Frugalwoods - Guilty or Not?

[Mrs. S]

Really, are we judging people for earning more? For talking about their take on what frugality looks like? For earning money from their blog through affiliate and other options?
As someone who strongly believes that people are free to call themselves whatever they want to unless it is a legal/official term or requires a certification/education ( like doctor, lawyer) this just sounds wrong on so many levels.
We earn well above the average especially for the country we live in (India) and we are very much aware of it. However our income is not even a drop compared to many of the colleagues we work with. For our profession we are average if not below average earners. People who look at our travels alone might think we earn a lot but we travel on a budget which for a really shoestring budget traveler is huge.
Stuff is relative, don't like a blog don't read it.

[channtheman]

I often find it amusing how the posters on this forum making 6 figures like to think they are the normal, average American.  I could believe a household income of 100k is normal (2 full time workers each making 50k) but even that is stretching it a bit.  My wife and I earn about 120k combined and we realize how fortunate we are and well off we are above the actual average American/household.  When she stops working to stay home with the children, we'll be at 70k on my income alone and I guess we'd be considered normal at that point. 

We'll never feel normal though because we manage our finances well and are frugal. 

[Cranky]

Next up - is Pioneer Woman *really* a Pioneer??

[Vegasgirl]

Tough crowd.

[SwitchActiveDWG]

Really, are we judging people for earning more? For talking about their take on what frugality looks like? For earning money from their blog through affiliate and other options?
As someone who strongly believes that people are free to call themselves whatever they want to unless it is a legal/official term or requires a certification/education ( like doctor, lawyer) this just sounds wrong on so many levels.
We earn well above the average especially for the country we live in (India) and we are very much aware of it. However our income is not even a drop compared to many of the colleagues we work with. For our profession we are average if not below average earners. People who look at our travels alone might think we earn a lot but we travel on a budget which for a really shoestring budget traveler is huge.
Stuff is relative, don't like a blog don't read it.

I don’t think the issue is earning more. The issue is misrepresenting how your income compares to the average household while saying ‘You can do it too!’ Of course others can do it too but it’s analogous to an individual with a fitness career saying ‘You can be as fit as me! I have the same amount of time to work out as the average person’ Certainly most people can be very fit, but someone with a fitness career has put themselves in a position to be more successful than most. Equivalently someone with a high income has put themselves in a position to be more successful than most. ’

Personally I don’t have a huge issue with it because I don’t care. I also understand that they are bloggers, which almost demands some misrepresentation to be entertaining in most cases.

[use2betrix]

Between this thread and the other frugalwoods thread I’m amazed at all the hostility among higher income earners. It clearly comes off as people who don’t take accountability for themselves and assume everyone with higher incomes are “lucky” basically.

Every single day someone comes from FAR less than any of us here and overcomes odds to do great things. If you were born in the US, regardless of your race, or parents income growing up, you are already leaps and bounds ahead of millions of others, millions of others that will go on to do better than many Americans ever will. There are million dollar ideas that cost nothing to run with, that people THINK of every day. If you can create a thought, or read/type on this forum, then you have that same opportunity.

I’ve made almost $80k this year. I have averaged about 75 hours every week. I have worked 12 hour shifts and had every other Sunday off (I have had 6 total days off in 2018, working 6:15-6:15 otherwise). Not only that, I travel all over the country doing this work, so instead of owning a home we live in a 5th wheel, or like now we’re in an AirBnB in a family’s basement.

So I work my effing ass off in a insanely high hour, highly stressful, and often dangerous job, and I’ve worked my way up through the ranks to get to where I’m at.

If anything, it’s a bit offensive to hear people who work 40 hr weeks with office jobs, low stress, in towns/cities they enjoy, whine about their incomes, or those who make more.

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me? What about me working more hours than 99% of the population, in fast paced, stressful, and often physically dangerous jobs? No offense but that’s my answer to lower incomes. Unless you work 70-80 hrs a week and make smart choices about your career, and make sacrifices, your income is no ones choice but you’re own.

