The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: swampwiz on March 13, 2018, 02:01:40 AM
-
I must admit that being the cheapskate that I am, I like the way that he scolds his callers to be cheap so that they can do a "debt snowball" and get out of the hole. Of course, I don't care for his moralizing over folks who chose the bankruptcy option; I myself take the Trumpian attitude that bankruptcy is a *legal* not a *moral* question, and that if the opportunity presents itself such that the total financial position is better after filing for bankruptcy, then it is the proper course of action.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/11/radio-dave-ramsey-2018-trump-217229
-
His advice is solid but simple. It's good for people who don't understand basic finance and lack money management skills (most people).
For those who are more finance savvy, his advice is low grade stuff.
It is a crime that basic finance management is not taught in high schools.
-
I have a stronger opinion about people's opinions of Dave Ramsey than Dave Ramsey himself.
I think people get too analytical when criticizing Dave Ramsey's techniques. I've often heard people criticize that the debt snowball is inefficient from a mathematical prospective. Dave's retort is that math flew out the window when you put 30K on a CC. My retort is that I've done the math with the numbers of some people who call Dave and, well, the difference between the debt avalanche and debt snowball is sometimes a matter of days in the calculation1. If the snowball will give someone a higher likelihood to succeed (which Ramsey & others argue), that marginal difference is a wash.
I find there are other areas, that don't significantly matter, that people like to disagree about but that beyond a surface level are not worthwhile dissensions. Although I do feel he is out to lunch on mutual fund returns.
I like his advice about house mortgage payments; no more than 25% of your take home pay2. I recently found out that in the USA, y'all can get mortgages up to 45% of your gross pay! That is 100% gross. I think the fact that so many people are house poor with long-term mortgages that had low down payments, causes a bunch of issues in society.
1 Typical person following Dave's advice has a sub two-year payoff period. In those timelines, for the avalanche approach to diverge greatly, it requires the highest interest debt(s) to be large, unsecured, a large share of the debt, a much higher interest rate and the smaller debts to be numerous or large. I'd not be surprised to hear these cases (ex. 40K CC debt @26% + 39K student loan @3.9%) but from the calls I've heard, the debts tend to be similar interest rates of similar amounts or high interest rates on small amounts and small interest rates on large amounts.
2 I actually don't know what he means by this though; whether it is literally the money deposited or one's after-tax income (this can change if a person does 401K/RRSP contributions through work.) His advice is somewhat vague on defining terms.
-
He can be helpful for people at the "get out of debt" stage of personal finance. His investment advice is really bad. And the Christ-y shit isn't for everyone.
-
In my earliest days of perusing internet personal finance communities (probably around 2008-2009), I remember Suze Orman v. Dave Ramsey being a big debate among people.
Dave wants you to not leverage debt, and take a counter-intuitive approach to paying it off. Suze wants you to attack high interest rates, but also worship at the altar of the FICO Gods. Both want to sell you books and seminars. Bot give advice that would probably help the layman if followed.
I'm biased against Dave because I believe that most people who incorporate religion that much are usually charlatans on some level. His stuff is kind of sales-pitchy, but I don't find the core content to actually be all that objectionable.
-
My impression is that his advice in a general sense is not bad, but leads people astray when they ask specific questions that could be best answered by straying from his general advice. He just doesn't. This sometimes leads to horrible advice given to people with very specific circumstances, such as advising someone to cash out a whole life policy, when the person lucked out by getting the policy at a time when the guaranteed return was outstanding by today's measures. Yes, it was dumb luck, but don't throw that away!
-
His advice is great for his intended audience (people with little financial self-control and little understanding of finances/numbers who won't really change either of those characteristics much). Beyond that, some of the stuff he says is spot on and some of it is crap.
-
His advice is great for his intended audience (people with little financial self-control and little understanding of finances/numbers who won't really change either of those characteristics much). Beyond that, some of the stuff he says is spot on and some of it is crap.
Yeah, this is probably a good take.
There's little use in walking into a room full of high school students learning Newtonian Mechanics and being all like, "Actually, all of this is wrong if you want to get technical..."
Dave Ramsey's teachings do much more good than harm for his students I'm sure.
-
Dave Ramsey is designed for the stupid and lazy. I think those in this category can get something out of him.
Virtually everything that he says is financially wrong.
Pay off low rates debt first, cash out old whole life insurance policies, use his certified high price financial advisors, buy his crappy books/tapes, stocks go up by 12% a year, 8% Safe Withdrawal Rate, paying off a 4% 30 year fixed rate mortgage, etc.
I am sure there are lists of all the things that he says that are bad some are really bad. 8% Safe Withdrawal Rate will seriously F people up in the coming years. He will be off the air after making 100's of million, when those followers realize that the stock market does not always deliver 12% gains and that it is not safe to withdraw 8% from your investment accounts.
If you just need the face punches to stop buying stupid stuff, he provides this. For anyone needing more than the very basics, understand that virtually everything he says is not financially optimal.
-
Pay off low rates debt first, cash out old whole life insurance policies, use his certified high price financial advisors, buy his crappy books/tapes, stocks go up by 12% a year, 8% Safe Withdrawal Rate, paying off a 4% 30 year fixed rate mortgage, etc.
And that's why he's an unctuous charlatan. Agree with the poster who said anyone incorporating that much Christianity is a charlatan.
-
I was Dave Ramsey before Dave was Dave Ramsey. Unlike him, I've never had debt and never filed bankruptcy. I'm almost 53 years old. He has a GREAT plan for those in debt and it IS working. I tell people to listen and follow his plan and when the starts talking churchy just ignore that part. He brings up some good points yet sometimes I think he has been drinking because I don't agree at all. People might do things different than him but I bet if a person did everything exactly like Dave says, you WILL be a millionaire..... who can deny that? It might not be the way YOU think it should be done but those dollars WILL add up doing things exactly his way.
By the way.... if you don't know what he says, don't make an a$$ out of yourself and quote him wrong. He does not say stocks go up 12% all the time. Also, do you have more money than him? And when getting out of debt.... throw away the calculator.
Some like risk, some of us don't. See where you are when risk gets the best of you. I bet you won't be here boasting.....
-
My boss was just talking to me this morning about Dave Ramsey, he had just listened to his audio book, I believe it was one of the Financial Peace books.
My view is that Dave Ramsey is great for beginners, his advice is what got me to start getting serious about paying off debt and staying out of debt. The first three baby steps are great advice, with one caveat, he should encourage people to always be putting into a 401k type retirement at least enough to get a full company match, and if there is no match, around 3% pre tax into the 401k will not change the take home pay enough to matter on the debt snow ball.
After an emergency fund is built, his advice falls apart, but by that that time I was well on my way to making smarter financial choices. I still made a few mistakes, but even the POS car I over spent on was paid for in cash, and it was replaced with two vehicles for under $1,500.
-
Also, do you have more money than him? And when getting out of debt.... throw away the calculator.
I don't like that rubric for evaluating advice. Dave Ramsey didn't get as rich as he did by following his own advice, he got rich by selling it. That doesn't mean the advice is bad necessarily, but we shouldn't be conflating profits from the sales of the book with profits from following the book's advice.
Unless the book advises you to become a mega-successful and internationally renowned thought leader.
-
I was Dave Ramsey before Dave was Dave Ramsey. Unlike him, I've never had debt and never filed bankruptcy. I'm almost 53 years old. He has a GREAT plan for those in debt and it IS working. I tell people to listen and follow his plan and when the starts talking churchy just ignore that part. He brings up some good points yet sometimes I think he has been drinking because I don't agree at all. People might do things different than him but I bet if a person did everything exactly like Dave says, you WILL be a millionaire..... who can deny that? It might not be the way YOU think it should be done but those dollars WILL add up doing things exactly his way.
By the way.... if you don't know what he says, don't make an a$$ out of yourself and quote him wrong. He does not say stocks go up 12% all the time. Also, do you have more money than him? And when getting out of debt.... throw away the calculator.
Some like risk, some of us don't. See where you are when risk gets the best of you. I bet you won't be here boasting.....
What is that supposed to mean? Credentialism? If I own a string of Payday loan stores, should you take financial advice from me versus anyone else?
Must one be an Astronaut to talk about Space?
-
I love listening to him for entertainment. Some of the callers that come in need some serious facepunches and Dave can give em out. Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
He sounds like a bit of a control freak, like if you don't believe exactly what he believes then you're not going to be successful.
-
Ever notice how he shifts from his usual condescending tone when speaking with most callers, then shifting to upbeat positive enthusiastic excited happy Dave tone during the 'debt-free-scream' segments? So phony...
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
90% really, 90%?
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
90% really, 90%?
You got a better estimate? 50% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. 60% can't cover a $500 surprise expense without taking on debt. Average household credit card debt is $15K. Don't even get me started with how much people have saved for retirement. I think it's safe to say 9/10 Americans could benefit from his message, but go ahead and debate me on that.
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
his investing advice is crap
He's like preschool for the financial world - here is how you sit in a circle and get in a line and write your name.
Really we should teach finance in school but its just too touchy a subject for far too many.
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
his investing advice is crap
He's like preschool for the financial world - here is how you sit in a circle and get in a line and write your name.
Really we should teach finance in school but its just too touchy a subject for far too many.
His website also looks a bit more shady than my local used car lot. For a good Christian, he sure knows how to fleece the flock.
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
90% really, 90%?
What percentage of people buy brand new vehicles and go most of their life with a car payment? I see guys in my National Guard unit talking about their $30-50k trucks and the payments are well over $500 per month when they would get the exact same utility out of a 5-10 year old vehicle for a fraction of the price. And they probably aren't utilizing the truck for more than commuting 95% of the time which makes it even more absurd to buying a car. Most people make a lot of poor financial decisions. Look at the amount of outstanding consumer credit (about a trillion currently) or the amount of outstanding student loans (over a trillion). Going $50k into student loan debt to get a bachelors' degree in early childhood education or sociology, or anthropology, so you can make $35k a year is not a good return on investment. If that same student loan debt gets you into a $70k a year engineering job then it was probably worth it, though I would argue most college students (and their parents) take on student debt far too easily when they could be spending time trying to earn scholarships or working to cash flow more of the cost. Or for that matter not attend an out of state school at twice the cost since aside from a few top tier schools nobody after your first employer gives a damn about where you went to college or what your GPA was.
Dave Ramsey motived my wife and I to get out of debt. Making about $60-65k a year we paid off about $40k in just over 2.5 years. Student loans that we'd never made much progress on over 7-8 years after graduation, credit card debt from living just beyond our means for a few years while I was in a low-paid apprenticeship type job (went from $30k to $50k+ once I was complete), and an auto loan for a minivan when our car got too small for our growing family. I didn't follow the plan exactly as I kept contributing the minimum to get my full 401k match. We've now saved up a $10k emergency fund and are starting to save for a down payment on a house, though we need to pause for a bit to save up for a larger van as baby #6 is on the way and won't fit into our minivan.
I am still very debt averse in my personal life but I'm starting a small business on the side and I'm using some debt there in order to grow faster. If I were bootstrapping with cash alone the $500-$1,000 I set aside initially would not be enough for me to grow very much. By purchasing inventory on credit and turning it over multiple times per year I'm basically increasing my cost of goods sold by a few percent but double or tripling my overall growth.
Also, we probably won't stick exactly to his advice on buying a home with a 15-year mortgage at no more than 25% of take home pay. I still plan to pay down our house quickly instead of leveraging it to invest. Borrowing money at 5% to hopefully earn 10% may make sense from a mathematical perspective but there's a lot of risk there that I'm not willing to take on.
-
He is a sensationalist. He's the Joel Osteen of the finance world.
Google searching and learning some basic math would be better for someone wanting to learn about personal finance, investing, etc.
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
Most people don't have $25,000 in credit card debit at 15-20% and $5k in student loan or auto debt at 5-7%. It's usually the other way around. Paying off small debts first, regardless if they're higher interest is more likely to result in a person getting out of debt than giving up part way through because they don't feel like they're making progress on a larger high interest debt.
Even if the numbers were reversed, if you're getting out of debt in 2-3 years that extra interest is not going to be a huge amount.
-
By the way.... if you don't know what he says, don't make an a$$ out of yourself and quote him wrong. He does not say stocks go up 12% all the time. Also, do you have more money than him? And when getting out of debt.... throw away the calculator.
Some like risk, some of us don't. See where you are when risk gets the best of you. I bet you won't be here boasting.....
Dave says it so much that he has a post on it. He does not say 10%, 8% or anything else.
https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/the-12-reality
He also, pushes people into his ELP money making stream, and they are going to knock off 1% or more of this return.
His simple rules of thumb are simple. They are fine, until someone decides to use them. Like withdrawing 8% or any of his investment advice.
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
Most people don't have $25,000 in credit card debit at 15-20% and $5k in student loan or auto debt at 5-7%. It's usually the other way around. Paying off small debts first, regardless if they're higher interest is more likely to result in a person getting out of debt than giving up part way through because they don't feel like they're making progress on a larger high interest debt.
Even if the numbers were reversed, if you're getting out of debt in 2-3 years that extra interest is not going to be a huge amount.
its still inefficient as shit.
avg credit card debt in US 16k - at 15-20%
auto loans 25k at your 5-7% - really high assumption
dont train yourself to make emotional financial decisions thats what go you in debt in the first place
Train yourself to make mathematically optimal financial decisions.
-
By the way.... if you don't know what he says, don't make an a$$ out of yourself and quote him wrong. He does not say stocks go up 12% all the time. Also, do you have more money than him? And when getting out of debt.... throw away the calculator.
Some like risk, some of us don't. See where you are when risk gets the best of you. I bet you won't be here boasting.....
Dave says it so much that he has a post on it. He does not say 10%, 8% or anything else.
https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/the-12-reality
He also, pushes people into his ELP money making stream, and they are going to knock off 1% or more of this return.
His simple rules of thumb are simple. They are fine, until someone decides to use them. Like withdrawing 8% or any of his investment advice.
haha b/c his amount of amassed wealth thru scamming people into a bad investment system is proof he is good for the world. Great point - Donald Trump is better for the world then! We should follow the donald's investing advice since we're going off of amassed wealth - but wait Buffett has more - i'll stick to his investing advice.
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
his investing advice is crap
He's like preschool for the financial world - here is how you sit in a circle and get in a line and write your name.
I've never listened to or read Ramsey, but that makes me think of a lot of the opinionated stuff I see on this forum that I don't agree with, except we get the bad grammar to go with it here. I mostly just ignore the B.S., but there's no filter for the average reader. After all the opinions and bloviating, there's bound to be the rare nugget of useful information from time to time, and there's some entertainment value to be had here. Just by coincidence, a girl at work told me about a week ago that she was going through some Dave Ramsey course. I didn't give her any opinions on Dave Ramsey, since I don't even have any, but I was impressed she was actually taking the initiative to learn something.
-
My brother got into him and enjoyed it. He wasn't financially stupid but it helped focus him a little more than he was already.
I've never listened to or watched him, but I flipped through some of his books. I agree that it's 101-level stuff. However, if most people followed his advice, the resulting situation would be a lot better than the current one, even if people's lives wouldn't be as optimized as they could be.
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
90% really, 90%?
You got a better estimate? 50% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. 60% can't cover a $500 surprise expense without taking on debt. Average household credit card debt is $15K. Don't even get me started with how much people have saved for retirement. I think it's safe to say 9/10 Americans could benefit from his message, but go ahead and debate me on that.
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
-
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I've noticed it's pretty common on forums for people to throw out phrases like "90% of the time" or "99% of the people" or even "99.999% of ..... " when they're trying to make a point without having any facts to back it up.
-
I once heard Dave Ramsey described as being similar to Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers is not going to take an obese person to a marathon-running nutritionist, but it is a great way to get started for people who don't know where to start and need a lot of structure and encouragement to get going. At a certain point, to make progress, you will need to go beyond the basic recommendations...but at that point you should feel confident and knowledgeable to make your own way.
-
I once heard Dave Ramsey described as being similar to Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers is not going to take an obese person to a marathon-running nutritionist, but it is a great way to get started for people who don't know where to start and need a lot of structure and encouragement to get going. At a certain point, to make progress, you will need to go beyond the basic recommendations...but at that point you should feel confident and knowledgeable to make your own way.
I think that is a great analogy. The slight difference is that people go to Weight Watchers to lose weight. They pay money to do so. They know that they are paying money for help in losing weight. Weight Watchers is not pushing food that is fattening for them to eat for a profit.
Dave Ramsey, is selling financial advice and he is getting people to buy products that are bad for their personal financial well being. It is like he is pushing donuts and girl scout cookies, when he should be telling people to eat fruits and vegetables. He is convincing people in bad financial shape to buy products through his show, website, and seminars. He is pushing them into a network that gives Dave Ramsey a kickback. He is selling them fluff, while he is making a killing.
-
"I am always looking for a DEAL. A friend in the car business called m one day with a deal...on a Jaguar. All those years and tears later - when driving a Jaguar was no longer the driving force behind my desire for a "high approval rating" - God sent a Jaguar back into my life" -Dave Ramsey
Hang on a sec, just threw up a bit in my mouth...
Ok, I can concentrate again. Apparently the stuff we have or don't have in our live is based on what the creator of the universe gives us, which is apparently based on how this creature rates things like our "desires for approval".
Using simple logic, if this is true, then the poor, sick, refugees, etc, must all just have their desires or whatever in the wrong place, right??? Maybe if they were good Christians like Dave Ramsey it would all just fall in place for them.
My opinion of Dave Ramsey is low. I think his financial advice is very meh, but that's not why my opinion of him is low. I just hate that prosperity gospel bullshit.
-
I'm a big supporter of Dave Ramsey because he "helped" me pay off $80k of debt in one year and I've been living that debt-free life for two years now. I akin him to being the equivalent of a high school diploma in personal finance. He teaches you to have a small emergency fund, create and live on a budget, avoid debt, save for retirement, and pay cash for things. There are things that I disagree with him on like the use of credit cards and having a credit score but for the MAJORITY of people, I would say that his advice is enough to build a strong foundation towards financial independence.
