrative!   

yeah, I have a friend who is a professional blogger/runs a facebook community. She pulls in over a million a year. A single post can net her five figures from a sponsor.  Plus the trip to Hawaii or whatever she is plugging (sometimes as boring as ranch dressing...)  I haven't figured out what a single instagram post makes her yet.  She accidentally posted an email she meant to send her husband and it included her monthly earnings sheet. Very interesting to see.

Her blog was way more interesting before she monetized, but it's a job now. I don't read it anymore.

[nick663]

Maybe the problem is that some of you take these blogs too seriously/literally.  These blogs are ENTERTAINMENT.  They exist to sell eyeballs.  They are not offering financial advice and it would be illegal for them to do so.  Frugalwoods or MMM are not required to divulge their actual income or expenses.  For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.

Credibility is pretty important when giving advice to others on how to live their life.  You're right that some of these blogs only exist to convert traffic into revenue but those types generally don't last long in circles like this.

[afox]

Credibility is pretty important when giving advice to others on how to live their life.  You're right that some of these blogs only exist to convert traffic into revenue but those types generally don't last long in circles like this.

actually, you have it backwards.  the blogs that dont convert traffic into the revenue are the ones that dont last long.

you really think people spend alll of their free time on this shit and pay for servers and stuff just so they can give you free advice?

[brooklynmoney]

I know I'm late to the party but I just read the book (i'm not a reader of the blog and didn't have any real ideas about her/them going into it). As an urban high-earning professional who also got lucky with a real estate windfall (on paper anyway), I vote guilty. Downplaying of massive income, but even more so I found the book really glossed over the real estate windfall that they are monetizing to subsidize their homestead. Again, nothing wrong with ANY of those things. But not clearly explaining how your very high incomes and real estate windfall were the primary drivers of your ability to be FI is disingenuous. I do appreciate her attempt to acknowledge her privilege, but someone else said in the other thread on this is there is "getting it" and then there's really getting in. They clearly have no idea of how much of a bubble they live in. I live in the same high income urban bubble (the one that got them to their homestead), so I'm not judging them for that, but for the way they downplay the factors that led to their success.

[mathlete]

My ears are burning :)

[Bracken_Joy]

"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.

[mathlete]

"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.

Read the thread. It's actually pretty good.

[remizidae]

So I don't really understand the outrage - is it the realization that frugal living alone is not the key to financial independence?

No outrage from me.

I think you've hit on it-people are upset b/c they thought the FW were able to accomplish all of that on frugality alone, and had an income more in line with the US median. If you read carefully you could have figured out they have a pretty good income, but people don't want to think critically, engage in math, etc.

They just want to buy into a story that says they can escape the rat race, even on a school teacher's salary.

You're right. There are two sides to the coin of financial success:spend wisely but also make a lot of money. But financial bloggers are disincentivized from talking about the "make money" part because most of their audience is poor-to-middle-income people who aren't able or willing to make the big life changes they would need to to dramatically increase their incomes. So the bloggers emphasize the uncontroverisal and easily actionable "eat rice and beans" stuff, because telling someone making $40k they need to double or triple their income, and by the way, your wife needs to work too, would not make for popularity.

[Eric]

You're right. There are two sides to the coin of financial success:spend wisely but also make a lot of money. But financial bloggers are disincentivized from talking about the "make money" part because most of their audience is poor-to-middle-income people who aren't able or willing to make the big life changes they would need to to dramatically increase their incomes. So the bloggers emphasize the uncontroverisal and easily actionable "eat rice and beans" stuff, because telling someone making $40k they need to double or triple their income, and by the way, your wife needs to work too, would not make for popularity.

There's no incentive to write about making more money because it's the most obvious thing in the world.  It has nothing to do with "popularity", except for the fact that no one is going to read a blog from an author who starts from a position that all of his/her readers are absolute morons.  You might as well be complaining that there are no posts about remembering to breathe.  After all, you can't be FIRE if you're dead.

[Cassie]

I find this thread funny.

[Another Reader]

This is the first time I heard this revelation.