[mathlete]

Lol. People missing the point in here like Neo dodging bullets in the Matrix.

Look guys, when you're rich, you're above criticism. You're entitled to redefine words like "normal", "middle", "standard", and "retirement" to suit whatever purpose you want them to. Including and especially, making your self-congratulatory vanity project seem like an exercise in super-human thriftiness and the ultimate come-up story.

If you disagree with this, you're bitter and probably extremely jealous. Now stop asking questions and click the affiliate links you troglodytes!!

[I'm a red panda]

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?

First, $250k is three times $80k.  I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".

So how are you presenting yourself on the blog?  "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area."  "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."

I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
 Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different. 

Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate.  If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough.  And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.

[use2betrix]

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?

First, $250k is three times $80k.  I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".

So how are you presenting yourself on the blog?  "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area."  "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."

I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
 Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different. 

Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate.  If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough.  And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.

$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..

[dude]

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!

FW's household income has been estimated at $450-$600k currently, including $290k in executive pay, $60k rental income, a 5-figure blog, and a 6-figure book deal.

That's at least $40k PER MONTH, mang.

holy shit

[mathlete]

Lol. People missing the point in here like Neo dodging bullets in the Matrix.

Look guys, when you're rich, you're above criticism. You're entitled to redefine words like "normal", "middle", "standard", and "retirement" to suit whatever purpose you want them to. Including and especially, making your self-congratulatory vanity project seem like an exercise in super-human thriftiness and the ultimate come-up story.

If you disagree with this, you're bitter and probably extremely jealous. Now stop asking questions and click the affiliate links you troglodytes!!

In case it wasn't clear, I'm just having a bit of fun here. =)

Either way though, others are right, enough is kind of enough. Team "willful deception" has done an effective enough job of proving our point, and we've probably turned too far down the corner of wild speculation.

I'll do my part to stop bumping either thread after this post. Before I go, I just want to reiterate that while I believe certain members of the PF blogger community to engage in deception, I don't think they're bad people. The Frugalwoods seem super nice and probably donate a lot to charities that I would like. Someone in the other thread made a good comparison to used car salesman. Just because they profit off of dishonesty, doesn't mean that used car salespeople are bad. It's just the nature of the business. I wish it weren't that way, and I'm willing to be vocal about it, but I get that it is what it is to some extent.

I liked some of the tangents we got on in here. Especially ones about whether where you live in American redefines what middle class means. Maybe I'll start a thread about that if I think the subject is meaty enough.

[I'm a red panda]

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?

First, $250k is three times $80k.  I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".

So how are you presenting yourself on the blog?  "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area."  "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."

I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
 Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different. 

Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate.  If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough.  And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.

$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..

Wow. Good for you.

If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.

[JanetJackson]

I think that since this forum skews higher income, people here don't really realize how well off they are.
https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/
There's some interesting data there, but I'd just like to point out that half of americans earn less than 30K. To the vast majority of americans, incomes like the Frugalwoods are far out of reach and very far from what most americans would consider standard.

^This.

[use2betrix]

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?

First, $250k is three times $80k.  I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".

So how are you presenting yourself on the blog?  "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area."  "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."

I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
 Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different. 

Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate.  If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough.  And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.

$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..

Wow. Good for you.

If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.

What if the blog is - work your ass off and make good choices and you can be high income too? If someone makes $30/hr, and works 75 hrs a week (like I work) that’s 35 hrs of overtime a week. At an overtime rate of $45/hr, that’s about an extra $75k per year!

Most lower income people don’t want to hear that, though. They’d rather assume every person making 200k-300k a year is there by some stroke of luck, and doesn’t work 10x harder than they do now, or to get to where they’re at.

Yeah - I make a ton, I also have worked harder and more than a LOT of people. This petty jealousy in this thread seems to discredit that.

Who cares what someone makes in a blog? It’s about SPENDING LESS. Honestly - I think it’s 1000x harder to live on 40k when you make 300k, vs living off 40k when you make 40k. It takes a ton of self control when you’re making more.