I think The Bogleheads would be the Bachelor's degree in personal finance. You'll learn more about asset allocations, tax loss harvesting, mega backdoor Roths, and more detailed stuff to really accelerate your path to financial Independence. At the same time, I strongly believe in diversification of education therefore it shouldn't be strictly MMM, DR, or BH - it should be a mix of them and you choose which parts make the most sense to you.
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
90% really, 90%?
You got a better estimate? 50% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. 60% can't cover a $500 surprise expense without taking on debt. Average household credit card debt is $15K. Don't even get me started with how much people have saved for retirement. I think it's safe to say 9/10 Americans could benefit from his message, but go ahead and debate me on that.
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I'm basing it on my own personal experience with actually leading the class for the last 3 years. I honestly feel that 9/10 of the people I meet can benefit from the class, his message is for the masses, not the people shooting to save 50+% of their income and retire at 30. Have you ever taken the class or listened to his podcast extensively to prove that you aren't calling me out on something you know nothing about? Do you even know what his message is?
What would it take for me to prove to you that his message would be helpful for 90% of Americans? Or have you just made up your mind and that's that?
-
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I've noticed it's pretty common on forums for people to throw out phrases like "90% of the time" or "99% of the people" or even "99.999% of ..... " when they're trying to make a point without having any facts to back it up.
Fifty percent of the time, it works 99.99% of the time.
-
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I've noticed it's pretty common on forums for people to throw out phrases like "90% of the time" or "99% of the people" or even "99.999% of ..... " when they're trying to make a point without having any facts to back it up.
Fifty percent of the time, it works 99.99% of the time.
That's why I always win at Black jack. Oh wait....
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
Most people don't have $25,000 in credit card debit at 15-20% and $5k in student loan or auto debt at 5-7%. It's usually the other way around. Paying off small debts first, regardless if they're higher interest is more likely to result in a person getting out of debt than giving up part way through because they don't feel like they're making progress on a larger high interest debt.
Even if the numbers were reversed, if you're getting out of debt in 2-3 years that extra interest is not going to be a huge amount.
its still inefficient as shit.
avg credit card debt in US 16k - at 15-20%
auto loans 25k at your 5-7% - really high assumption
dont train yourself to make emotional financial decisions thats what go you in debt in the first place
Train yourself to make mathematically optimal financial decisions.
It's inefficient but not as bad as you're making it sound. In your very own example, the snowball and avalanche methods would have you paying off the debt in the exact same order. The 16k credit card first, and then the auto loan. I've input real debt numbers into snowball vs avalanche calculators before and often the snowball method is 1-2 months longer payoff and a couple thousand more in interest (obviously the real life numbers affect this). Again, obviously it's inefficient, but when we're talking about paying off 40k in debt, a couple thousand is not as big of a deal if using the snowball method means you actually stick to it.
That's the other thing, you can argue till you are blue in the face that people should train themselves to be smarter, etc. They won't. People are lazy and don't want to think about things like finances. They just don't. Credit to Dave Ramsey for seeing a business opportunity with his simplistic financial advice (that isn't even his really, it's moreso his presentation of it) that makes sense to the masses.
-
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I've noticed it's pretty common on forums for people to throw out phrases like "90% of the time" or "99% of the people" or even "99.999% of ..... " when they're trying to make a point without having any facts to back it up.
This entire thread of posts arguing about the 90% vs 50% is pretty dumb already, but I'll just add my piece. 90% (re: most) of posters who post that 90% (re: most) of the time "xyz" are usually just using that made up % in place of a term like "most" or "almost all/nearly everyone/a lot." There's no real need to attack someone for doing it. The first posters point was that Dave Ramsey's basic financial advice would help most people. That is true. If most people followed his advice exactly, they'd likely be better off than if they didn't. This isn't true all the time, duh. But let's not pretend that the intelligent posters on the MMM forum can't figure this stuff out.
-
I think the fact is that he's helped thousands of people improve their financial situations, get on budgets and generally lead better lives. He's not for everybody, but his program helps a lot of people. I won't criticize that.
-
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I've noticed it's pretty common on forums for people to throw out phrases like "90% of the time" or "99% of the people" or even "99.999% of ..... " when they're trying to make a point without having any facts to back it up.
This entire thread of posts arguing about the 90% vs 50% is pretty dumb already, but I'll just add my piece. 90% (re: most) of posters who post that 90% (re: most) of the time "xyz" are usually just using that made up % in place of a term like "most" or "almost all/nearly everyone/a lot." There's no real need to attack someone for doing it. The first posters point was that Dave Ramsey's basic financial advice would help most people. That is true. If most people followed his advice exactly, they'd likely be better off than if they didn't. This isn't true all the time, duh. But let's not pretend that the intelligent posters on the MMM forum can't figure this stuff out.
Sorry, but when you try to make an outrageous claim, you lose me. I don't believe that I'm part of just 10% of people. If you want to say majority, and mean over 50%, then I don't take pause like I do with a claim of 90%. In fact, it could be said that a good chunk of the 50/60% is comprised of disabled and seniors, but I don't care about that. As someone who has been bombarded with outrageous advertising claims for my whole life, I'm conditioned to automatically question a number like 90%. You might try that, and you wouldn't be taken by (or need the services of) hucksters like Ramsey.
-
I once heard Dave Ramsey described as being similar to Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers is not going to take an obese person to a marathon-running nutritionist, but it is a great way to get started for people who don't know where to start and need a lot of structure and encouragement to get going. At a certain point, to make progress, you will need to go beyond the basic recommendations...but at that point you should feel confident and knowledgeable to make your own way.
I think that is a great analogy. The slight difference is that people go to Weight Watchers to lose weight. They pay money to do so. They know that they are paying money for help in losing weight. Weight Watchers is not pushing food that is fattening for them to eat for a profit.
Dave Ramsey, is selling financial advice and he is getting people to buy products that are bad for their personal financial well being. It is like he is pushing donuts and girl scout cookies, when he should be telling people to eat fruits and vegetables. He is convincing people in bad financial shape to buy products through his show, website, and seminars. He is pushing them into a network that gives Dave Ramsey a kickback. He is selling them fluff, while he is making a killing.
Most of what Dave Ramsey teaches is available for free. My wife and I received his book the Total Money Makeover as a gift from my father-in-law a couple of years after we got married, and if I had actually read it then I probably would have gotten serious about getting out of debt a few years earlier. Is a $20 book that helps you get out of a bad financial position not worth it?
His class is $129 for 9 weeks. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people going through there that didn't save that much in interest from knocking out debt in just a few months. Someone recently started teaching it at my church and the people going through are usually managing to payoff thousands in debt and save thousands more in just that 9 week period, to say nothing of the months and years after. His events are usually about $50 for a few hours or most of a day. Once again, if it motivates you to finally get rid of some debt you'll make that back shortly. As for his referrals to real estate agents, financial planners, accountants, etc. is no different from the business model of MMM. It's affiliate marketing and he receives a commission for it. Though from what I understand those people he endorses are basically paying per lead, it's not like they have to give Dave Ramsey part of the income they generate from any of those leads that turn into clients. There's nothing nefarious or underhanded about it, it's a pretty common business model. His more expensive products are targeted at business owners and can run into the thousands of dollars but that's the going rate for a lot of multi-day conferences or leadership seminars in that space.
If you're on this forum then you can probably handle your own investing and do alright. But the vast majority of people would prefer to have someone helping them out on that. If it costs them 1% of assets under management that's on them for deciding to pay for that. Dave Ramsey repeats over and over you should never invest in something you don't fully understand and anyone he refers you to should be a teacher, not a salesperson. Finding someone to help you select mutual funds is going to provide a lot better results than being suckered in by some insurance salesman pushing a whole life policy as an investment or trying to sell an annuity or some other horrible financial product. Or just plain not investing at all. Losing 1% of something to a financial planner is going to provide better results than not investing at all, speculating on bitcoin, or "investing" in insurance products. It probably won't provide as good of results as just buying a few index funds, but that's why most of us are looking to retire early and the majority of people are worrying about retiring at all.
-
I appreciate his message... I actually teach his class, "Financial Peace University". It brings me so much joy to see the light bulbs turn on for people and watching them get on fire for putting their families into strong financial positions, he is an excellent motivational speaker in that way. My take on his message is that it is a super conservative path that makes it nearly impossible to screw up. It is the message that is needed for 90% of Americans today. It is not ideal, but it doesn't have to be absolutely positively ideal for the average person to turn themselves from the path of financial destruction to the path of financial success.
I chose to take it a step further personally, and that's how I ended up in the MMM world. In reality, the MMM message is pretty simple too, right? Cut your spending and invest in low cost index funds. Both DR and MMM teach simple methods to conquer complicated problems, and that's why they are so successful.
I think that a lot of people here would have to admit that their financial interest started with Dave Ramsey. I hear it often from the "big name" FI podcasts, so I know it must be just as common around here.
90% really, 90%?
You got a better estimate? 50% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. 60% can't cover a $500 surprise expense without taking on debt. Average household credit card debt is $15K. Don't even get me started with how much people have saved for retirement. I think it's safe to say 9/10 Americans could benefit from his message, but go ahead and debate me on that.
Well, since you have 50% and 60% figures at the ready, why don't you start with that instead of going for broke and making up a 90% figure?
I'm basing it on my own personal experience with actually leading the class for the last 3 years. I honestly feel that 9/10 of the people I meet can benefit from the class, his message is for the masses, not the people shooting to save 50+% of their income and retire at 30. Have you ever taken the class or listened to his podcast extensively to prove that you aren't calling me out on something you know nothing about? Do you even know what his message is?
What would it take for me to prove to you that his message would be helpful for 90% of Americans? Or have you just made up your mind and that's that?
Yes, I examined his message fairly well a few years ago. To convince me, you'd have to come up with better evidence than 9 out of 10 people you meet. The only thing that I'm convinced of, is that you are convinced.
-
I never had to be taught the two things that 90 percent of Dave Ramsey callers fail to grasp.
1. Don't take out student loans. Go to public in-state universities. Work while in college. Cash flow it. Get your 4-year degree in four years or less. Get career-related experience while in college, where you major in something marketable.
2. Pay cash for cars. Always. If you can't afford to pay cash, you can't afford the car.
If I had listened to Dave Ramsey when he started in 1992 (when I was 22), I would have thought -- as I do now -- that his schtick was painfully obvious. Sadly, it's not to 90 percent of Americans.
-
I never had to be taught the two things that 90 percent of Dave Ramsey callers fail to grasp.
1. Don't take out student loans. Go to public in-state universities. Work while in college. Cash flow it. Get your 4-year degree in four years or less. Get career-related experience while in college, where you major in something marketable.
2. Pay cash for cars. Always. If you can't afford to pay cash, you can't afford the car.
If I had listened to Dave Ramsey when he started in 1992 (when I was 22), I would have thought -- as I do now -- that his schtick was painfully obvious. Sadly, it's not to 90 percent of Americans.
Exactly. Think about your relatives or co-workers, how many of them run up consumer debt, buy new vehicles with payments, went deeply in student loan debt? Your friends may be different since we tend to gravitate towards similar people that are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. If all of your friends are deeply in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, and driving brand new vehicles while you're saving 50% of your income and driving an old used car you're going to feel out of place and probably find new friends eventually.
His advice seems obvious and common sense to almost anyone reading this thread. But common sense, isn't very common. All it takes is looking at how many people have sub-prime auto loans with 72 month terms and 10%+ interest rates or a mortgage payment that's 50% of their take-home pay so they can buy a house that they can't afford to furnish.
-
he's good for getting people out of debt - though he's inefficient as shit at it
his investing advice is crap
He's like preschool for the financial world - here is how you sit in a circle and get in a line and write your name.
Really we should teach finance in school but its just too touchy a subject for far too many.
His website also looks a bit more shady than my local used car lot. For a good Christian, he sure knows how to fleece the flock.
You gotta spend money to save money - right? ;)
On his site I saw $15 envelopes and wallets for paying cash for items. DW and I did it with 2 cent paper envelopes before we took a more sophisticated approach.
His operation always leaves me with feelings similar to a high interest loan or the check cashing places. He ought to be leading his listeners with tangible value, not expensive solutions that delay their debt goals. He ought to be doing what the MMM community does - calling out silly things like the $15 cash pouches for what they are - overpriced.
This is so counter-intuitive to what I've been taught repeatedly a good Christian is supposed to do, and supposedly DO. People who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk bug me to no end.
-
I never had to be taught the two things that 90 percent of Dave Ramsey callers fail to grasp.
1. Don't take out student loans. Go to public in-state universities. Work while in college. Cash flow it. Get your 4-year degree in four years or less. Get career-related experience while in college, where you major in something marketable.
2. Pay cash for cars. Always. If you can't afford to pay cash, you can't afford the car.
If I had listened to Dave Ramsey when he started in 1992 (when I was 22), I would have thought -- as I do now -- that his schtick was painfully obvious. Sadly, it's not to 90 percent of Americans.
Exactly. Think about your relatives or co-workers, how many of them run up consumer debt, buy new vehicles with payments, went deeply in student loan debt? Your friends may be different since we tend to gravitate towards similar people that are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. If all of your friends are deeply in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, and driving brand new vehicles while you're saving 50% of your income and driving an old used car you're going to feel out of place and probably find new friends eventually.
His advice seems obvious and common sense to almost anyone reading this thread. But common sense, isn't very common. All it takes is looking at how many people have sub-prime auto loans with 72 month terms and 10%+ interest rates or a mortgage payment that's 50% of their take-home pay so they can buy a house that they can't afford to furnish.
This (the bolded). Let's just say my circle and yours could be described as polar opposites. At the moment, I do not know a single person who I think could benefit from DR's message. One actually went to FPU, but it didn't appear to stick. It's just a very different crowd---and we're not the 10%! I know you DR followers love to think that most everyone else is like you, but they're not. There's a big variety of people out there, doing just fine in their own ways--or doing worse for much different reasons.
-
I was just listening to a podcast where J.D. Roth talks about how the Dave Ramsey debt snowball method made a "huge difference" in his paying off of his debt:
https://www.choosefi.com/045-jd-roth-get-rich-slowly/
Starts at about 20:00. This is J.D. Roth, people!
-
I was just listening to a podcast where J.D. Roth talks about how the Dave Ramsey debt snowball method made a "huge difference" in his paying off of his debt:
https://www.choosefi.com/045-jd-roth-get-rich-slowly/
Starts at about 20:00. This is J.D. Roth, people!
ok so a financial blogger was shitty at finances and needed shitty advice for awhile and then stopped following the rest of the stuff that guy spouts. I guess everyone needs some preschooling but guess what we're all still entitled to our opinions of the terribleness of DR's advice - you can continue teaching it but i'd personally be looking for a higher level form of teaching that would put people in much better shape.
-
Having listened to him on the radio (I've never read his books) here's what I can say:
Debt Reduction - His approach, while not the most efficient, gets people out of debt. Attacking the debt in order of smallest balance to largest can play better to the psychology of debt reduction than simply attacking debts mathematically. For someone in his audience, this is the more effective approach since their level of financial discipline is likely more akin to a child in need of hand holding than a Mustachian badass. At the end of the day, even if someone following the snowball approach fails, they may have at least eliminated some debts and reduced their monthly obligations.
Debt in General - DR doesn't like debt and I don't either but I don't think that the question of whether or not to take on debt is such a cut and dry issue. For instance, if I was going to buy a car that cost 10k and I had the choice of either selling off appreciated shares of VTSAX or take a 2% loan, I'd take the 2% loan. If the loan was 6%, then maybe I'd sell the shares. I just don't think you can broad brush every scenario like that when there is nuance.
Investments - He never says exactly what funds he's invested in but I get the feeling that he pushes people into actively managed mutual funds through his ELPs that likely charge their own fees/commissions. Not a fan.
Life Insurance - After owning (and getting out of) a whole/universal life policy, I agree with him 100% on this. They are silly products that really don't benefit you long term if you plan on leading a life of financial discipline. The one I had charged exorbitant fees both up front and ongoing to the investment side. And, if you want to get money out of those investments, it can only be done in the form of a loan against the cash value (6% interest in my case).
-
Having listened to him on the radio (I've never read his books) here's what I can say:
Debt Reduction - His approach, while not the most efficient, gets people out of debt. Attacking the debt in order of smallest balance to largest can play better to the psychology of debt reduction than simply attacking debts mathematically. For someone in his audience, this is the more effective approach since their level of financial discipline is likely more akin to a child in need of hand holding than a Mustachian badass. At the end of the day, even if someone following the snowball approach fails, they may have at least eliminated some debts and reduced their monthly obligations.
Debt in General - DR doesn't like debt and I don't either but I don't think that the question of whether or not to take on debt is such a cut and dry issue. For instance, if I was going to buy a car that cost 10k and I had the choice of either selling off appreciated shares of VTSAX or take a 2% loan, I'd take the 2% loan. If the loan was 6%, then maybe I'd sell the shares. I just don't think you can broad brush every scenario like that when there is nuance.
Investments - He never says exactly what funds he's invested in but I get the feeling that he pushes people into actively managed mutual funds through his ELPs that likely charge their own fees/commissions. Not a fan.
Life Insurance - After owning (and getting out of) a whole/universal life policy, I agree with him 100% on this. They are silly products that really don't benefit you long term if you plan on leading a life of financial discipline. The one I had charged exorbitant fees both up front and ongoing to the investment side. And, if you want to get money out of those investments, it can only be done in the form of a loan against the cash value (6% interest in my case).
FYI, they're not "his ELPs" in the sense that he trains them/tells them what to do/etc (for his investment advisor type, now smartvestor or something). They pretty much just pay him to put them on his list (https://scottalanturner.com/smartvestor-review/) to get more customers.
-
FYI, they're not "his ELPs" in the sense that he trains them/tells them what to do/etc (for his investment advisor type, now smartvestor or something). They pretty much just pay him to put them on his list to get more customers.
Good point of clarification there. Since his show follows what I'll just call the "I'm the shepard and you're my flock" format (like many conservative talk shows), it only makes sense for him to have a side business of selling access to the flock as a commodity.
-
With regards to investing, I consider myself an advanced boglehead, who is also a self-professed atheist.........and I love Dave. But that doesn't mean i agree with every bit of his investing advice.