When they first showed up in the FIRE world, I thought they were kind of interesting because of their extreme frugality.  After a while, I stopped reading her because I felt that I was being talked down to by a kindergarten teacher.  Her frugal challenges and case studies reminded me of elementary school in the worst way.  The Soda Stream hack she described is probably dangerous, because the CO2 they use is likely contaminated with who knows what industrial chemicals.  Credibility issue there...

Once they moved to the "farm," they started reminding me of the trust fund kids I knew in the late 60's and early 70's that bought similar rural properties to live a "simpler life."  I lost all interest at that point. 

I don't think she misrepresented herself, but there's a lot of relevant information she forgot to include.  If someone changed their spending and consumption habits for the better because of reading her work, great.  Except for that Soda Stream thing... pay the extra few bucks for that.

[scissorbill]

I've received free advice and motivation from the Frugalwoods.  The Uber Frugal challenge kicks me in the pants every six months and I enjoyed the book after I waited for my turn at the library.  I don't have any criticism for the free content.  Just like MMM the Frugalwoods have managed to attract a large audience and reap the benefits for writing great content and as long as people are willing to click they will benefit.  I just don't see anything to complain about when I don't pay a nickel for their service.

[mm1970]

It's a tough balance between privacy and motivation and such.  Probably less motivating to the people making less money.  I mean, even in my own life I have family members who immediately discount anyone's ideas if they make more money.

Like, my brother will complain about how hard he's had it.  And doesn't want to hear what *I* say because we make more money (though for a long time, we didn't).  Maybe it's not your income bud, maybe it's the constant rotation of new cars, all the shopping, the eating out, etc.

There's nothing the frugalwoods can really tell people about how to "earn more money".  I mean, they CAN but there's no guarantee of success on an individual basis.  But how to look at what you are spending and spend less?  Yes.

There's another blogger I like to read who is very frugal.  Mostly a food blog and keeps her bills low.  But even she's not 100% transparent because she likes her privacy.  She gets a fair bit of free meat because of referrals.  So that doesn't show up in her budget (because she doesn't pay for it) but it shows up in her meals.  I have no idea how much her blog makes.  She seems pretty down to earth BUT a couple of searches on town records will show you the last two homes the family bought were for over $600k.  If that info is easily available to all of the readers...then she'd probably lose some followers and some $ from the blog.

Which - that's fine.  She does have good advice and decent recipes.  She reads good books.  She knows how to garden.  Take the parts that you want and ignore the rest.

[mathlete]

Boy am I eating well tonight. Feasting on this revisionist history that only "morons" or "people don't want to think critically, engage in math," bought the narrative that such a life is achieved on frugality and "normal/average/not investment banker/non-profit" salaries.

If that's the case, we had an awful lot of non-critical thinkers around these parts earlier this year... wonder where they all went?

[tralfamadorian]

The Soda Stream hack she described is probably dangerous, because the CO2 they use is likely contaminated with who knows what industrial chemicals. 

Source?

I've worked in an industry that uses pressurized tanks in the production of consumed goods. All the gases come from one or two national suppliers and according to those suppliers, there is no difference in the "food grade" vs "commercial grade". It's all the same gas. This is for larger tanks; the little things for paintball have some lubricants added in. If the suppliers are lying/misleading, I would like to know.

[Bracken_Joy]

"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.

Read the thread. It's actually pretty good.

Definitely did. I stand by my point.

[brooklynmoney]

In defense of this thread, I bought their book. I think I have a right as a reader to have an opinion on what I read. It’s a memoir which by its nature invites discussion of their lives.

[Bracken_Joy]

In defense of this thread, I bought their book. I think I have a right as a reader to have an opinion on what I read. It’s a memoir which by its nature invites discussion of their lives.

Absolutely. And if this thread was couched in earnest discussion instead of a kangaroo court of ethical pontificating, I'd be far less prone to be disappointed in it.

But hey. If you checked it out from the library, instead of buying it, like the frugalwoods would advise, you'd be way less invested in the whole thing ;)