[I'm a red panda]

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?

First, $250k is three times $80k.  I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".

So how are you presenting yourself on the blog?  "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area."  "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."

I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
 Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different. 

Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate.  If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough.  And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.

$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..

Wow. Good for you.

If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.

What if the blog is - work your ass off and make good choices and you can be high income too? If someone makes $30/hr, and works 75 hrs a week (like I work) that’s 35 hrs of overtime a week. At an overtime rate of $45/hr, that’s about an extra $75k per year!

Most lower income people don’t want to hear that, though. They’d rather assume every person making 200k-300k a year is there by some stroke of luck, and doesn’t work 10x harder than they do now, or to get to where they’re at.

Yeah - I make a ton, I also have worked harder and more than a LOT of people. This petty jealousy in this thread seems to discredit that.

Who cares what someone makes in a blog? It’s about SPENDING LESS. Honestly - I think it’s 1000x harder to live on 40k when you make 300k, vs living off 40k when you make 40k. It takes a ton of self control when you’re making more.

I don't think anyone would accuse you of deception; but like you said, you might find a hard time finding an audience for that blog :)

And it does take a ton of self-control to not spend when you earn more.  But you can save much easier when you earn more.  Because someone living on 40k when they make 40k is saving nothing.  But someone living on 260k when they make 300k is saving that first person's entire annual earnings.  Now give that high earner even a 50% savings rate (something many high income couples can hit; we've been doing it easily since we both made $30k, so above the median income, and continue now that we both make high 5 figures- in the top quartile, if not top 10%)- that's a huge amount. 

[SwitchActiveDWG]

So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?

First, $250k is three times $80k.  I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".

So how are you presenting yourself on the blog?  "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area."  "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."

I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
 Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different. 

Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate.  If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough.  And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.

$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..

Wow. Good for you.

If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.

This. It's how it is presented, not the amount of income.

WhiteCoatInvestor, Physician on FIRE, Slowly Sipping Coffee, actuary on FIRE, (fill in your favorite high income blogger that realizes their income isn't close to the mean), are all examples of appropriately representing yourself. No guise about being average earners.

[Dicey]

i find this a little amusing.  I have recently started reading through the FW blog, and I don't see any attempts to really hide their income.  E.G. Their July 2015 spending is $3350, including their mortgage.  They say they save 70%+ of their income.  They must have income AFTER TAXES AND 401K (or whatever it is called over there) of at least $11166 per month, or take home $134,000 a year.  Minimum. 

They also clearly say they don't talk about their income or their stash.  But their incomes are higher than average, and they acknowledge it.

I wonder how much of the "Guilty" issue is jealousy?

Bingo! 
This thread is bullshit and needs to go away. See: Forum Rules.

[grantmeaname]

Which rule says that threads Dicey disagrees with can't be posted?

[Rosy]

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!

FW's household income has been estimated at $450-$600k currently, including $290k in executive pay, $60k rental income, a 5-figure blog, and a 6-figure book deal.

That's at least $40k PER MONTH, mang.

holy shit

My - my:) - It does sound a bit pretentious and rather misleading, now that you all put it that way:) SPOTLIGHT on current income.
The title of this thread is not amusing... Guilty of being successful - oh yeah, baby - go on and vibrate green.

No one handed them a successful blog, or wrote the book for them - Mrs. Frugalwoods did that.
I fail to understand why one even has to hide their income, just because they have a frugality blog. Since when does that make good, solid advice invalid? Sure, I am surprised to hear the income totals, but hey they managed well and worked hard.

The Frugalwoods may be one of the lucky privileged high-income earners, so what. You take the info and advice that works for you - end of story.
If I were the Frugalwoods I would be highly annoyed by the time this third thread appeared.