-
I like how he encourages people to get out of debt, buy a used car with cash, and live within their means. Simple but effective. A lot of Americans could benefit from his message.
-
His advice is solid for most people. Even his investment advice, most people can't or shouldn't manage their own investment portfolio, he advises seeing a good financial planner. I have no problem with that advice, but, it's just not for me.
Only issue I have is in the past he claimed people can get 12% on average per year in returns - though historically possible with a cross section of managed mutual funds, that's not realistic. Past returns do not 100% predict future returns on managed funds.
I used to listen to him early in my financial journey and if anything, hearing people call in and comment on their success motivated me to pay off my own debts, and eventually my mortgage.
I am now an employed (for now) financially independent low fee ETF indexer. I might turn him on the radio once a month for about 20mins, just to hear those "debt free screams" LOL
-
I'm a big supporter of Dave Ramsey because he "helped" me pay off $80k of debt in one year and I've been living that debt-free life for two years now. I akin him to being the equivalent of a high school diploma in personal finance. He teaches you to have a small emergency fund, create and live on a budget, avoid debt, save for retirement, and pay cash for things. There are things that I disagree with him on like the use of credit cards and having a credit score but for the MAJORITY of people, I would say that his advice is enough to build a strong foundation towards financial independence.
I think The Bogleheads would be the Bachelor's degree in personal finance. You'll learn more about asset allocations, tax loss harvesting, mega backdoor Roths, and more detailed stuff to really accelerate your path to financial Independence. At the same time, I strongly believe in diversification of education therefore it shouldn't be strictly MMM, DR, or BH - it should be a mix of them and you choose which parts make the most sense to you.
^ This (in bold font). I strongly believe in diversification. I've used financial techniques from "The Richest Man in Babylon" by George S. Clason, a bit of Dave Ramsey's snowball method for getting out of debt, and now continuing on with trying to stay on 50/50 split for expenses and savings because of the MMM chart I saw on savings rate vs time needed to work until retirement. I pick and choose the methods that sound right to me, but more importantly, the ones that motivate me into continuing to make better financial decisions.
-
I like Dave. Some people need his approach to get started. It was the message of those like Dave who made me realize that you must save and invest. Advanced Mustacians maybe don't appreciate the power of Baby Steps to those in deep red debt. Dave has a lot more good than bad to offer most people.
-
Diversification is great, but if you find Dave Ramsey and then do some quick research on his advice you can soon ascertain his advice is subpar at best.
Everyone starts with baby steps, but with his advice you’ll be taking baby steps for a long long time relative to other methods.
-
Diversification is great, but if you find Dave Ramsey and then do some quick research on his advice you can soon ascertain his advice is subpar at best.
Everyone starts with baby steps, but with his advice you’ll be taking baby steps for a long long time relative to other methods.
Yeah, at the end of his baby steps he recommends to max out your savings to 15% of your income. I never understood why he stops there because it seems low.
-
Diversification is great, but if you find Dave Ramsey and then do some quick research on his advice you can soon ascertain his advice is subpar at best.
Everyone starts with baby steps, but with his advice you’ll be taking baby steps for a long long time relative to other methods.
Yeah, at the end of his baby steps he recommends to max out your savings to 15% of your income. I never understood why he stops there because it seems low.
He never says to stop at 15%, but rather after achieving 15% you move onto saving for kid's college (baby step 5) and paying down your house (baby step 6). Baby step 7 building wealth, living & giving like no one else. The building wealth part of baby step 7 is a great opportunity to up your retirement contributions.
Another view on this was a nice interpretation I heard on Radical personal finances' podcast. He claims that Dave Ramsey's 15% recommendation (along with many others) is based on a similar chart found in MMM's "shockingly simple math" . If one was to save 15% for 43 years they would by definition be financially independent via the 4% rule. Working for 40+ years to traditional retirement age is not all that uncommon outside of the FI circles, so it makes sense. In addition, following the DR baby steps to a "tee" you'll also have a paid off home in 15 years or less adding a nice cushion for your retirement.
-
I sympathize with a few of the criticisms that have already been mentioned regarding his advice, but I generally agree it is sound advice for the average american (8% withdrawal rate being an exception).
My big issue with Dave Ramsey is the mansion he had built for himself. I simply don't buy the contortion of Christian values that tries to square excessive displays of wealth with Christ's teachings (it's known as prosperity theology). In many ways Pete acts in a more Christian way with his wealth, conserving & donating a far larger portion of it rather than frittering it away on himself and a select group of loved ones.
Ramsey has argued that he holds many fundraisers at his mansion. If that's the reason for your space, then have an event hall that you also rent out for weddings etc and donate/invest money for future donation. Otherwise its just a convenient excuse to live like a Renaissance king.
I wouldn't judge your everyday multimillionaire this harshly for living opulently, but this is a man who is held up/holds himself up as an example of how a Christian should act with their money.
-
I have mixed opinions on DR. I have never actually watched him on a show or listened to a radio show or podcast or anything, but I've read enough about his steps to know the basic idea. I know many people (including my highly dysfunctional mother) who would dramatically benefit from following DR's steps. I really like the analogies where DR is considered preschool or general ed, and other sources like MMM and Bogleheads are considered to be college/advanced education. That's the exact analogy I have used when I introduced MMM to a DR-loving friend of mine.
Although I really don't care for a lot of aspects of DR (the religious side which I find disingenuous, for instance) I think being exposed to his advice would be beneficial to a large portion of our consumerist society, although I don't know mathematically whether the number who could benefit is 30%, 50%, 90%. I think once someone is disciplined enough to be out of debt and saving money, DR leaves a lot of opportunity on the table though. I especially diverge from him on credit cards vs. cash. We use credit cards for nearly every expense possible because we want the travel rewards/cash back, be we absolutely do not ever carry a balance or pay interest on them.
I generally don't offer financial advice to other people IRL, but there have been a couple of times that I've recommended DR to people who I think could benefit from at least reading his book from the library or looking up his steps online. At least he is an entry point for people who are otherwise clueless on financial matters.
-
Although I really don't care for a lot of aspects of DR (the religious side which I find disingenuous, for instance) I think being exposed to his advice would be beneficial to a large portion of our consumerist society, although I don't know mathematically whether the number who could benefit is 30%, 50%, 90%. I think once someone is disciplined enough to be out of debt and saving money, DR leaves a lot of opportunity on the table though. I especially diverge from him on credit cards vs. cash. We use credit cards for nearly every expense possible because we want the travel rewards/cash back, be we absolutely do not ever carry a balance or pay interest on them.
I think you nailed it. I don't have the same reaction to Tony Robbin, because Tony flat out says that he wants to be insanely rich, successful, etc. I think Tony's advice is pretty similar to Dave's advice. The issue that I have with Dave is that he tries to come across as a "Good Christian", when he is helping himself by convincing his followers to buy subpar products. If when discussing investing, if he was pushing Warren Buffet's advice of investing 90% of your money in a low cost Vanguard index fund S&P 500 fund and 10% in bonds then I would be giving him more credit. Super simple advice, that many may say is too simple, but clearly not bad advice and not one where you are pushing a product that makes you money. He clearly, is not doing that. He is looking for kickbacks wherever he goes. He sells like Tony, but he seems less honest about the sell.
-
I sympathize with a few of the criticisms that have already been mentioned regarding his advice, but I generally agree it is sound advice for the average american (8% withdrawal rate being an exception).
My big issue with Dave Ramsey is the mansion he had built for himself. I simply don't buy the contortion of Christian values that tries to square excessive displays of wealth with Christ's teachings (it's known as prosperity theology). In many ways Pete acts in a more Christian way with his wealth, conserving & donating a far larger portion of it rather than frittering it away on himself and a select group of loved ones.
Ramsey has argued that he holds many fundraisers at his mansion. If that's the reason for your space, then have an event hall that you also rent out for weddings etc and donate/invest money for future donation. Otherwise its just a convenient excuse to live like a Renaissance king.
I wouldn't judge your everyday multimillionaire this harshly for living opulently, but this is a man who is held up/holds himself up as an example of how a Christian should act with their money.
Where would you say the cutoff point is in house size in order for him to remain in abidance with his faith?
-
I sympathize with a few of the criticisms that have already been mentioned regarding his advice, but I generally agree it is sound advice for the average american (8% withdrawal rate being an exception).
My big issue with Dave Ramsey is the mansion he had built for himself. I simply don't buy the contortion of Christian values that tries to square excessive displays of wealth with Christ's teachings (it's known as prosperity theology). In many ways Pete acts in a more Christian way with his wealth, conserving & donating a far larger portion of it rather than frittering it away on himself and a select group of loved ones.
Ramsey has argued that he holds many fundraisers at his mansion. If that's the reason for your space, then have an event hall that you also rent out for weddings etc and donate/invest money for future donation. Otherwise its just a convenient excuse to live like a Renaissance king.
I wouldn't judge your everyday multimillionaire this harshly for living opulently, but this is a man who is held up/holds himself up as an example of how a Christian should act with their money.
Where would you say the cutoff point is in house size in order for him to remain in abidance with his faith?
His house is over 13,000 sq ft plus a garage of nearly 1,500 sq ft.
I believe he has two children, and even if they are adult, I think it's reasonable for empty nesters to have bedrooms ready for them to encourage them to visit during holidays etc. If you have a home office/art studio that you'd rather not double as a bedroom, that's not a big deal. So that's a 3-5 bedroom house. Perfectly normal, plenty of people on this forum probably have 5 bedroom houses.
To live as a Christian I believe you would need to follow what Pope Leo XIII once wrote: "Once the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, the rest that one owns belongs to the poor"
There's nothing specifically Catholic about that teaching.
I think the cutoff is that 2,000 - 3,000 sq ft 3-5 bedroom house, unless you are informally operating as some type of shelter.
Peter Singer is known for saying something to the effect of we would feel guilty if we had two jackets and we ignored a freezing shirtless person as we walked by. But for some reason we don't feel guilty when we indulge in countless excesses knowing full well there are millions who lack basic necessities and we are fully capable of helping them. We simply choose not to and our physical distance from this suffering somehow alleviates our guilt.
The tale of the widow's mite in the gospels illustrates Pope Leo's point perfectly, that we are not judged on how much we donate but rather what portion of our wealth we donate. And this portion is preserved quite well if you only spend $30,000 a year - less so if you have a 13,000 sq ft castle to heat & cool, pay property taxes on, maintain, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
I think more people have an issue with the fact that he sometimes seems to leverage his religion to push his personal agenda/business.
-
Okay but that’s his niche. Seems like 100% of the callers are also Christian. At least that’s who they put through on the radio. I’m not, so I’m not going to take his FPU class. I don’t feel bullied or swindled to do so, and if I (an atheist) like listening, I’m sure Christians love it.
As far as leveraging a religion to push your business, I think there are more heinous examples. Dave is quite an honest man and I belive he is trying to help people. There’s nothing wrong with making a profit by helping others. That’s called working.
-
I sympathize with a few of the criticisms that have already been mentioned regarding his advice, but I generally agree it is sound advice for the average american (8% withdrawal rate being an exception).
My big issue with Dave Ramsey is the mansion he had built for himself. I simply don't buy the contortion of Christian values that tries to square excessive displays of wealth with Christ's teachings (it's known as prosperity theology). In many ways Pete acts in a more Christian way with his wealth, conserving & donating a far larger portion of it rather than frittering it away on himself and a select group of loved ones.
Ramsey has argued that he holds many fundraisers at his mansion. If that's the reason for your space, then have an event hall that you also rent out for weddings etc and donate/invest money for future donation. Otherwise its just a convenient excuse to live like a Renaissance king.
I wouldn't judge your everyday multimillionaire this harshly for living opulently, but this is a man who is held up/holds himself up as an example of how a Christian should act with their money.
Where would you say the cutoff point is in house size in order for him to remain in abidance with his faith?
If he claims to be a follower of Christ, then he should strive to have no more than Christ had. (And yes, I realize this is an impossible standard for anyone who isn't dirt poor.)
-
I was just listening to a podcast where J.D. Roth talks about how the Dave Ramsey debt snowball method made a "huge difference" in his paying off of his debt:
https://www.choosefi.com/045-jd-roth-get-rich-slowly/
Starts at about 20:00. This is J.D. Roth, people!
First exposure to Roth. He came to the same conclusion I did to: that the debt snowball isn't that much more inefficient than the debt avalanche.
-
I think more people have an issue with the fact that he sometimes seems to leverage his religion to push his personal agenda/business.
That's exactly the issue I have with him! Same as Joel Osteen. They seem so fake in their faith to me. I am much more impressed when words match actions (not that I'm great at it either, pot meet kettle for sure).
-
I didn't see anyone touch on this portion of his advice:
Conventional investing wisdom says you must start saving for retirement as soon as you can, whether or not you have debt or an emergency fund. After all, the earlier you start saving, the more time your money has to grow. Plus, you don’t want to leave money on the table by not contributing enough to your 401(k) to receive the full employer match.
While all this is true, it doesn’t take into account the fact that when people hit hard times, they will turn to their retirement accounts to make ends meet if they have no other options.
That’s why Dave takes a different approach with his Baby Steps. He actually tells you to put off retirement savings. It’s advice that goes against everything you’ve ever heard about building a secure retirement—or does it?
One Step at a Time
In Dave’s seven Baby Steps, investing for retirement doesn’t come into the picture until the fourth step:
Save a $1,000 baby emergency fund.
Pay off all your debt except your mortgage using the debt snowball method.
Save an emergency fund equal to three to six months of expenses.
Invest 15% of your income in tax-advantaged retirement accounts.
Each Baby Step adds to your financial security and helps you lay the foundation to build wealth that will last. For instance, your baby emergency fund allows you to focus on paying off debt. If you have an unexpected expense, your emergency fund will cover it, and you avoid sinking further into the hole.
Then, once you’re debt-free, you can concentrate on saving up a fully funded emergency fund instead of making payments. Finally, you’ll be able to use your income—your most powerful wealth-building tool—to make real progress on your retirement nest egg.
So... skip out on an employer match to your 401k to pay down debt and even accumulate an emergency fund? Even if you withdrew that money later as he claims, that is bad advice.
-
I didn't see anyone touch on this portion of his advice:
Conventional investing wisdom says you must start saving for retirement as soon as you can, whether or not you have debt or an emergency fund. After all, the earlier you start saving, the more time your money has to grow. Plus, you don’t want to leave money on the table by not contributing enough to your 401(k) to receive the full employer match.
While all this is true, it doesn’t take into account the fact that when people hit hard times, they will turn to their retirement accounts to make ends meet if they have no other options.
That’s why Dave takes a different approach with his Baby Steps. He actually tells you to put off retirement savings. It’s advice that goes against everything you’ve ever heard about building a secure retirement—or does it?
One Step at a Time
In Dave’s seven Baby Steps, investing for retirement doesn’t come into the picture until the fourth step:
Save a $1,000 baby emergency fund.
Pay off all your debt except your mortgage using the debt snowball method.
Save an emergency fund equal to three to six months of expenses.
Invest 15% of your income in tax-advantaged retirement accounts.
Each Baby Step adds to your financial security and helps you lay the foundation to build wealth that will last. For instance, your baby emergency fund allows you to focus on paying off debt. If you have an unexpected expense, your emergency fund will cover it, and you avoid sinking further into the hole.
Then, once you’re debt-free, you can concentrate on saving up a fully funded emergency fund instead of making payments. Finally, you’ll be able to use your income—your most powerful wealth-building tool—to make real progress on your retirement nest egg.
So... skip out on an employer match to your 401k to pay down debt and even accumulate an emergency fund? Even if you withdrew that money later as he claims, that is bad advice.
Dave Ramsey's advice comes from observations in reality. In the book The Wealthy Barber Returns, David Chilton discusses a shocking trend he is seeing with people who seek his advice. David Chilton's principle advice in The Wealth Barber was to "pay yourself first". Humans, being sophisticated machines, interpretated this as "save 15%, then spend like a maniac." Chilton as a result sees many people who save lots but accumulate lots of high-interest debt.
Ramsey drops retirement savings in step 1 & 2 because many people will gladly hold onto 20+% interest debts indefinitely if they are contributing to their 401Ks. (He also suggesting liquefying secured debts if it can't be paid off soon.) Even for low-interest debt, Ramsey somewhat makes sense. How many of us would take out a LOC at 3% to cover our living expenses so we could put more money into our RRSPs, TFSA, and other retirement accounts?
I don't understand why retirement savings can't be done in parallel to emergency fund building. Last fall, I had a series of incidents costing me nearly four thousand dollars in two months. I cash flowed it. My networth still rose. Would I feel better if I had an emergency fund? Yes. Would it take me long to build one? No. Will I stop squirreling away 30+% of my income to do it fast? Nope because I've been able to cashflow the emergencies that have happened so far.
-
Okay but that’s his niche. Seems like 100% of the callers are also Christian. At least that’s who they put through on the radio. I’m not, so I’m not going to take his FPU class. I don’t feel bullied or swindled to do so, and if I (an atheist) like listening, I’m sure Christians love it.
As far as leveraging a religion to push your business, I think there are more heinous examples. Dave is quite an honest man and I belive he is trying to help people. There’s nothing wrong with making a profit by helping others. That’s called working.
There are certainly more heinous examples. Which is why the religion thing doesn’t bother nearly as much as his simplistic approach to finance.
-
I didn't read all the comments, but I used to listen to DR when I was in college, on local radio, in the 90s. He was a totally different person then. He was kind and patient and used to say to callers "the only stupid question is the one you don't ask". Now, he's an arrogant arse and will just outright call people stupid on the air. He's so full of himself now and his whole show seems like one big sales ad. I cannot stand to listen to him. I think he has a good message in terms of keeping things simple and helping people get out of debt and save (though I loathe the religious aspect, but that's just him), but his current arrogance is just so unpalatable to me.
-
So back to the OP, my opinion is the guy hit the nail on the head when he figured out by going into churches with a program that would eliminate debt and increase tithing. Brilliant.
I listen to him occasionally, read a few of his books from the library, used the debt snowball method because I often find myself in the paralysis by analysis situation.