[Apple_Tango]

Earning a high enough income that you can save 70-80% is exactly what MMM recommends. Obviously it’s much easier to save 70% if your income is a 6+ figure income. I’m not mad at FW for doing this. But this brought to mind, what do I think is a “normal” family income. Well I think it doesn’t get any more Normal than a teacher’s salary. According to 2 minutes of internet research, the median salary for high school teachers is $58,000 and some change. So a family with 2 teacher income would be making around $116,000. So FW salary (according to y’alls claims) is about 3x what a “normal” family makes. That doesn’t seem crazy to me..... it’s not like it’s 15x or 20x or something like that. However, my conclusion is that the FW don’t  fall under the category of “normal salary”.
But I’m not mad about it.

[jlcnuke]

The median "household income" is about $60k/year and the median household has 2.X people living in it (so you can assume two adults is fairly average with an average of about 1 kid). A quick look over here showed the following income data:
A household making $300,000.00 annually was percentile 97.9% in 2016.  This percentile ranged from $295,092.00 to $300,188.00 a year.

I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that being in the top 3% is "average" by any definition of the word.

So yeah, I'll say FW misrepresented their basic status. I think it was unnecessary and probably a bad idea in the long run, but I don't think they were trying to hide their high income in general.

Does it matter? Not with regards to the advice they give on ways to conserve more money. However, on the "how easy is it to become FI like them" it has a different ring to people in lower income brackets I'm sure.

[Eric]

Lol. People missing the point in here like Neo dodging bullets in the Matrix.

Look guys, when you're rich, you're above criticism. You're entitled to redefine words like "normal", "middle", "standard", and "retirement" to suit whatever purpose you want them to. Including and especially, making your self-congratulatory vanity project seem like an exercise in super-human thriftiness and the ultimate come-up story.

If you disagree with this, you're bitter and probably extremely jealous. Now stop asking questions and click the affiliate links you troglodytes!!

In case it wasn't clear, I'm just having a bit of fun here. =)

Either way though, others are right, enough is kind of enough. Team "willful deception" has done an effective enough job of proving our point, and we've probably turned too far down the corner of wild speculation.

I'll do my part to stop bumping either thread after this post. Before I go, I just want to reiterate that while I believe certain members of the PF blogger community to engage in deception, I don't think they're bad people. The Frugalwoods seem super nice and probably donate a lot to charities that I would like. Someone in the other thread made a good comparison to used car salesman. Just because they profit off of dishonesty, doesn't mean that used car salespeople are bad. It's just the nature of the business. I wish it weren't that way, and I'm willing to be vocal about it, but I get that it is what it is to some extent.

I liked some of the tangents we got on in here. Especially ones about whether where you live in American redefines what middle class means. Maybe I'll start a thread about that if I think the subject is meaty enough.

Agreed.
I feel like a bunch of people were like “whoa, that seems misleading” and then a pile of people debated tangential issues that had little to do with people feeling misled and focused more on perceived criticism of the income itself or exactly how much they disclosed, neither of which are really the main issue.

I think most people would be pretty chill had their statement all along been “we make very high incomes, which helps in achieving our goals, but we don’t allow it to determine our lifestyle and would live this way even if our income doubled,” which is the truth and IMO an admirable one at that.

I know I wouldn’t have taken issue or said a damn thing when Nate’s income was inevitably revealed, I would have been like “wow, over 300K certainly *is* high income, they weren’t kidding.”

But hey, what do I know? Apparently I’m judgemental, jealous, and invasively demanding of people’s private financial information because I find a blogger disingenuous.

You'd be wrong then.  Because they do talk about that in posts like this:

http://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/02/16/the-privilege-of-pursuing-financial-independence/

But of course, that doesn't matter to the unwashed masses who already have their pitchforks out.  The verdict has been placed.  Anyone who blogs and doesn't disclose every detail of their personal life to their readers is a fraud.  Nevermind that their blog is one of frugality and they provide all the detail you could ever want in their spending reports.  Somehow, that's not good enough.  It's patently ridiculous.

[grantmeaname]

I know you are willfully not acknowledging this because you would like to ignore it, but let me repeat it as explicitly as has been said before: Choosing not to disclose income (or anything else) is fine. Misrepresenting income (or anything else) is not. Over and over people have shared examples of misleading statements. Those are what is at issue.