Do not care how big a house his has. Not a fan of his daughter or for that matter really any of the other Ramsey personalities. Intrigued to see what happens when he steps away.
I believe he's helping most that listen or call his show. And the best part is if I don't want to listen to him I can turn the station.
-
I didn't read all the comments, but I used to listen to DR when I was in college, on local radio, in the 90s. He was a totally different person then. He was kind and patient and used to say to callers "the only stupid question is the one you don't ask". Now, he's an arrogant arse and will just outright call people stupid on the air. He's so full of himself now and his whole show seems like one big sales ad. I cannot stand to listen to him. I think he has a good message in terms of keeping things simple and helping people get out of debt and save (though I loathe the religious aspect, but that's just him), but his current arrogance is just so unpalatable to me.
I started listening in 2010 and even from then to now, he seems more arrogant and infomercial-ly. I get the idea of growing the Ramsey Solutions brand, succession plans, and all of that but when I see Rachel Cruze, Chris Hogan or any of the other personalities, I tend to not listen because you know it will be the exact same message with no dissension whatsoever. Dave is good for inspiration and a few laughs once in a while but I listen a lot less than I used to.
I wonder if any old shows are out there for listening. I'd love to hear how he was in the 90s-00s.
-
His advice is great for his intended audience (people with little financial self-control and little understanding of finances/numbers who won't really change either of those characteristics much). Beyond that, some of the stuff he says is spot on and some of it is crap.
I agree with this.
My big disagreement with his baby steps is his amount of $1K as an emergency fund is not enough. It should be 6 months of expenses. At rock bottom minimum, 3 months of expenses should always be on hand.
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
I think he's straightforward in living up to his live like no one else motto. But that's not the motto of Christianity.
The problem isn't that he's insincere, it's that he is trying to shoehorn his personal financial philosophy into Christianity and giving many, many others the idea that it squares perfectly.
Christians are asked to be good stewards of what we've been given (natural resources) - meaning we should avoid wasteful consumerism, which is probably the biggest way that natural resources get unnecessarily used up. Ramsey seems to believe that we only need to avoid consumerism if we can't personally afford it, and seems to embrace it when it fits into the budget.
-
His advice is great for his intended audience (people with little financial self-control and little understanding of finances/numbers who won't really change either of those characteristics much). Beyond that, some of the stuff he says is spot on and some of it is crap.
I agree with this.
My big disagreement with his baby steps is his amount of $1K as an emergency fund is not enough. It should be 6 months of expenses. At rock bottom minimum, 3 months of expenses should always be on hand.
I used DR back in 2011 and successfully paid off $25,000 worth of credit cards and car loans. The $1,000 emergency fund worked because it was low enough to jump over Step #1 ($1,000 emergency fund) and move to Step #2 (Debt snowball). Who wants to get stuck on Step #1 for months?
For most people in credit card debt "3 Months Living Expenses"= 3 months take home pay because they spend every penny they earn. They spend MORE pennies than they earn, actually, hence the credit card debt. If the couple brings home $3,000 each month, you're telling them they have to set aside $9,000 before they tackle their debt. Do you think they are ever going to move past Step #1? Nah.
When I was doing the debt snowball, I never stopped and went back to Step #1 when emergencies hit. I let that sucker get down to $400, grit my teeth, and kept going. If an emergency beyond that happened, I reasoned that I could put it on a credit card. When tax returns rolled out, I'd use some of it to hit $1,000 in savings again, and dumped the rest on debt.
I quit Dave because his Baby Steps would have us on Step #2 forever, never saving beyond that $1,000. I can't remember my exact bills, but my snowball looked like this:
Credit #1 - $5,000
Creidt #2 - $8,000
Car - $12,000
Student Loan - $75,000
It's at 2.75% fixed interest. Why would I slam all of my money at that instead of contributing heavily to our 401ks? It makes more sense to split my money between extra payments and investments.
There's no one-size-fits-all answer. That's the biggest lesson I've learned from my journey through debt and personal finance!
-
His advice is great for his intended audience (people with little financial self-control and little understanding of finances/numbers who won't really change either of those characteristics much). Beyond that, some of the stuff he says is spot on and some of it is crap.
I agree with this.
My big disagreement with his baby steps is his amount of $1K as an emergency fund is not enough. It should be 6 months of expenses. At rock bottom minimum, 3 months of expenses should always be on hand.
Yes, but building up a $10,000 - $15,000 emergency fund if you're drowning in debt doesn't make sense. That's why baby step 1 is a starter emergency fund of $1,000, step 2 is get out of debt, then step 3 is build an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. $1,000 will cover a car repair, or an appliance going out, or a medical bill. The idea is to have enough on hand to at least keep people from increasing the balance on their credit card or doing something really stupid like getting a payday or car title loan.
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
I think he's straightforward in living up to his live like no one else motto. But that's not the motto of Christianity.
The problem isn't that he's insincere, it's that he is trying to shoehorn his personal financial philosophy into Christianity and giving many, many others the idea that it squares perfectly.
Christians are asked to be good stewards of what we've been given (natural resources) - meaning we should avoid wasteful consumerism, which is probably the biggest way that natural resources get unnecessarily used up. Ramsey seems to believe that we only need to avoid consumerism if we can't personally afford it, and seems to embrace it when it fits into the budget.
Step 7?
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
I think he's straightforward in living up to his live like no one else motto. But that's not the motto of Christianity.
The problem isn't that he's insincere, it's that he is trying to shoehorn his personal financial philosophy into Christianity and giving many, many others the idea that it squares perfectly.
Christians are asked to be good stewards of what we've been given (natural resources) - meaning we should avoid wasteful consumerism, which is probably the biggest way that natural resources get unnecessarily used up. Ramsey seems to believe that we only need to avoid consumerism if we can't personally afford it, and seems to embrace it when it fits into the budget.
Step 7?
That's how he shoehorns it. He mentions charitable giving as a great way to spend money once you have financial peace.
And humans do measure your generosity in terms of how much you give. But Jesus didn't. Jesus judged based on what portion of your net worth you gave (refer to the tale of the widow's mite). And you can give a far greater portion of your net worth if you don't burn tons of cash every year living in luxury.
My opinion is that this isn't purely a Christian take, this is a solid universal moral framework for how to live a virtuous life - and I think Pete champions it far better.
-
Of course I don’t think that “live like no one else...etc” is a Christian motto. And Dave never claims to be a prophet or something. He’s just a regular guy who developed a business and uses his religion to connect with others and convince them to believe what he believes. And buy what he sells. I think it’s fine. I learned all of this steps for free just by listening to him on the radio. He doesn’t make people buy his shit to learn his message.
I just don’t see the moral hangup about him maintaining his wealth. He does give back, donate, and change people’s lives for the better. Maybe he doesn’t give away 75% of whatever the percentage is that Jesus (apparently according to what y’all are telling me?) recommended, but who does?
Then again I don’t believe in a god, so I don’t see him through that lense. He passes some of my checklist of “good people”. 1) honest 2) helps others. But also 1)he’s arrogant 2)he comes across as a bit of an asshole if someone has a different opinion.
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
I think he's straightforward in living up to his live like no one else motto. But that's not the motto of Christianity.
The problem isn't that he's insincere, it's that he is trying to shoehorn his personal financial philosophy into Christianity and giving many, many others the idea that it squares perfectly.
Christians are asked to be good stewards of what we've been given (natural resources) - meaning we should avoid wasteful consumerism, which is probably the biggest way that natural resources get unnecessarily used up. Ramsey seems to believe that we only need to avoid consumerism if we can't personally afford it, and seems to embrace it when it fits into the budget.
Step 7?
That's how he shoehorns it. He mentions charitable giving as a great way to spend money once you have financial peace.
And humans do measure your generosity in terms of how much you give. But Jesus didn't. Jesus judged based on what portion of your net worth you gave (refer to the tale of the widow's mite). And you can give a far greater portion of your net worth if you don't burn tons of cash every year living in luxury.
My opinion is that this isn't purely a Christian take, this is a solid universal moral framework for how to live a virtuous life - and I think Pete champions it far better.
Sorry, but this is wrong. Dave teaches very specifically that you are to tithe on your increase (aka give 10% of what you make) to chruch / charity no matter what baby step you are on. Baby Step 7 is for giving generously above and beyond your tithe.
-
I didn't see anyone touch on this portion of his advice:
Conventional investing wisdom says you must start saving for retirement as soon as you can, whether or not you have debt or an emergency fund. After all, the earlier you start saving, the more time your money has to grow. Plus, you don’t want to leave money on the table by not contributing enough to your 401(k) to receive the full employer match.
While all this is true, it doesn’t take into account the fact that when people hit hard times, they will turn to their retirement accounts to make ends meet if they have no other options.
That’s why Dave takes a different approach with his Baby Steps. He actually tells you to put off retirement savings. It’s advice that goes against everything you’ve ever heard about building a secure retirement—or does it?
One Step at a Time
In Dave’s seven Baby Steps, investing for retirement doesn’t come into the picture until the fourth step:
Save a $1,000 baby emergency fund.
Pay off all your debt except your mortgage using the debt snowball method.
Save an emergency fund equal to three to six months of expenses.
Invest 15% of your income in tax-advantaged retirement accounts.
Each Baby Step adds to your financial security and helps you lay the foundation to build wealth that will last. For instance, your baby emergency fund allows you to focus on paying off debt. If you have an unexpected expense, your emergency fund will cover it, and you avoid sinking further into the hole.
Then, once you’re debt-free, you can concentrate on saving up a fully funded emergency fund instead of making payments. Finally, you’ll be able to use your income—your most powerful wealth-building tool—to make real progress on your retirement nest egg.
So... skip out on an employer match to your 401k to pay down debt and even accumulate an emergency fund? Even if you withdrew that money later as he claims, that is bad advice.
Dave Ramsey's advice comes from observations in reality. In the book The Wealthy Barber Returns, David Chilton discusses a shocking trend he is seeing with people who seek his advice. David Chilton's principle advice in The Wealth Barber was to "pay yourself first". Humans, being sophisticated machines, interpretated this as "save 15%, then spend like a maniac." Chilton as a result sees many people who save lots but accumulate lots of high-interest debt.
Ramsey drops retirement savings in step 1 & 2 because many people will gladly hold onto 20+% interest debts indefinitely if they are contributing to their 401Ks. (He also suggesting liquefying secured debts if it can't be paid off soon.) Even for low-interest debt, Ramsey somewhat makes sense. How many of us would take out a LOC at 3% to cover our living expenses so we could put more money into our RRSPs, TFSA, and other retirement accounts?
I don't understand why retirement savings can't be done in parallel to emergency fund building. Last fall, I had a series of incidents costing me nearly four thousand dollars in two months. I cash flowed it. My networth still rose. Would I feel better if I had an emergency fund? Yes. Would it take me long to build one? No. Will I stop squirreling away 30+% of my income to do it fast? Nope because I've been able to cashflow the emergencies that have happened so far.
I just can't wrap my head around the concept of skipping out on an instant 50-100% return on your investment (depending on employer plan) to pay down a car loan that is likely around 5%. Reminds me of the debt snowball in that it is a solution that runs counter to data with some vague justification that can't be proven or disproven.
-
I just can't wrap my head around the concept of skipping out on an instant 50-100% return on your investment (depending on employer plan) to pay down a car loan that is likely around 5%. Reminds me of the debt snowball in that it is a solution that runs counter to data with some vague justification that can't be proven or disproven.
I too have a hard time wrapping my head around this--but it makes a kind of sense when taken in context with his own story of bankruptcy and near-foreclosure and all that stuff he went through when he lost everything early in his adulthood (and as a result of the financial stress nearly ended up in a divorce situation with a couple of very young children in the mix).
His own personal neurosis stemming from that experience comes out in his advice to pay off all your debts before investing, so that you can be sure that nobody will ever come to take your car or your house (or even your marriage and your family) away from you. It doesn't make purely optimized mathematical sense, but it makes sense as a kind of PTSD-inspired response to what he experienced. It's the "sleep at night" factor at work, I think. Tolerance for debt varies across personalities and life situations--his debt tolerance is zero as a result of his experience. It's also good for sales--if he ever wavers people can poke holes in his strategy and not buy his stuff. ;-)
As he often says when challenged on the debt snowball "largest to smallest balance" paydown strategy over against the debt avalanche "largest to smallest interest rate" paydown strategy, he understands that the math is in favor of the avalanche method, but if people in that situation had been doing math they wouldn't have all the credit card debt in the first place. ;-)
I think what's important is understanding both the spirit and the letter of the law. For his core audience, the letter of the law approach is most often going to be more effective--clear, black-and-white, do-this-not-that Rules Of Personal Finance to get people out of the holes they find themselves in. Once your understanding of the spirit of the law increases, you can tweak the letter of the law to optimize for your own personality and circumstances.
-
The only good reason to forego a 50-100% return via match, is that you never vest into that. That is very specific to an individual's situation, but I feel he should err on the side of getting that match, as at least some vesting is likely. He doesn't want his followers to think for themselves, though, and many of them don't want to either, so you end up with idiot advice for idiots.
-
I just can't wrap my head around the concept of skipping out on an instant 50-100% return on your investment (depending on employer plan) to pay down a car loan that is likely around 5%. Reminds me of the debt snowball in that it is a solution that runs counter to data with some vague justification that can't be proven or disproven.
I too have a hard time wrapping my head around this--but it makes a kind of sense when taken in context with his own story of bankruptcy and near-foreclosure and all that stuff he went through when he lost everything early in his adulthood (and as a result of the financial stress nearly ended up in a divorce situation with a couple of very young children in the mix).
His own personal neurosis stemming from that experience comes out in his advice to pay off all your debts before investing, so that you can be sure that nobody will ever come to take your car or your house (or even your marriage and your family) away from you. It doesn't make purely optimized mathematical sense, but it makes sense as a kind of PTSD-inspired response to what he experienced. It's the "sleep at night" factor at work, I think. Tolerance for debt varies across personalities and life situations--his debt tolerance is zero as a result of his experience. It's also good for sales--if he ever wavers people can poke holes in his strategy and not buy his stuff. ;-)
As he often says when challenged on the debt snowball "largest to smallest balance" paydown strategy over against the debt avalanche "largest to smallest interest rate" paydown strategy, he understands that the math is in favor of the avalanche method, but if people in that situation had been doing math they wouldn't have all the credit card debt in the first place. ;-)
I think what's important is understanding both the spirit and the letter of the law. For his core audience, the letter of the law approach is most often going to be more effective--clear, black-and-white, do-this-not-that Rules Of Personal Finance to get people out of the holes they find themselves in. Once your understanding of the spirit of the law increases, you can tweak the letter of the law to optimize for your own personality and circumstances.
Maybe someone with financial "PTSD" as you describe it shouldn't give financial advice to others? Especially if that experience is negatively influencing his/her advice? :)
And I disagree with the "if people understood math they wouldn't have debt" argument. If someone is seeking out advice on how to get out of debt they clearly know they have an issue and are open to advice. They shouldn't be treated like children and have better strategies hidden from them because someone thinks they can't handle it.
I see no data that shows his approach is more effective but that point keeps getting parroted. Until there is hard data showing that we shouldn't be assuming that is true.
-
I'm fine with Dave Ramsey. He's an entertainer that also helps people make positive changes in their lives. His way is not necessarily the best mathematically, but it's something that people can get into and come out better than when they started. I know people personally that had no success until doing things Dave's way. It's not for everyone, it's not the best, but it's a positive influence.
-
I like him because he is a great fit for people who are financially illiterate. I don't really follow any of his advice personally, but I like the fact that he helps a lot of people who need help.
-
He helps people. Nobody said his way was the best way. It’s just a way that’s better for people that have no way.
-
I'm not gonna make fun of Dave Ramsey just because his advice is overly simplistic for me. I myself need a Dave Ramsey of exercise right now...anyone who can get my butt back in the gym and caring and accepting its all worth it is what I currently need...if their workout plan is not optimal is something that doesn't really matter until I'm in better shape and know enough to make it better....
-
The advice he provides to his followers will surely put them on a much better financial path than they are currently on. However, it's far from the best path they could be on. In a relative sense, he's providing a good service to the masses. It's much better than the realistic alternative for debt slaves. For those who like to think more critically and deeply about finance, there are much better strategies to pursue for financial optimization.
-
The advice he provides to his followers will surely put them on a much better financial path than they are currently on. However, it's far from the best path they could be on. In a relative sense, he's providing a good service to the masses. It's much better than the realistic alternative for debt slaves. For those who like to think more critically and deeply about finance, there are much better strategies to pursue for financial optimization.
Dang, I guess I'll stop listening to Dave, and now listen to random internet person with 5 posts. How many people have you helped with your excellent program?
What bug crawled up your butt? The objectively accurate post you are quoting was not an attack on you or your admiration for Ramsey.
-
The advice he provides to his followers will surely put them on a much better financial path than they are currently on. However, it's far from the best path they could be on. In a relative sense, he's providing a good service to the masses. It's much better than the realistic alternative for debt slaves. For those who like to think more critically and deeply about finance, there are much better strategies to pursue for financial optimization.
Dang, I guess I'll stop listening to Dave, and now listen to random internet person with 5 posts. How many people have you helped with your excellent program?
What bug crawled up your butt? The objectively accurate post you are quoting was not an attack on you or your admiration for Ramsey.
Do you have proof that the post is actually accurate?
Do you have proof that it's not?
-
The advice he provides to his followers will surely put them on a much better financial path than they are currently on. However, it's far from the best path they could be on. In a relative sense, he's providing a good service to the masses. It's much better than the realistic alternative for debt slaves. For those who like to think more critically and deeply about finance, there are much better strategies to pursue for financial optimization.
Dang, I guess I'll stop listening to Dave, and now listen to random internet person with 5 posts. How many people have you helped with your excellent program?
What bug crawled up your butt? The objectively accurate post you are quoting was not an attack on you or your admiration for Ramsey.
Do you have proof that the post is actually accurate?
Do you have proof that it's not?
See: Basic Math.
DR is awesome for people who are not financially literate or don’t want to put in the time to do research. It’s a good, easy to follow plan for people who don’t want to think about it too hard. But it’s not the best plan for everyone (or most people). But the most effective plan is the one that you stick to, and he’s good at getting people to stick to the plan he crafted. So an 80% improvement in finances that’s followed is better than a 90+% improvement that isn’t.
-
"I am always looking for a DEAL. A friend in the car business called m one day with a deal...on a Jaguar. All those years and tears later - when driving a Jaguar was no longer the driving force behind my desire for a "high approval rating" - God sent a Jaguar back into my life" -Dave Ramsey
Hang on a sec, just threw up a bit in my mouth...
Ok, I can concentrate again. Apparently the stuff we have or don't have in our live is based on what the creator of the universe gives us, which is apparently based on how this creature rates things like our "desires for approval".
Using simple logic, if this is true, then the poor, sick, refugees, etc, must all just have their desires or whatever in the wrong place, right??? Maybe if they were good Christians like Dave Ramsey it would all just fall in place for them.
My opinion of Dave Ramsey is low. I think his financial advice is very meh, but that's not why my opinion of him is low. I just hate that prosperity gospel bullshit.
Exactly my take on him. He seems to have tacked hard into all this crap, which requires "Christians" to literally ignore everything Jesus ever said, over the last several years. I remember listening to him maybe 10 years ago and it wasn't nearly so bad then.
-
Dang, I guess I'll stop listening to Dave, and now listen to random internet person with 5 posts. How many people have you helped with your excellent program?
Now that I have 1,000 posts, I don't really trust someone with less than 1,000 posts even if what they are saying makes complete sense, and is not overly controversial. :)
What did you find offensive about his post?
-
The advice he provides to his followers will surely put them on a much better financial path than they are currently on. However, it's far from the best path they could be on. In a relative sense, he's providing a good service to the masses. It's much better than the realistic alternative for debt slaves. For those who like to think more critically and deeply about finance, there are much better strategies to pursue for financial optimization.
Dang, I guess I'll stop listening to Dave, and now listen to random internet person with 5 posts. How many people have you helped with your excellent program?
What bug crawled up your butt? The objectively accurate post you are quoting was not an attack on you or your admiration for Ramsey.
Do you have proof that the post is actually accurate?
I believe there was a lot of it in pages 1 and 2 of this thread...
-
So a bunch of people on the internet know more about finance than the guy that's helped millions? I'm super impressed. Where are the hundreds of testimonials about your brilliant systems? I can personally say, along with many others, that Dave's system works. I suppose most of you are still "in progress" with your own super deluxe system. Also, I wouldn't underestimate the financial knowledge of someone who has done Dave's system. Those same people may have a lot less debt, and a lot more in the bank than the internet gurus who claim to have a superior solution. Real world results matter, calculations and spreadsheets are just calculations and spreadsheets. I'm off to count my money; I would pay off some debt with it, but I forgot, I don't have any. I guess I'll just keep adding it to the stack for years and years. Enjoy.
Yes, many on this thread, including people you are attacking, have agreed with you that he has helped a lot of people. And many on this board (not just you) have accumulated tons of assets...many of them by following strategies that are mathematically superior to Ramsey's.
You are being unbelievably silly. If you have such contempt for people here and are sure they are all getting it so wrong, then why not go hang out on the Ramsey forums, where you never have to hear another negative opinion of the guru, or consider an alternative strategy for financial freedom?
-
I like how he encourages people to get out of debt, buy a used car with cash, and live within their means. Simple but effective. A lot of Americans could benefit from his message.
Agree especially when it comes to American youth. Personal finance just recently became a required high school graduation requirement in Colorado. I believe that every high school student should be taught personal finance and the basics of investing before they graduate - especially the beauty of compound interest. I also believe colleges and universities should include a refresher someplace in the senior year.
I'm not a DR fan or current follower but I did learn how to budget from the DR book and method because I didn't learn from anyone else and I found him on the radio at a time in my life and marriage that I was stressing about monthly bills. His method changed my way of thinking about personal finance and debt which led to us living on 40% of our income and investing/saving 60%. DR's budgeting method played a key role in our current financial state which is quite solid. His investment advice had no impact whatsoever because the smarter we got about money, we sought out smarter investment advice.
-
I like how he encourages people to get out of debt, buy a used car with cash, and live within their means. Simple but effective. A lot of Americans could benefit from his message.
Agree especially when it comes to American youth. Personal finance just recently became a required high school graduation requirement in Colorado. I believe that every high school student should be taught personal finance and the basics of investing before they graduate - especially the beauty of compound interest. I also believe colleges and universities should include a refresher someplace in the senior year.
I'm not a DR fan or current follower but I did learn how to budget from the DR book and method because I didn't learn from anyone else and I found him on the radio at a time in my life and marriage that I was stressing about monthly bills. His method changed my way of thinking about personal finance and debt which led to us living on 40% of our income and investing/saving 60%. DR's budgeting method played a key role in our current financial state which is quite solid. His investment advice had no impact whatsoever because the smarter we got about money, we sought out smarter investment advice.
Yes, I have several times rec'd the debt snowball approach to friends and family dealing with multiple debts, who I thought were temperamentally unsuited to a mathematical approach because they wouldn't be motivated enough. I also really like how simple the initial steps are, as well.
-
I like how he encourages people to get out of debt, buy a used car with cash, and live within their means. Simple but effective. A lot of Americans could benefit from his message.
Agree especially when it comes to American youth. Personal finance just recently became a required high school graduation requirement in Colorado. I believe that every high school student should be taught personal finance and the basics of investing before they graduate - especially the beauty of compound interest. I also believe colleges and universities should include a refresher someplace in the senior year.
I'm not a DR fan or current follower but I did learn how to budget from the DR book and method because I didn't learn from anyone else and I found him on the radio at a time in my life and marriage that I was stressing about monthly bills. His method changed my way of thinking about personal finance and debt which led to us living on 40% of our income and investing/saving 60%. DR's budgeting method played a key role in our current financial state which is quite solid. His investment advice had no impact whatsoever because the smarter we got about money, we sought out smarter investment advice.
I'm glad you found his information useful, but I'm not sure you should call it "his" budgeting method (unless, some special aspect of it was instrumental to you). The envelope system has been around for longer than he's been around (I'm thinking 1950's, but probably even before that). It's simply old school.
-
I read his book way back when and thought he stole the cash envelope thing from me (that's how I managed my money from childhood through college). I wasn't in debt, so I didn't really need much of his advice, but I like reading up on finncual choices (I'm here, after all!).
I do like his EveryDollar app. I gave it a test spin to see what budgeting app I would recommend to my students, and I've kept using it for my personal spending money so I can squeeze more money into some creative projects. It's been working well.
-
The guy disserves credit, he has helped countless people deal with major debt and get them on a path to better financial stability.
His methods might be different than you, I or MMM would employ but you have to give him credit for understanding the psychology of the average American and how to get them to focus on paying off the debt.
Look at his methods they are designed to give you the little hit of success and get you excited. It is not about the best optimization of the perfect investment strategy it is about creating that positive experience and keeping it rolling.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
I like how he encourages people to get out of debt, buy a used car with cash, and live within their means. Simple but effective. A lot of Americans could benefit from his message.
Agree especially when it comes to American youth. Personal finance just recently became a required high school graduation requirement in Colorado. I believe that every high school student should be taught personal finance and the basics of investing before they graduate - especially the beauty of compound interest. I also believe colleges and universities should include a refresher someplace in the senior year.
I'm not a DR fan or current follower but I did learn how to budget from the DR book and method because I didn't learn from anyone else and I found him on the radio at a time in my life and marriage that I was stressing about monthly bills. His method changed my way of thinking about personal finance and debt which led to us living on 40% of our income and investing/saving 60%. DR's budgeting method played a key role in our current financial state which is quite solid. His investment advice had no impact whatsoever because the smarter we got about money, we sought out smarter investment advice.
I'm glad you found his information useful, but I'm not sure you should call it "his" budgeting method (unless, some special aspect of it was instrumental to you). The envelope system has been around for longer than he's been around (I'm thinking 1950's, but probably even before that). It's simply old school.
I completely agree that it's not DR's. He simply packaged and marketed it well.
My parents used envelopes when I was growing up. My mom cashed a check every Friday and divided the money into a set of envelopes (plain, white, Mead) marked for different purposes. It's unfortunate that my parents didn't teach any of their 4 children about the envelope budgeting system. I could have saved myself some heartache and 20 bucks.
-
.......
Maybe someone with financial "PTSD" as you describe it shouldn't give financial advice to others? Especially if that experience is negatively influencing his/her advice? :)
And I disagree with the "if people understood math they wouldn't have debt" argument. If someone is seeking out advice on how to get out of debt they clearly know they have an issue and are open to advice. They shouldn't be treated like children and have better strategies hidden from them because someone thinks they can't handle it.
I see no data that shows his approach is more effective but that point keeps getting parroted. Until there is hard data showing that we shouldn't be assuming that is true.
I tried searching on Google Scholar for any citations around this. Search phrases used included "debt snowball vs avalanche", "debt snowball vs debt avalanche", "debt snowball vs debt avalanche effectiveness", and others but nothing relevant came up. I then Google'd "efficacy debt snowball". Seeing that produced some relevant results. I returned to Google Scholar with the phrase "efficacy debt snowball vs debt avalanche" and found some material. I'd not consider this a thorough research into the available literature but I'd consider it a good starting point.
The Google result was a Forbes article titled: Debt Snowball Versus Debt Avalanche: What The Academic Research Shows (https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2017/07/20/debt-snowball-versus-debt-avalanche-what-the-academic-research-shows/#565e98551454)
Key Quotes:
Kellogg School of Management: This 2012 study showed that people with large balances are more likely to stick with their debt payoff plan if they focus on smaller balances first.
David Gal, one of the professors who ran the study, said, ‘We found that closing debt accounts--independent of the dollar balances of the closed accounts--predicted successful debt elimination at any point in the debt settlement program.”
Boston School of Business:
....
1. Participants who focused on one account at a time worked harder to pay down their debt.
...
In short, the research agrees with the first study that paying debts off one at a time, starting with the smallest account balance, is the way to go.
The article gives a (fairly realistic) example of the debt snowball and debt avalanche against 33,500$ of debt. Both have the same payoff term (52 months) and the avalanche saves $223. (Considering many of us on this forum would say a 34K debt should be clearable in two to three years with the median American salary instead of 4 1/3, this savings is even more paltry.)
The Google Scholar search revealed the same studies, except for this one: Small Victories: Creating Intrinsic Motivation in Savings and Debt Reduction (http://www.nber.org/papers/w20125). I read the paper up to Appendix A (30 pages). The two studies the paper focuses on studies the 'small victories' and goal gradients factors with an abstraction of task completion. (The task was writing cells in an Excel doc. They chose this experiment as it would remove participants' perceptions about debt. They were focused predominantly on the psychology of task completion.)
I would personally rate the paper of moderate quality. It does suggest the 'small victories' psychological boost increases task speed and ability to succeed. Again, I'd not take this paper as gospel but it with the others strengthens the case. The authors, when extending this to the financial (debt) sphere do prove that if the interest rates and sizes are highly skewed (ex. large high-interest debt with a large number of small, low interest debt), that the "small victories" benefit would be less than the additional cost of interest.
An interesting quote:
the subjects who benefit most from the ascending ordering are subjects with the highest self-control and reasoning ability. This last finding may suggest a flaw with the debt-snowball approach: the people who would benefit most from small victories may be the ones least likely to be in debt. Obviously, future research will need to look at the issue more carefully...
Going back to the Forbes article that I mentioned earlier, the fairly realistic example costs the individual .5% extra if they employ the debt snowball instead of the avalanche. Listening to Ramsey, this is a fairly standard debt composition for his converts. If the 'small victories' psychology of the debt snowball is pathetically small (ex. 1% increase in income and 2% increase in debt payments), we'd shave a month off the payment calendar and x00$(?). If it is 13%, we shave nine months off the payment calendar.
-
It’s not as complicated as everyone is making it. If you want maximal wealth pay off what gets off the best return on your money. If you want maximum simplicity, do Ramsey methods, no credit, no leverage, no waiting on your mortgage etc etc. One is math based, one is emotional. Choose the best for you.
I wish my mom had just chosen the Ramsey methods, but that’s because she’s really bad at this and lacks the ability to stick with a plan. Myself and many on this forum strive to do better than satisfy our preferences.
But hey if you want to pay off your 3% mortgage instead of invest in tax deferred accounts... have at it. It’s your monies;-P
-
I’m not a Christian, so maybe I’m not understanding...but I don’t think a big house makes you a worse Christian. It doesn’t make him a Mustachian but I don’t see a problem with his house from a religious standpoint. I’m sure it’s all paid for in cash. It makes his actions consistent with his words- his motto is “live like no one else” (aka scrimping and saving) “so you can live like no one else” (aka in a 13,000 sqft mansion). That’s what he’s doing. Frankly I think he’s more honest than the televangelists I sometimes see on TV. At least he owns up to liking and wanting nice stuff. And he doesn’t ask for people to send him donations or try to fleece them. He developed a program that helps people, and people pay him for his books, classes, and lectures. Seems fair and square to me.
I think he's straightforward in living up to his live like no one else motto. But that's not the motto of Christianity.
The problem isn't that he's insincere, it's that he is trying to shoehorn his personal financial philosophy into Christianity and giving many, many others the idea that it squares perfectly.
Christians are asked to be good stewards of what we've been given (natural resources) - meaning we should avoid wasteful consumerism, which is probably the biggest way that natural resources get unnecessarily used up. Ramsey seems to believe that we only need to avoid consumerism if we can't personally afford it, and seems to embrace it when it fits into the budget.
Step 7?
That's how he shoehorns it. He mentions charitable giving as a great way to spend money once you have financial peace.
And humans do measure your generosity in terms of how much you give. But Jesus didn't. Jesus judged based on what portion of your net worth you gave (refer to the tale of the widow's mite). And you can give a far greater portion of your net worth if you don't burn tons of cash every year living in luxury.
My opinion is that this isn't purely a Christian take, this is a solid universal moral framework for how to live a virtuous life - and I think Pete champions it far better.
Sorry, but this is wrong. Dave teaches very specifically that you are to tithe on your increase (aka give 10% of what you make) to chruch / charity no matter what baby step you are on. Baby Step 7 is for giving generously above and beyond your tithe.
You're right, but in a technical and irrelevant way. My point was not dependent on the timeline of your giving, but the percentage - specifically, the portion which you keep to yourself.
Dave Ramsey:
Before making a large purchase of any kind we ask God if that is what he wants us to do with HIS money. Like you I sometimes hear clearly and other times I am not sure. In the case of our home I was very sure.
I'd have more respect for Dave if he just said he wanted a mansion and so he built one. Plenty of millionaires and billionaires do this and also donate tons of money just like Dave. I respect that they don't try to make their consumer desires fit some noble sounding narrative of their life.
-
He reminds me of Steve Martin in "Leap of Faith." He may even have a little of the real thing, just like Martin's character Jonas.
-
I was a fan years ago. Read his books and even attended a live event and was active on his forums, which I believe are shut down now. I was in good financial shape for a long time but life got really screwed up and I’m in dept big time. I’m not tackling it the Dave way though, some ways I am but I’m juggling zero percent cards. I don’t budget and I put everything on my credit card. I don’t like carrying cash. But I am selling everything I can like he recommends, “til the kids and dogs think they’re next”.
I like to feel I’ve moved up a notch by coming here. Back when I was on Dave forums but only hovered here, I actually recommended MMM to people. You could tell when people were ready for a more complicated approach, for lack of a better term.
So I was quite knowledgeable and helped lots of people. . Here I have a lot to learn and kind of feel like I’m the cheapest house in a really nice neighborhood, which I’ve done a lot and that’s always good advice. :)
But Dave is a good guy. He just gets repetitive if you listen enough, you could do his show for him after awhile. It’s kind of funny, you can tell when he’s in a mood, I just cringe when they talk and think “oh crap. They’re gonna get it”. I like when he calls out the BS.
-
The one thing I'll add that people on here may dismiss is that people in financial distress often have a complete lack of long-term perspective.
It's pretty scientifically proven at this point that poorer people are *just trying to get through the day or week* rather than worry about how decisions may affect them ten years from now. It's a "scarcity mindset" that pervades everything they do--the focus on just getting by completely trumps self control and long-term planning, which leads to bad decisions.
Anecdotally, I've observed this to be pretty darn accurate. The two paralegals at my current office are dirt poor to the point that they have asked me to buy gift cards from them that they received for Christmas. But despite that, after payday, they are out to lunch eating McDonald's the following week. They go to Dollar General across the street and buy some snacks. And then money gets tight, they bring in homemade lunches, and that lasts until the next paycheck hits.
My older brother and his wife also used to be like this. They ate too much fast food to describe. They had horrifically high car--and motorcycle--plural!!!--payments. They had an "eff it, we're poor, and we'll always be poor, so why not spend the money" mentality.
I tried for years and years to get them to stop the small things, but the best thing that ever happened to them (financially) was Dave Ramsey. I feel like his teachings tap into the "scarcity mindset." My brother and his wife have gone from reckless and constantly asking my parents for money to self-sustaining, while adding a kid to the mix. They've paid off small medical debts and one of their repossessed vehicles. They are slowly building up their credit to the point that they may be able to buy a house in a couple years, which was unfathomable just twelve months ago.
So while Ramsey's stuff isn't the mathematically best result, it appears to me that it taps into the mindset of people struggling. It gives them short term wins that are in their grasp. And that leads to noticeable differences, which then leads to the next short term goal, all the way until they at least have control over their money rather than their debt controlling them.
-
I think he's great at motivating people who are emotional money people, like me. Dave Ramsey's podcasts were great to listen to and who doesn't love the debt-free screams - nice theatre.
Then, somewhere along the line, I graduated. The podcasts became annoying and repetitive, I started questioning the validity of what I was doing - is this really the best approach for me?
So, I'd say he succeeded - I paid off the debt snowball.
Even though I eventually graduated from that to the avalanche concept once I found a different money blog and realized it would save me money and time. But I must say that for me, the avalanche concept was terribly hard to accept, although, in the end, I began seeing that the math does not lie.