[Gondolin]

Tough crowd.

It's tough because only the angry people have come over to grind their various axes.

It's the internet. The angry 5% always look bigger and meaner then they are because the 95% who don't care have already moved on.

[Sailor Sam]

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.

[PoutineLover]

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.

I think it depends how honest he is about what he excludes or not. He can say that he lives on 25K a year, plus the studio, plus the business trips, plus whatever, and it's clear that he isn't actually living on 25K a year but he says he's meeting his basic needs on 25K a year, all the other stuff is extra. I personally don't care that the FW make a lot of money, but it does annoy me that they say they have normal salaries, since they clearly don't. The difference is how they talk about it, not what the actual numbers are. I don't believe that bloggers have to disclose every bit of their financial picture. But they should at least be honest about how they choose to represent themselves.

[I'm a red panda]

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.

I think he misrepresents it a bit (and I disagree that someone with so many businesses call themselves "retired"; retired is NOT working, it isn't "working from home" or "being an entrepreneur")- you can live on $25k a year if your business takes care of all the fun stuff in life!  No need for a travel budget; travel on "company" time!

I like both blogs though, neither misrepresentation bothers me enough to not read them.  I find the frugalwoods to be more helpful to ME than MMM though.

[Petuniajo]

Without disclosing hard numbers, she does regularly recognize the privilege that has helped them get where they are today. Here is a direct quote from one of her blog posts regarding income:

We have high-paying jobs. While this alone isn’t a predictor of financial health, or the ability to achieve financial independence at a young age, it sure does help. Yes, we’re extreme frugal weirdos and yes, we save 71% of our incomes every year and yes, minus our mortgage we spent $13,000 in all of 2014. But, we recognize how fortunate we are to be able to do this.

Lots of people work much harder, longer hours than we do for vastly less money. They might live just as frugally as we do–forgoing cable, restaurants, haircuts, and cars newer than 19 years old–but they won’t be able to save at the high rate we do.

Perhaps she is "guilty" of thinking their salaries are a bit more standard than they really are, but I really don't think they have hidden anything or suggested that what they have done can be done by anyone.

[cats]

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?).

[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
 

[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.

[Dicey]

Which rule says that threads Dicey disagrees with can't be posted?

Not my rules:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

Foe convenience,  here's a snip:

Forum Rules
The overriding principle here on this site: Be a human being and treat others respectfully.

That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person.
3. Your posts must not break any laws.
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
5. No spam.
6. Use good taste.
/snip

I was pretty sure the FW were both still active members of this forum. I checked her handle, and surprise! She posted something just today. Where? I wondered. On an Uber Frugal thread. Imagine, with all this shit storming and she's avoiding the fray, yet still offering encouragement elsewhere.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but this thread is mean spirited and a clear violation. @grantmeaname, I think you were mostly kidding, but I care about this place to much to see it devolve to something akin to Yahoo Finance, or worse. Nobody deserves to be treated with such utter disdain, and I am ashamed and discouraged to see so much hatred here.

[reader321]

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?

[HipGnosis]

A poll has nothing to do with a 'real tally'

[I'm a red panda]

Yeah- the Frugalwoods are rich.  But they weren't necessarily rich when they started all this. I can't believe she said that now though.  Even I say I'm rich, and neither my husband or I make 6 figures on our own. We are "middle class" by the definition of lifestyle, not assets.  I can see her claiming "middle class", but she is rich. They are millionaires, probably multiple times over.

I particularly liked their recent post on city vs. country.  They actually spend a lot more now than when they were living in the city.  It isn't about saving just to save; it's about living an intentional life.

[Eric]

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?

So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact?  JFC...

Whether they are rich or not is subjective.  The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true.  So yes, I think that's an honest summary.  Certainly more honest than your criticism. 

[I'm a red panda]

Whether they are rich or not is subjective. 

By their own admission they are financially independent.  How is that not rich?