It seemed so counter-intuitive to not pay off a small debt and enjoy the feeling of victory.
Emotional money people like me need their happy dance:)
I even tried the envelope system - drove me totally insane. I don't understand how anyone can work with envelopes. It is so restrictive, minutely so.
Why can't I freely rob Peter to pay Paul, as long as in the end the budget balances?:)
If I have X, then that is all I have to spend, end of story. How I spend that after I paid my bills and saved a little can't possibly be pre-determined - life just doesn't work that way.
It felt like a silly Kindergarten exercise.
Why would I cut up my credit card? Put it in the freezer - well, maybe:) That alone drove me to look elsewhere for advice. How else does one reserve a hotel room or buy an airline ticket or operate in the world at large?
Do people really charge McDonald's on their credit card?
Then I realized that the EF of a $1000 was a bit too low for me ... by then I graduated away from Dave for good, He was helpful to me until I began to think for myself again.
My debt was not huge and I was nowhere near the level of desperation that I am sure some people had when they found him. I think, he is a good start and then you move on.
The Christianity spin - well, I grew up Catholic, so I have a high tolerance:) for guilt and being yelled at like he does. I even found myself in agreement once in a while.
I'm not convinced that his faith is genuine, but that is not for me to say or even dwell upon. Offering the seminars at churches across America is a simply brilliant business idea. There is no doubt in my mind that he has helped thousands, perhaps millions.
The full program itself is not perfect, but people - at some point we need to take back responsibility for our own finances and educate ourselves. Take away what works for you and get on with your life.
I don't care if he lives in a mansion or what car he drives, or that his wife likes expensive shoes and purses. They've been rich and they've been poor and had to start over again after a bankruptcy. Losing everything no matter how is a tough situation to overcome and come out on top again.
Dave has found his calling. I'm glad to know he tithes, and who knows maybe G will give him extra credit for motivating so many others to tithe as well.
The world will be better off for it:)
I do think we should all share our good fortune, but I object to tithing when one is not financially sound yet.
-
I'm glad you found his information useful, but I'm not sure you should call it "his" budgeting method (unless, some special aspect of it was instrumental to you). The envelope system has been around for longer than he's been around (I'm thinking 1950's, but probably even before that). It's simply old school.
Yup. When my parents (who were extremely frugal) got married in the early 1940s, my grandmother showed my mother the envelope system that she'd used for decades. My mom tried it for two months and tore up the envelopes and said never again. She didn't like the fussiness and all the cash, but she could save money like nobody's business.
Ramsey didn't invent this stuff. He's just good at marketing it and himself. But you can find the same basic information
in any number of personal finance books. At the public library, of course.
His Jesusy stuff would turn me off completely if I needed budgeting advice.
-
I understood his budgeting system, the thing that makes him fairly unique, to be the "zero based budget" system in which every dollar gets a name. The cash envelope system that he often suggests is actually mostly just for people getting out of debt or learning to control their money by forcing you to not overspend. He recommends debit card usage for the later baby steps. In the Financial Peace University class he actually shows a cash envelope from the 1940's with an envelope labeled "Hawaii" as a pretty powerful example of how times have changed. I don't think he has ever claimed to have invented the cash envelope system by any means, and he certainly doesn't say it's the only method.
Yes, I probably know more than I should about DR, but again... I teach the class.
-
Even though I eventually graduated from that to the avalanche concept once I found a different money blog and realized it would save me money and time. But I must say that for me, the avalanche concept was terribly hard to accept, although, in the end, I began seeing that the math does not lie.
Just curious about the math and your composition of debt at the time. I mentioned earlier that I've done the math of Ramseys' callers and the Forbes article quoted gave another example. In a somewhat typical use case, the snowball requires O(100$) more to be spent and one to six weeks extra versus the equivalent avalanche. Aberrations to that are trivial to conjure (ex. 39K debt at 3.2% with 40K debt at 28%) but I'm more so curious about a real world example.
I even tried the envelope system - drove me totally insane. I don't understand how anyone can work with envelopes. It is so restrictive, minutely so.
Why can't I freely rob Peter to pay Paul, as long as in the end the budget balances?:)
If I have X, then that is all I have to spend, end of story. How I spend that after I paid my bills and saved a little can't possibly be pre-determined - life just doesn't work that way.
It felt like a silly Kindergarten exercise.
This is what I like about the YNAB model. I have a stack of cash. I'm going to 'spend it' (ex on cloths, groceries, to other accounts) and there is a rough plan to. If I spend too much in one area, I just reallocate from another area.
-
One thing about the debt snowball vs avalanche I haven't seen mentioned yet (maybe I missed it) is that it starts to simplify one's life. And with people who are drowning in debt, they fewer obligations they have, the sooner they can start to feel like the noose around their neck is loosening. It also frees up monthly cash flow sooner allowing someone riddled in debt to be better equipped to cash flow an emergency rather than go right back in debt for it.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
-
"I am always looking for a DEAL. A friend in the car business called m one day with a deal...on a Jaguar. All those years and tears later - when driving a Jaguar was no longer the driving force behind my desire for a "high approval rating" - God sent a Jaguar back into my life" -Dave Ramsey
Hang on a sec, just threw up a bit in my mouth...
Ok, I can concentrate again. Apparently the stuff we have or don't have in our live is based on what the creator of the universe gives us, which is apparently based on how this creature rates things like our "desires for approval".
Using simple logic, if this is true, then the poor, sick, refugees, etc, must all just have their desires or whatever in the wrong place, right??? Maybe if they were good Christians like Dave Ramsey it would all just fall in place for them.
My opinion of Dave Ramsey is low. I think his financial advice is very meh, but that's not why my opinion of him is low. I just hate that prosperity gospel bullshit.
Exactly my take on him. He seems to have tacked hard into all this crap, which requires "Christians" to literally ignore everything Jesus ever said, over the last several years. I remember listening to him maybe 10 years ago and it wasn't nearly so bad then.
In general I try to keep an open mind with religion. I don't buy into any of it but I recognize that some of the values that get preached carry a fair amount of ancient human wisdom and can be philosophically good.
But as soon as someone mixes in wealth building with God my opinion of them plummets to rock bottom.
How detached and shitty a person do you have to be to celebrate the fact that you believe in a creator who has decided you have earned an I-Pad while some other poor bastard in a 3rd world country deserve to be born starving and then later jump off the building where your I-Pad was assembled....
If you want to believe in something like the teachings of Jesus then you best focus on what he preached. And that hinges around transcending petty human obsession with wealth and stuff and focusing on being good to all people.
If God loves everyone. And half the world is poverty stricken doomed to live a short life and die with nothing. Then God must not give a crap about what wealth good or bad people have. Otherwise all good people would be showered in wealth.
I suppose this is why in the Bible it mentions that it is exceeding hard for a wealthy person to be accepted into heaven. Clearly it must be because people become so enamored with their own good fortune that they pervert this into being symbolic for Gods love for them. While word after word in the Bible seems to go to great lengths that the only condition for receiving Gods love is loving him in return.
I guess I forgot the part of my brief exposure to Catholicism where God promised me a Telsa if I was patient, paid off my debt and believe in him.
-
I like how he encourages people to get out of debt, buy a used car with cash, and live within their means. Simple but effective. A lot of Americans could benefit from his message.
Agree especially when it comes to American youth. Personal finance just recently became a required high school graduation requirement in Colorado. I believe that every high school student should be taught personal finance and the basics of investing before they graduate - especially the beauty of compound interest. I also believe colleges and universities should include a refresher someplace in the senior year.
I'm not a DR fan or current follower but I did learn how to budget from the DR book and method because I didn't learn from anyone else and I found him on the radio at a time in my life and marriage that I was stressing about monthly bills. His method changed my way of thinking about personal finance and debt which led to us living on 40% of our income and investing/saving 60%. DR's budgeting method played a key role in our current financial state which is quite solid. His investment advice had no impact whatsoever because the smarter we got about money, we sought out smarter investment advice.
I'm glad you found his information useful, but I'm not sure you should call it "his" budgeting method (unless, some special aspect of it was instrumental to you). The envelope system has been around for longer than he's been around (I'm thinking 1950's, but probably even before that). It's simply old school.
I completely agree that it's not DR's. He simply packaged and marketed it well.
My parents used envelopes when I was growing up. My mom cashed a check every Friday and divided the money into a set of envelopes (plain, white, Mead) marked for different purposes. It's unfortunate that my parents didn't teach any of their 4 children about the envelope budgeting system. I could have saved myself some heartache and 20 bucks.
To what extent is DR leveraging Larry Burkett, who preceded him?
Dave gets an 'A' for financial advice targeted to your average American. His audience must be considered.
His theology gets an F-.
-
Even though I eventually graduated from that to the avalanche concept once I found a different money blog and realized it would save me money and time. But I must say that for me, the avalanche concept was terribly hard to accept, although, in the end, I began seeing that the math does not lie.
Just curious about the math and your composition of debt at the time. I mentioned earlier that I've done the math of Ramseys' callers and the Forbes article quoted gave another example. In a somewhat typical use case, the snowball requires O(100$) more to be spent and one to six weeks extra versus the equivalent avalanche. Aberrations to that are trivial to conjure (ex. 39K debt at 3.2% with 40K debt at 28%) but I'm more so curious about a real world example.
For some unfathomable reason, I could not figure out for myself for the longest time if there was a mathematical advantage. All I remember from my time in hell is that it was around 5K total cc debt and very little income to speak of - not to mention I could not work. I had only $1200 or so total debt left by the time I heard about the avalanche ($300 on one card and the remainder on another).
I think I may have saved $30 to $50, but I don't really know, it was such a long time ago.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
There is much more to the equation than just the cost childcare. Read "Your Money or Your Life".
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
In my area, it’s 1600-2200/month for infants and that’s not really adequate for a couple that is working full time. I actually moved jobs to get closer to home and day care, my in laws moved walking distance and we’re still going to need day care.
In Manhattan, day care can run as high as $3500.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
Perhaps someone with more than 1 kid? And you're missing commuting costs, which includes additional time in daycare, gas and wear and tear.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
In my area, it’s 1600-2200/month for infants and that’s not really adequate for a couple that is working full time. I actually moved jobs to get closer to home and day care, my in laws moved walking distance and we’re still going to need day care.
In Manhattan, day care can run as high as $3500.
I forget the numbers when my daughter was one.
I remember when she was three, daycare was 750$ a month and I my take-home working pay was 2,020$/month. When my daughter started at one in 2014, it was the top-rated one in our city. They had something like a 75% turnover rate though. The quality slipped accordingly. Not horribly but noticeably. It continued to slip after she left due to even more turnover.
The other daycare with repute, a Montessori daycare, did maintain over the years. It costs 800$/month.
The other daycares in the city are within the ballpark of those two.
-
Since i had taken a few years off, the jobs I'm offered pay about 20-25% less than my last one. I crunched the numbers for one job offer. After daycare for 2 kids, I would have made $1-2/hour. I had a lot of other things to take care of outside of work, so it just didn't seem worth it at the time. That's a lot of additional stress on my whole family for pennies in return. It can be argued that I should never had taken the time off from work in the first place, and I would agree, except it saved my health. I was stressed, and teetering on the edge of obese BMI, with heart disease running on both sides of my family. I got back in shape, improved my diet, and lowered the stress factor by limiting the obligations. You're not winning if you drop dead of a heart attack in your 40's!
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
In my area, it’s 1600-2200/month for infants and that’s not really adequate for a couple that is working full time. I actually moved jobs to get closer to home and day care, my in laws moved walking distance and we’re still going to need day care.
In Manhattan, day care can run as high as $3500.
I was certainly running on the assumption that if you are making $40,000 per year you are not living in Manhattan - if it is a much higher cost of living area, salaries should be higher as well no? To the other comment on more than one kid - yup, my comment still stands, but of course here in Canada we can take maternity leave for 1 year, so we generally don't have to find childcare for kids under 12 months - I would assume that would be more expensive.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
There is much more to the equation than just the cost childcare. Read "Your Money or Your Life".
Not sure why you are replying to me, since I literally only commented on the cost of childcare. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else. Have read it, thanks.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
There is much more to the equation than just the cost childcare. Read "Your Money or Your Life".
Not sure why you are replying to me, since I literally only commented on the cost of childcare. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else. Have read it, thanks.
Here is why. You said "who on earth pays $2,500 for childcare", with respect to Dave: "break[ing] down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work". You took $40,000 multiplied it by 0.75 and divided that by 12 and made the bad assumption that this means the mother is paying $2,500 for childcare. When in fact Dave breaks down the trade-off of working vs. not working into more things than just the cost of childcare in a similar way to how "Your Money or Your Life" puts you through the exercise of calculating what it really costs to work. It's not just Daycare costs.
-
To be fair, Dave's $40K working mom figure was for daycare, a 2nd car, work clothes, haircuts, lunches out, etc. It wasn't just a daycare budget.
But--in my short personal experience as a suburban SAHM--Mom will still want a car, clothes and haircuts, and cash for playdates or MOPS meetings if she's not working. SAHM doesn't equal free. I was a SAHM who couldn't afford to work, and I remember being jealous of SAHMs at MOPS meetings who rolled up in nice mini-vans with Starbucks coffee. I couldn't afford $3 coffees. (Isn't that such a silly thing to feel pangs over?!?) And I couldn't afford the music classes/gymnastics/dance classes and 2 hours of pre-school that kept their schedules so full and their nice mini-vans gliding around town.
My in-laws provide free daycare now, so I ultimately landed in the best financial situation! All income stays in my pocket! I just pay for that "free" daycare in other ways... HAHAHA
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
In my area, it’s 1600-2200/month for infants and that’s not really adequate for a couple that is working full time. I actually moved jobs to get closer to home and day care, my in laws moved walking distance and we’re still going to need day care.
In Manhattan, day care can run as high as $3500.
I was certainly running on the assumption that if you are making $40,000 per year you are not living in Manhattan - if it is a much higher cost of living area, salaries should be higher as well no? To the other comment on more than one kid - yup, my comment still stands, but of course here in Canada we can take maternity leave for 1 year, so we generally don't have to find childcare for kids under 12 months - I would assume that would be more expensive.
You’d be surprised. 40k salary isnt unheard of for people in some high cost of living areas. Young lawyers tend to make 60k and they have mountains of debt to service.
-
I'll listen from time to time, but as has been stated before, his advice is simplistic and geared toward getting out of debt. I feel that I need more advanced guidance, which Investor Alley has been able to provide me so far. Definitely don't agree with his stance on credit cards since I'm into travel hacking, piggybacking, cash rewards, etc.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
That would be like working just to pay for the childcare.
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
There is much more to the equation than just the cost childcare. Read "Your Money or Your Life".
Not sure why you are replying to me, since I literally only commented on the cost of childcare. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else. Have read it, thanks.
Here is why. You said "who on earth pays $2,500 for childcare", with respect to Dave: "break[ing] down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work". You took $40,000 multiplied it by 0.75 and divided that by 12 and made the bad assumption that this means the mother is paying $2,500 for childcare. When in fact Dave breaks down the trade-off of working vs. not working into more things than just the cost of childcare in a similar way to how "Your Money or Your Life" puts you through the exercise of calculating what it really costs to work. It's not just Daycare costs.
Here man, I bolded the part I was replying to in the post I was replying to - are you happy now?
-
Only things he doesn't mess with are having children pretty much whenever you want, women quitting their jobs to become SAHMs while the family is in lots of debt, and MLM schemes ...any statement even lightly against those three things would upset a lot of his base.
I heard him break down the costs behind a mother going to work, and he stated that unless Mom makes upwards of $40,000 it's not worth the daycare/clothes/transportation costs for her to go back to work. It makes more financial sense for her to stay home with the kids.
While I don't agree with him (Lost 401K contributions? Lost experience? Lost CEUs? Re-entering an industry with skills that are 5 years or more behind?) I appreciated that he encouraged couples to step back and actually do the math and work smarter, not harder.
That may be true that there could be some intrinsic value to staying at work if your long term career prospects are bettered by staying in the workforce. Even if one spouses pay is totally consumed by child care, which happens fairly easily.
But that is simply not true for everyone. Like anything else you have to weigh the pros and cons of having both spouses work. For some people you could easily end up with a spouse working simply so they can pay for someone else to watch your kids. And have no tangible long term gains for the sacrifice.
I think day cars naturally overplay their value in early education. They are just glorified day car. Which I would be happy to go in the hole for if it meant both my wife and I had stellar careers. But it would never change the fact that I would vastly prefer my wife our I to be at home for our young children.
There are simply limits on how much I would sacrifice to full fill that desire. At the same time this is a highly personal choice. Some people would simply go crazy having to work at home all day watching their young kids. For those people money gained may not be a huge or even the most important issue.
Who on earth pays $2500 a month for childcare?? A $40,000 income, take home of 75%, clears $2500 per month - wow, that would be crazy expensive childcare!
In my area, it’s 1600-2200/month for infants and that’s not really adequate for a couple that is working full time. I actually moved jobs to get closer to home and day care, my in laws moved walking distance and we’re still going to need day care.
In Manhattan, day care can run as high as $3500.
I was certainly running on the assumption that if you are making $40,000 per year you are not living in Manhattan - if it is a much higher cost of living area, salaries should be higher as well no? To the other comment on more than one kid - yup, my comment still stands, but of course here in Canada we can take maternity leave for 1 year, so we generally don't have to find childcare for kids under 12 months - I would assume that would be more expensive.
You’d be surprised. 40k salary isnt unheard of for people in some high cost of living areas. Young lawyers tend to make 60k and they have mountains of debt to service.
That does sound terrible, especially in a place as expensive to live as Manhattan - my deepest sympathies to those folks, that would be a hard slog for a while for sure, even being frugal.