[FrugalToque]

Yeah- the Frugalwoods are rich.  But they weren't necessarily rich when they started all this. I can't believe she said that now though.  Even I say I'm rich, and neither my husband or I make 6 figures on our own. We are "middle class" by the definition of lifestyle, not assets.  I can see her claiming "middle class", but she is rich. They are millionaires, probably multiple times over.

I particularly liked their recent post on city vs. country.  They actually spend a lot more now than when they were living in the city.  It isn't about saving just to save; it's about living an intentional life.

Obviously this thread is kicking up some ire, and I'm okay with that.  We seem to have a rational discussion about whether or not these people are, or were, misleading their followers.  I'm not a Frugalwoods follower, so I don't have a strong opinion either way.

MMM did something very similar, after all, striking it rich after retiring.  We can't hold his post-retirement fame against him, as if that invalidates the core principles of his life.

As I see it, the discussion we (the Mustachian Horde) are having is fairly respectful, even if the topic is on the inflammatory side.  We're expected to have strong opinions, and that's good too.

Toque.

[reader321]

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?

So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact?  JFC...

Whether they are rich or not is subjective.  The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true.  So yes, I think that's an honest summary.  Certainly more honest than your criticism.

$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.

$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.

[Eric]

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?

So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact?  JFC...

Whether they are rich or not is subjective.  The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true.  So yes, I think that's an honest summary.  Certainly more honest than your criticism.

$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.

$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.

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

[I'm a red panda]

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?

So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact?  JFC...

Whether they are rich or not is subjective.  The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true.  So yes, I think that's an honest summary.  Certainly more honest than your criticism.

$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.

$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.

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

They only have one Thames on their team...
https://secure.actblue.com/about

He has a pretty distinct look.

[FrugalToque]

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.

[Saving4Fire]

They only have one Thames on their team...
https://secure.actblue.com/about

He has a pretty distinct look.

Same executive director title as the 990 form as well.

[I'm a red panda]

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.

I think the current income comes into play with "misrepresentation" though- because it is current interviews where she is saying she isn't rich. 

As for current spending; with setting up the homestead- it seems quite high.


I'm also disappointed she's letting the media portray them as retired (I don't think she ever did- though their pre-homestead dream was to retire to Vermont, that isn't what they did). It is very clear he isn't- he didn't leave his job at all.  At least MMM doesn't work for someone else. It is extremely misleading to call them retired, he works for a traditional employer.

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

I feel like this "controversy" is really setting a new bar for FIRE bloggers. You haven't made it for real until the retirement police question whether your post-FIRE income truly qualifies you as retired, or now, a horde of angry commentators question whether your high income disqualifies you from writing a blog about how to use frugality to pursue a lifestyle that makes you happy.

It seems somewhat ironic to be hanging these folks out to dry when the blog (and book, I hear) makes a major point of discussing privilege. Their salaries are not "normal" or "average" in a statistical sense, certainly not when compared to the median US household income. The same criticism, of course, applies to most people reading this forum. Something like 70% of Americans define themselves as middle class, even when it's objectively false. 

For those who feel betrayed by realizing the Frugalwoods' income is not actually middle-of-the-road (although their salaries may have been fairly normal, relative to their peer group of highly educated folks working white collar jobs in a HCOL city), does the value of their blog change for you if you swap in "top 1% of US income earners" for "high income earners" every time it was mentioned? It's wise to acknowledge that being in a position to save 50% or more of your income means you are starting from a position of immense privilege (as the Frugalwoods acknowledge many times over) - how wealthy you are after that really just changes the math of how quickly you can achieve FI. 

[marion10]

MY BIL routinely has an income of $300,000 a year. They declared bankruptcy and still live paycheck to paycheck. Nothing saved.

[reader321]

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?

So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact?  JFC...

Whether they are rich or not is subjective.  The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true.  So yes, I think that's an honest summary.  Certainly more honest than your criticism.

$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.

$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.

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. Including rental income, almost $32k per month-- I apologize for estimating so conservatively before. 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??

[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?

[thriftyc]

why don't we stop giving them free PR by starting threads like this.

[force majeure]

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.