-
Dave is coming for us, y’all!!! Haha this is a new clip where he mentions "Financial Independence" and slams it...without actually talking about what it really means.
https://youtu.be/msYY-LI4jJ0
-
I personally hold Dave high but that is because my adventure to personal and financial freedom started out with his podcasts and his book.. I still give away 100 of his books a year.. I don't care what others think about him, because it made a difference in my life... and I'm 100 percent greatful for that.. However, I know that what he says does not work for everyone, and never will... I don't go by what he says nowadays, as I'm more advanced in my thinking.. But I'm more advanced by first following his simple teachings. They got me where I am today, and I will asways respect that about him
Its not for the advanced people, but for every day common folk it is a good path to start out on
-
I personally hold Dave high but that is because my adventure to personal and financial freedom started out with his podcasts and his book.. I still give away 100 of his books a year.. I don't care what others think about him, because it made a difference in my life... and I'm 100 percent greatful for that.. However, I know that what he says does not work for everyone, and never will... I don't go by what he says nowadays, as I'm more advanced in my thinking.. But I'm more advanced by first following his simple teachings. They got me where I am today, and I will asways respect that about him
Its not for the advanced people, but for every day common folk it is a good path to start out on
Well put. His book and show definitely provided us the motivation to get out of debt. I think the majority of people in the US could benefit from his teachings. However, finance is something I'm interested in (business degree with a minor in finance) so once I was able to get out of debt and get my income up I can see things from a less emotional view. I still agree with most of his teachings but for instance I have a side business reselling products on Amazon and the interest charges for buying all the inventory on a credit card are hugely outweighed by the ability to buy more inventory that I can then turnover. If I tried to cash flow it all there's simply a limitation on how many times you can turn your inventory in a year since you basically have to wait to sell things, and get paid by Amazon before you can buy more inventory. Putting a few thousand in working capital on a credit card vs. cash will easily double or triple my growth compared to a pure cash operation.
-
I personally hold Dave high but that is because my adventure to personal and financial freedom started out with his podcasts and his book.. I still give away 100 of his books a year.. I don't care what others think about him, because it made a difference in my life... and I'm 100 percent greatful for that.. However, I know that what he says does not work for everyone, and never will... I don't go by what he says nowadays, as I'm more advanced in my thinking.. But I'm more advanced by first following his simple teachings. They got me where I am today, and I will asways respect that about him
Its not for the advanced people, but for every day common folk it is a good path to start out on
Nice! Whatever works for people is awesome IMO. I listen to the podcast on the road often because I find a lot of the success stories inspirational. It's basic stuff, but I think what he teaches is what most American families need. When you hang out on FIRE sites and talk about complex financial strategies, I find it becomes easy to forget that this community is very abnormal compared to the status quo. If it takes beating people over the head with basic hard and fast rules to keep people from going bankrupt i think that is fine, and it indirectly benefits all of us. I am not religious, but I also enjoy his moral stances on most issues refreshing, maybe that makes me abnormal.
-
Dave Ramsey is a good entry point for people interested in taking control of their finances. He introduces us to dig deeper into the financial community. He provides a ton of content to give people motivation. I thank him for giving me motivation to stick through paying off my debts.
However, I think all of us here would agree that there are issues with much of the strategy that he preaches. We are on the Mustache forum after all! I think we'd all agree that the Mustache philosophy is much more logical and complete.
Dave preaches strategy that isn't mathematically logical, such as paying of the smallest debts first rather than the highest interest rate debts first. He rarely mentions that this strategy is based on behavioral finance rather than by math. He's not dumb for creating a strategy based on behavior but he does insist his audience to blindly follow his lead without questioning his tactics. As Mustachians' we naturally take a bit of offense to this and start to question all of his plan.
On top of that we are bothered by his overt pushing of Christianity and his repeating rants on the same topics over and over. His hatred for credit cards are based on one comment an AMEX credit card collector made to his wife, which made his wife question their relationship, so he now has a secret agenda to take away as much business from credit card companies as possible. Which he's doing an alright job there.
As Mustachians' are more objective financial thinkers we are bothered by this since we know that credit card rewards generate new money, a small source of income, from doing nothing more than what we are already doing. Not partaking in credit card rewards would be like not contributing to a 401k plan with match! My credit card gives double cash back (2%) if you put the proceeds into a retirement account. I often think how it's a legal loophole to get tax free credit card rewards and put them into a roth. The time value of money increases so much here with the tax free earnings. Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich (Dave Ramsey often says that rewards dollars will never make you rich. To this sentiment, I laugh in your face Dave).
Anyways I digress. Dave isn't all bad. He's the training wheels for the financial independence community. He will never evolve his beliefs to become better which may be the root of why he is so annoying to us. We strive to be better and more efficient.
-
Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich (Dave Ramsey often says that rewards dollars will never make you rich. To this sentiment, I laugh in your face Dave).
$1000 a year for 20 years at 8% interest is only around $50k.
-
Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich (Dave Ramsey often says that rewards dollars will never make you rich. To this sentiment, I laugh in your face Dave).
$1000 a year for 20 years at 8% interest is only around $50k.
I don’t think that’s correct..
Edited: read it as ten thousand, my mistake.
Also to his point I generated an extra $2,435 in income last year from rewards.
-
$1,000 a year for 20 years at 8% = ((1.08 ^ 20) - 1)/ .08 * $1,000 ~= $45,700
-
Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich (Dave Ramsey often says that rewards dollars will never make you rich. To this sentiment, I laugh in your face Dave).
$1000 a year for 20 years at 8% interest is only around $50k.
Lol!
And with that $50k, I will be old man rich in so many bicycles, beer and bananas! Life is sweet.
-
I really agree with highplainsdrifter, Dave has some good stuff but shouldn't be the all-encompassing source for any true Mustachian. If you're trying to introduce people to Mustachianism, then I think that his tips are somewhat valuable and help to build some good financial principles.
-
I'd prefer to introduce people who need financial education to our very own monstermonster, who is building out her own personal finance education business, with more cats and
less no horrible faux Christianity bs. There are many other, better places to go for better guidance.
-
My credit card gives double cash back (2%) if you put the proceeds into a retirement account. I often think how it's a legal loophole to get tax free credit card rewards and put them into a roth. The time value of money increases so much here with the tax free earnings. Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich
Which credit card is this, if I may ask? I am looking to get a credit card, and adding as much money as possible to my IRA sounds wonderful!
-
My credit card gives double cash back (2%) if you put the proceeds into a retirement account. I often think how it's a legal loophole to get tax free credit card rewards and put them into a roth. The time value of money increases so much here with the tax free earnings. Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich
Which credit card is this, if I may ask? I am looking to get a credit card, and adding as much money as possible to my IRA sounds wonderful!
It sounds like the Fidelity Rewards Visa Signature card. I received an offer with unlimited 2% cash back and $100 bonus if you spend $500 in 90 days. Looks like you can deposit the money into several different types of Fidelity retirement accounts.
I would consider using it but have a 2.5% unlimited cash back with the USAA Limitless card. Hard to beat it since the 2.5% is for any type of purchase.
-
My credit card gives double cash back (2%) if you put the proceeds into a retirement account. I often think how it's a legal loophole to get tax free credit card rewards and put them into a roth. The time value of money increases so much here with the tax free earnings. Do to higher than normal spending last year I generated $1,000 in rewards for my roth. After 20 of compounding, the rewards might make me rich
Which credit card is this, if I may ask? I am looking to get a credit card, and adding as much money as possible to my IRA sounds wonderful!
RoadtoFreedom is correct and gave a better breakdown of the rewards. I have the Fidelity rewards card which gives 2% into nearly any Fidelity account; IRA, Brokerage, 529, etc...
-
Dave Ramsey's advice is mostly sound.
For the financially lost/clueless, he can get them on the right path.
Especially for those who like his religious stuff.
That said, a lot of his advice will seem amateurish to those who know a bit more. His jihad about NEVER using credit cards is ridiculous. Great advice to those wallowing in debt, but to suggest that frugal multimillionaires who never pay a penny in interest should not use credit cards is absurd. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of those of us who are millionaires use credit cards, despite Dave's protestations to the contrary.
He also points people to high cost "advisers." His financial advisers and tax prep people. Most of us know that index funds are a far more efficient path to wealth than paying a big fee to one of his "ELPs."
So it's fine if you are drowning and looking for a life raft. But once you get a bit further along, you'll realize that a lot of his advice isn't the best when it comes to becoming wealthy.
-
Agree with the sentiment that he offers a good introduction and kick in the pants to get started. We started with following the baby steps and still find a ton of good insight from The Total Money Makeover, but with FIRE 2025 being the new goal, we are looking past his advice and delving deeper into our personal finances and sometimes straying from his suggestions.
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
My cash flow was so tight it squeaked, but I got to the other side on schedule five years later and am mortgage-free. Also reined in my spending quite a bit and developed an appreciation for minimalism.
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
Did you calculate how much this coasted you over investing in the stock market? I would think that this set you back several years from financial independence based on the stock markets return over the past decade.
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
Did you calculate how much this coasted you over investing in the stock market? I would think that this set you back several years from financial independence based on the stock markets return over the past decade.
Astreja is a Canadian. Looking up the S&P/TSX Composite index, over the last 10 years it has grown by 3.7%. That's not per year. Looking at the Total Return of that index, it's about 25% (I'm eyeballing a chart that won't give the number). That's ~2.3% average annualized return.
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
Did you calculate how much this coasted you over investing in the stock market? I would think that this set you back several years from financial independence based on the stock markets return over the past decade.
Astreja is a Canadian. Looking up the S&P/TSX Composite index, over the last 10 years it has grown by 3.7%. That's not per year. Looking at the Total Return of that index, it's about 25% (I'm eyeballing a chart that won't give the number). That's ~2.3% average annualized return.
Being a Canadian does not preclude one from investing in other markets...
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
Did you calculate how much this coasted you over investing in the stock market? I would think that this set you back several years from financial independence based on the stock markets return over the past decade.
Astreja is a Canadian. Looking up the S&P/TSX Composite index, over the last 10 years it has grown by 3.7%. That's not per year. Looking at the Total Return of that index, it's about 25% (I'm eyeballing a chart that won't give the number). That's ~2.3% average annualized return.
Being a Canadian does not preclude one from investing in other markets...
Home country bias + favourable tax treatments + currency risk means Canadians tend to have a heavily weighted portfolio of Canadian assets. I think 30-50% is the industry standard advice but more conservative ones (due to currency risk) are higher weighted.
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
Did you calculate how much this coasted you over investing in the stock market? I would think that this set you back several years from financial independence based on the stock markets return over the past decade.
I was not investing at the time. Being mortgage-free was more important to me, and I have no regrets.
-
I agree that Dave is good for those just starting out in getting a grip on their finances, not so good for those who are past the "pants on fire" point and want to build wealth. I don't care for the whole religious thing as I personally see it as irrelevant, but I can see how it works for some.
I never regularly listened to Dave because by the time I was aware of him we were already well along on the path of mustachianism. My gateway was Your Money Or Your Life.
-
I like Dave Ramsey. I always feel the best plan is a simple plan and DR has been very successful because he is very clear, consistent and his plan is extremely simple to follow. Baby steps. 7 steps. Very little thinking required. No wishy washy do this in this circumstance but something else entirely in another blah blah blah. Black and white answers.
I believe that for a majority of people they will win better by asking for advice from DR vs sites like this or others because DR offers a plan that a person is much more likely to follow thru. Its motivating for success.
Just because I don't agree with all the little details of his plan doesn't mean I don't think his plan is good enough for most.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Just because I don't agree with all the little details of his plan doesn't mean I don't think his plan is good enough for most.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It just means it's poorly optimized. If someone can cut off years of time off their sentence, but doesn't because they can't handle a bit of detail it seems to me that they are making poor decisions.
Obviously better than saving 0% and getting into credit card debt or w/e, but that just means the person in huge debt has made even worse decisions.
It's not like its close either. It would be one thing if he were saying, its ok to live a reasonable life or something, but its stuff like pay off your debt at all costs that gets me. That stuff can be the differences of tens or hundreds of thousands of $$$ or years of a working life.
Maybe making the bar low is more realistic for most people... but screw that I don't want to barely get by a low bar. It's not even like you have to do anything crazy, just do some sound math before you make choices.
-
Just because I don't agree with all the little details of his plan doesn't mean I don't think his plan is good enough for most.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It just means it's poorly optimized. If someone can cut off years of time off their sentence, but doesn't because they can't handle a bit of detail it seems to me that they are making poor decisions.
It's just optimized for something different than early retirement... Dave's plan is optimized for potential success for the average American.
-
Compared to most other finance talk on the radio, he's very good, especially to get people started. My biggest complaint is how he suggests that its really easy to beat typical stock market returns, by finding out which mutual funds have beaten the major indexes over the last several years.
-
Just because I don't agree with all the little details of his plan doesn't mean I don't think his plan is good enough for most.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It just means it's poorly optimized. If someone can cut off years of time off their sentence, but doesn't because they can't handle a bit of detail it seems to me that they are making poor decisions.
It's just optimized for something different than early retirement... Dave's plan is optimized for potential success for the average American.
Yeah your right. It's the most effective method for the sheeps. Idk why anyone would want to be a sheep.... even if its a well led sheep or w/e (analogy breaking down lol).
-
I'm necroposting to chime that I personally love Dave Ramsey's approach and what he has done to help people. He is, in my opinion, what religion should be doing for people.
Most people are financial newbs, and they just never get past that. They need someone to scold them when they are talking about taking 10 years to pay off their $25K debt. He breaks down the math of getting out of debt (which most of his listeners are deep in) in a way everyone listening can understand. Also, he is sincerely compassionate when someone reports something terrible on his show.
He is an extremely well spoken, smart guy who has legitimately helped millions of people. He understands how emotional decision making drives most people. He understands the research behind credit card spending and how it gets out of control so easily. He understands how most CC and bank "products" harm people for their whole lives. Yes, he advertises and sells his stuff . . . I don't blame him for that at all.
If anyone came to me for financial advice, Dave Ramsey is the first place I would send them unless they already had no debt. And I'm totally areligious.
-
“Necroposting” is now my word of the day.
-
He's good for financial newbie's - babies of the sport of FI in terms of getting out of debt etc. (vast majority of people)
His advice to see a financial advisor makes sense for these people too.
I have long since graduated from his kindergarten program, currently studying for my PhD.
-
;-) I'm glad you learned the alphabet in kindergarten so that you could progress to earning your PhD. Congrats!
Probably what spurred me to this thread was thinking about a friend of mine and her two small boys. Her husband died way too young, leaving them in bad financial shape. It's been a couple of years now since that happened, and she's just floundered around and is now getting remarried after only a short time dating. I worry that is being rushed by her financial distress. When she was telling me how it all went down, about the debt and no insurance, I remember thinking "boy, I wish she and her late husband had read up on Dave Ramsey five years ago." For most people, just the basics go a really long way.
You are right, it is seriously the difference between being illiterate and being able to read. What a difference being able to read makes in our lives!
-
I listen to him on youtube sometimes. Oh, the schadenfreude! The elp stuff and the 12% mutual fund stuff is annoying. But actually what gets to me is his ridicule of frugality unless absolutely necessary. A woman called in because her husband was complaining about "only" getting $160 or something a month for fun money, and he mocked her even though there were good reasons for their budget despite the lack of debt. (I usually get $40 a month, I haven't died of it yet). His idea of "living like no one else" apparently means dying with the most toys and hidously ugly huge houses as possible, which is kinda pathetic in my opinion.
-
Over the past week, I have watched about 10 hours of you tube videos of people calling in an asking for advice. Each call is about 6 minutes.
Overall, his advice is very good for the masses, who are mostly really bad with money. When you start to gain some common sense, the Dave approach becomes less helpful. I have two main criticisms.
1) Dave claims that it's very easy to pick a mutual fund that consistently produces 12%/year and beats the market. All you have to do is find a fund that has a 10 year track record of beating the market. He ignores the science that says that 93% of mutual funds do not beat the market.
2) He suggests delivering pizzas and driving Uber for extra money, which might pay less than minimum wage, after you account for all the costs associated with driving an automobile.
When I finished grad school in 2011, I had 56K worth of student loan debt. I got my first job in south Florida, right after the housing market collapse. I told my Dave Ramsey friends that even though I had 56K worth of student loan debt, I was going to buy a house. Rent on a 2 bed condo would have been $1100. Instead, I bought a 3 bed/2 bath house for 95K. My total PITI was $665/month and now it's $625/month because the mortgage insurance is gone. It currently rents for $1850/month and it's worth about 250K. Yes, I still have 31K of student loan debt. However, if I rented for $1100/month, I might still be in a similar position.
-
I just discovered that thread and read all 4 pages of postings!
Only one of you mentioned that he states one needs no credit and no credit cards. He pays everything in cash, presumably even his multi-million dollar hillside mansion in Tennessee, and uses his debit card for renting a car, etc. So his FICO is 0 (mine is now 846), which may work for him, but it sure as hell doesn't work for somebody who wants to buy a home or even tries to be considered as a tenant in a competitive rental market. BS alert 1.
None of you have really called him out on his actively managed funds. I have some of those as well (FSPTX, TRBCX, PRGFX), but he says they are superior to index funds as they continuously make him more money. BS alert 2.
And, finally, the "no more than 25% of the take home pay and only a 15-year mortgage."
Let's run some numbers. Let's say a couple in California makes $100,000 together, annually. If they feed their 401Ks and/or IRAs with . . . let's assume $20K total, their take home will be around (just guessing) $60,000. That's $5K per month. 25% of that is $1,250. So here's a math question for you smart people: what loan amount would a 15-year mortgage have that has a monthly payment of no more than $1,250, including property taxes, escrow, etc., and then tell me if they can afford a run-down 1-car garage or a porta-potty on its own land? BS alert 3.
-
Probably what spurred me to this thread was thinking about a friend of mine and her two small boys. Her husband died way too young, leaving them in bad financial shape. It's been a couple of years now since that happened, and she's just floundered around and is now getting remarried after only a short time dating. I worry that is being rushed by her financial distress. When she was telling me how it all went down, about the debt and no insurance, I remember thinking "boy, I wish she and her late husband had read up on Dave Ramsey five years ago." For most people, just the basics go a really long way.
A lady I know and her husband had started a business. It was starting to do well. She was supporting him but couldn't actually do what the business required on her own.
He entered an intersection when the light was green and was blindsided by a criminal fleeing from the police. Killed him instantly.
Because money was short they had canceled the life insurance some time before.
In one fell swoop, no business, no job, no income. Lost almost everything.
Just make sure the basics are covered.
-
And, finally, the "no more than 25% of the take home pay and only a 15-year mortgage."
Let's run some numbers. Let's say a couple in California makes $100,000 together, annually. If they feed their 401Ks and/or IRAs with . . . let's assume $20K total, their take home will be around (just guessing) $60,000. That's $5K per month. 25% of that is $1,250. So here's a math question for you smart people: what loan amount would a 15-year mortgage have that has a monthly payment of no more than $1,250, including property taxes, escrow, etc., and then tell me if they can afford a run-down 1-car garage or a porta-potty on its own land? BS alert 3.
$1,250 would get you $175,000 loan. With a down payment, $200k+ house. Which is a VERY nice home in most of the US. In California, I guess it depends on what part. And if someone can't get the home/income ratio to work for them in California, then they can put their big boy pants on and look elsewhere. I'm not sure you are on the right site if you think spending more than 1/4 of your income on a mortgage is a good idea. :)
-
Following every piece of advice Dave Ramsey says perfectly will be better for many (most?) people.
I feel like my thoughts on Dave are summed up in: "perfect is the enemy of good."
-
For the most part, I have a high opinion of DR. Ten years ago, my husband and I had a shitload of credit card debt and other bills. I was brought up by parents who spent every dime they had and never put money away for a rainy day. I thought this was a normal way to live. Sadly, I had no idea what I was doing with finances.
I kept having anxiety thinking about the credit card bills arriving in the mail, I knew something had to change. I read Suzy Orman's books and Dave's book - The Total Money Makeover. Dave's simple way of paying off bills and slashing every frivolous expenditure resonated with me. I needed simple, in my face advice. I began listening to Dave on the radio. I liked his caller's Debt Free Screams and his down home advice on handling money. I was all in. Soon my husband was too.
We paid off all our debt and a few years later paid off our house. DR's way is exactly what we needed. We learned to be smart with money. We turned our finances around and have taught our children how to budget and manage money.
-
If you boil down DR into his top 10 rants, they pretty much come down to this:
1. Don't take on debt for anything other than a 15-year mortgage. Even then, strive to pay it off in less.
2. Pay cash for cars.
3. Attend college only at public in-state universities.
4. Major in something marketable in college.
5. Invest only in mutual funds and real estate. (Let's substitute index funds rather than Dave's 12 percent annual unicorn funds.)
6. Save at least 15 percent annually for retirement.
7. Buy term life insurance if you have dependents.
8. Don't buy horrible products like whole life insurance and timeshares.
9. If you're in debt, don't compound the problem by purchasing optional motors: boats, motorcycles, additional cars.
10. Don't hold onto money- and time-sucking real estate. (Amazing how many calls he takes from people who won't part with a previous home even though it's cash-flow negative and 1,000 miles away.)
Criticize him for his shameless shilling of all things DR and the need for his ELPs, to say nothing of his idaughter's grating voice,
but if most people followed these 10 guidelines from age 18, they'd likely live debt free and be financiallly successful.
-
$1,250 would get you $175,000 loan. With a down payment, $200k+ house. Which is a VERY nice home in most of the US. In California, I guess it depends on what part. And if someone can't get the home/income ratio to work for them in California, then they can put their big boy pants on and look elsewhere. I'm not sure you are on the right site if you think spending more than 1/4 of your income on a mortgage is a good idea. :)
Where I live, and have to live because my business is here and could not be moved if I wanted to, $200K would not buy you a mobile home. Entry price for a 2+1 from the '50s with 1000 square feet or less is close to $500K. I bought my fixer upper for $555K, put $80K in it so far, and my 30-year mortgage of $3,159.xx is indeed more than 25% of my income. If I were to rent, $1,250 would get me . . . a room in the ghetto.
That exactly was my criticism of Dave Ramsey. He does not take HCOL areas into his rigid consideration, and that's just not in tune with the real world. Somebody who can buy a house for $50K will have it easier to pay it off than somebody who has to buy a house for 10 or 15 times that amount.
-
$1,250 would get you $175,000 loan. With a down payment, $200k+ house. Which is a VERY nice home in most of the US. In California, I guess it depends on what part. And if someone can't get the home/income ratio to work for them in California, then they can put their big boy pants on and look elsewhere. I'm not sure you are on the right site if you think spending more than 1/4 of your income on a mortgage is a good idea. :)
Where I live, and have to live because my business is here and could not be moved if I wanted to, $200K would not buy you a mobile home. Entry price for a 2+1 from the '50s with 1000 square feet or less is close to $500K. I bought my fixer upper for $555K, put $80K in it so far, and my 30-year mortgage of $3,159.xx is indeed more than 25% of my income. If I were to rent, $1,250 would get me . . . a room in the ghetto.
That exactly was my criticism of Dave Ramsey. He does not take HCOL areas into his rigid consideration, and that's just not in tune with the real world. Somebody who can buy a house for $50K will have it easier to pay it off than somebody who has to buy a house for 10 or 15 times that amount.
Well to be honest if you live in a HCOL area your wages should be higher than average as well or you need to look at why and what you can do to get them up, move or accept the fact that your options in life are limited by your choices.
He is a bit aggressive with the 15 year but so is a 60% savings rate and MMM to your normal person
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
I think he is sleezey and half of his advice is unwarrented. However, he has two ideas that I'm totally on board with:
- Pay off your debt (with a snowball, but whatever).
- If you live like other people don't want to now you will get to live like other people don't get to later.
To reiterate, these are really solid principles that I feel like most of us should be behind. I just prefer it when J. R. Collins handles the delivery, and not on radio.
-
I've listened to a little more of his show this week.
He's right on target with most family and marriage advice as well. He has a very healthy sense of family dynamics and boundary setting. After probably watching 40 snippets that involved couple dynamics or family dynamics, I have agreed with him and thought he cut right to the heart of the matter 100% of the time.
I'm probably opposite with him in terms of political views, and I'm not religious, but neither of those things are really the focus of his show. The focus of his show is money and how people can exercise their power over their own lives to move their financial lives in the right direction.
-
I've listened to a little more of his show this week.
He's right on target with most family and marriage advice as well. He has a very healthy sense of family dynamics and boundary setting. After probably watching 40 snippets that involved couple dynamics or family dynamics, I have agreed with him and thought he cut right to the heart of the matter 100% of the time.
I'm probably opposite with him in terms of political views, and I'm not religious, but neither of those things are really the focus of his show. The focus of his show is money and how people can exercise their power over their own lives to move their financial lives in the right direction.
I'm a fan of anyone that is bringing financial common sense to the masses. Even if it's not the exact strategies I would use. He's really not that bad and if his strategy resonates with people, all the better for those people. As they continue their journey to financial responsibility, maybe mustachianism is down the line, too. I have a family member who was a big Ramsey fan, did a lot of good for him. Now he's big on MMM and made so many big changes over the last 5 years.
-
One thing about DR is that he isn't big on RE even if one is very well off. He often talks about encore careers, dangers of not having a job etc. But, I believe his retirement focused sidekick Chris Hogan who just wrote Everyday Millionaire might be an undercover FIRE advocate, because he's always talking about how great retirement is if you have saved for it properly, with no age requirement or other restriction.
-
I got very bored of him, which led me to seek out the FI podcasts. However, he has made some changes to his approach that have made the clips that come up on my YouTube feed much more enjoyable.
When Pete lambasted him on the blog, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he just was ahead of me when he found him, and didn't mind how harsh he was since he is willing to put his own name on the work.
-
I agree that Dave is good for those just starting out in getting a grip on their finances, not so good for those who are past the "pants on fire" point and want to build wealth. I don't care for the whole religious thing as I personally see it as irrelevant, but I can see how it works for some.
I never regularly listened to Dave because by the time I was aware of him we were already well along on the path of mustachianism. My gateway was Your Money Or Your Life.
This!^ Your Money or Your Life was the book that set me on my path also! Great book! I was never interested in Dave Ramsey's advice because I was already aware of how to optimise my spending and saving. I never was one for getting into debt in the first place, and already used credit cards responsibly, so his advise not to use them made no sense to me.
I was kind of upset when they had a set of his classes at our church. I just didn't feel that it was appropriate for a church to push his agenda. Bible study classes belong in a church, not Dave Ramsey courses! Others may not feel that way, but it rubbed me the wrong way.
Miss Prim
-
I will pile on to the group that thinks Dave Ramsey is a great place for someone starting out. He has an enormous amount of content on youtube that really helped draw me in and get the basics down. I followed almost all of his steps expect ditching the credit card.
He initially rubbed me the wrong way but quickly grew on me with his common sense advice. The debt free screams really helped to get my wife on board, which accelerated our progress in a way I didn't realize was possible. All of that lead me here, so I'm extremely grateful for that.
Now, I mostly listen to other podcasts and shows that are more FIRE related but will occasionally click one of his videos to see if he is talking about anything new, only to realize how far I've come.
If I talk to someone who has debt and stresses over it I send them to Dave Ramsey. If I talk to someone without debt but no vision for how they can ever retire, I send them to MMM.
-
^^His religion angle is the stroke of genius that has made him so wealthy. He gets buy in from the church leadership by advising people to tithe. He draws from the scriptures to reinforce his message of no debt to the faithful. My momma always said “If you really want to make a lot of money, go into the business of religion.”
I can certainly understand how your church pushing a for profit business bothers you, of course. He makes lots of money on those Financial Peace packages. On the other hand, he claims to donate lots of money back to churches and I have no reason not to believe this. Have you ever stopped to consider what other subtle financially-related agendas your church my be pushing?
His class actually does help a lot of people get out of debt, and he has free content and a free budget app that is pretty nice. You don’t really need the class to benefit from his ideas, but many people need the structure and a class also gives structure to couples trying to work together.
By the way, many religions advise against borrowing money. For example, Islam has many guidelines about borrowing, the most important of which being that loans should be paid back only in the principal amount . . . No interest.
Finally, on the religion-as-a-business topic, you definitely should not go to YouTube and look up the Jim Bakker Bulk Bucket Sampler.
-
I will pile on to the group that thinks Dave Ramsey is a great place for someone starting out. He has an enormous amount of content on youtube that really helped draw me in and get the basics down. I followed almost all of his steps expect ditching the credit card.
He initially rubbed me the wrong way but quickly grew on me with his common sense advice. The debt free screams really helped to get my wife on board, which accelerated our progress in a way I didn't realize was possible. All of that lead me here, so I'm extremely grateful for that.
Now, I mostly listen to other podcasts and shows that are more FIRE related but will occasionally click one of his videos to see if he is talking about anything new, only to realize how far I've come.
If I talk to someone who has debt and stresses over it I send them to Dave Ramsey. If I talk to someone without debt but no vision for how they can ever retire, I send them to MMM.
Idk, I'm proud of myself for holding a 0% interest 5k debt for 2 years. We'll pay it off the instant it's due, but until then I've had 2 years of 5k investing to use (going towards tax free accounts to boot). Probably made 1500-2k off that decision.
-
I think he's a good entrepreneur and knows how to make money off people who aren't critical thinkers. This is why his religious angle works so well.
-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/employer-401k-match-debt-dave-ramseys-advice
Wow. Just awful. I guess the person asking Dave for advice didn’t say the rate on his debt. But, still...just awful...
-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/employer-401k-match-debt-dave-ramseys-advice
Wow. Just awful. I guess the person asking Dave for advice didn’t say the rate on his debt. But, still...just awful...
Well... idk. It may be terrible advice (and it certainly needs more details like an interest rate :S ) for someone with a brain, but as someone whose experienced people that just can't get out of their own way it's not so bad.
I sure wish certain family members of mine had the mindset of just, stay in their little jobs, don't crazy choices, paid off debt as soon as possible and invest when done with that.
It's obviously quite far from optimal, but compare that to what they did... (invest in a 401k, instead of student loans, find a "fixer-upper house", take out 401k and incur huge amounts of taxes etc etc) and it doesn't sound so bad to just treat it like simple math, because at some point when your saving alot of money it's pretty simple, just dont screw it up.
Edit: With that said... I hyper-optimize everything and think it's insane that everyone doesn't.
-
We used to watch Suze Orman faithfully and loved the "Can I afford It?" segment of her TV show...we were even on the show once asking "If we could afford it". Since that went off the air we now listen to Dave. Though at this stage none of his advice really applies to us I still think it's pretty good and can help your average American out. We mostly just listen for entertainment at this point. I hate how he says "Pastor" though.
-
I enjoy listening to him. His show is on my podcast list I play at work and am always intrigued by the questions the callers have, particularly the ones who call him and then try to justify taking out another loan and getting him to agree that it's a good idea! However I cannot stand it when he is out and one of the Ramsey Personalities fill in. I find Chris Hogan's voice soothing but the Personalities but its almost like a telemarketer, they have their script and prompts but never think or deviate from it. Heard one the other day where a lady called in wanting to sell their current house and downsize in a move which would have reduced their mortgage. But no, they have some other non-mortgage debt and the personality kept telling them to focus on paying down the debt and keep renting. Like WTF THEY ARE NOT RENTING CURRENTLY!!!
-
Dave Ramsey is a great foot into the door of figuring this out. I feel like Ramsey is the gateway drug. I think he's entertaining, a bit too smug but it suits him. I cannot argue the basic principles. For the sage Mustachians he's not much but for the masses, 99% of our population, he does a world of good to get them on their way.
The biggest crime is that *basic* financial literacy and life skills are not taught in high school. It should be a part of core curriculum.
-
He keeps it simple for people to get out of debt. I enjoy listening to him to hear other people successfully reach there goals with his plan. My personal thought is that he's getting ready to retire and hand the empire over to Chris Hogan. Chris is good and more personable but I'll miss Dave's personality.
-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/employer-401k-match-debt-dave-ramseys-advice
Wow. Just awful. I guess the person asking Dave for advice didn’t say the rate on his debt. But, still...just awful...
Definitely more controversial part of his strategy. I would have big problems giving up my 401k match to pay down debt. However, his plan is pretty clear and people have good results going through the seven stages. I never actually used his plan but I listen all the time.
-
Although MMM changed my life, DR is where I first learned about the debt snowball, and that helped me get rid of my debt. Once I did that I was open to MMM’s messages.
-
Like this part
"Rick Santorum asked him over dinner what he wanted to see the next president do to help the economy, Ramsey says. His response: “As little as possible.”"
-
I actually started with MMM around 13' or 14' and saved like crazy, but also paid off a few debts (50k student loans).
It wasn't until around 2016 I even heard a DR podcast, and frankly I had a long commute so I wanted to listen to something.
I don't have a really good opinion of him even after listening to literally 100s of episodes. It is mostly entertainment value for me now. I think that maybe he helps a few people, but I get the vibe that most just do whatever they want anyway.
There are people who call in and say "I PAID OFF 40k" or XYZ accomplishment that is, frankly, a bit underwhelming for this board. We have people amassing a million dollars in 5-7 years here.
So maybe, like others, I think he probably helps the 'soccer moms' and other 'generics' of the world.
-
So, here's something crazy...
A friend of mine works for DR and was on the show yesterday to advocate for his FPU program. I decided to listen to the podcast for the first time in a while to see how it went. While listening, someone called in for advice and mentioned that she was going to start working at my company next week. Once she gets here, I'll be sure to reach out to her and try to steer her down a more optimized path (and maybe I'll get a FI friend out of it).
-
^Lol, that's cool! Always nice to come to a new company and have a friendly and welcoming colleague. She might be a bit embarassed that you heard her on DR, though, depending upon what topic she talked about with him, so maybe hold off on bringing that up?
I like DR's comment about the Presidency as well.
-
When I hear Dave's comments about Elizabeth Warren, it makes me really like him. I don't think I'd vote for her in the primary, but hearing someone who definitely would not vote for her ever say such positive things makes me like the guy.
-
When I hear Dave's comments about Elizabeth Warren, it makes me really like him. I don't think I'd vote for her in the primary, but hearing someone who definitely would not vote for her ever say such positive things makes me like the guy.
What did he say about Warren? Link?
-
When I hear Dave's comments about Elizabeth Warren, it makes me really like him. I don't think I'd vote for her in the primary, but hearing someone who definitely would not vote for her ever say such positive things makes me like the guy.
What did he say about Warren? Link?
This is what I remember him saying a few months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpkVU4PwPiE
-
Lol:
"You can go three hundred thousand dollars in debt getting a masters degree in left handed puppetry . . . "
So true. It's quotes like that that keep me clicking on his vids. He and Elizabeth Warren agree on a lot more than he is letting on, at least as far as it comes to personal finances.
-
I have listened to a ton of Dave Ramsey. In 2010-2012 he was starting to lose his patience with callers, and that was getting irritating for me as a listener. When I found the F.I.R.E. podcasts I wasn't as interested in his show, but have recently come back around to listening to some YouTube clips that he posts, which are usually pretty good.
-
I used to listen to Dave Ramsey a lot, he was entertaining, even if his baby steps, while effective are pretty basic. However, I find he's really dropped the ball on the Covid-19 situation. He sounded like a angry old man that can't be told what to do. Quite the opposite of what we need right now. Stopped listening to him altogether. And I can't stand all of the "Ramsey" Personalities. Chris Hogan isn't too bad but the rest... As soon as I heard them on the show, DELETE...
-
It was all becoming rather silly when the economy was booming and he had callers on six figures regularly calling in, but now the economy has taken a bad turn, I think there'll be more value in his show. Both his show and the economy need to get back to basics with a new generation of people who are falling on hard times for the first time in their lives
-
It was all becoming rather silly when the economy was booming and he had callers on six figures regularly calling in, but now the economy has taken a bad turn, I think there'll be more value in his show. Both his show and the economy need to get back to basics with a new generation of people who are falling on hard times for the first time in their lives
I dunno. I’ve been getting really frustrated with him right now because he isn’t really acknowledging the situation. He’s been kind by not beating up new listeners with “you should have been doing this before!”, but he doesn’t seem to believe that things are different right now.
Here’s a few points I disagree with him with COVID:
- It’s much wiser to have more cash than his $1000 emergency fund.
- Since a large portion of his new listeners are going to be without a job (biased because unemployment may disproportionally lead to a need to manage finances, vs still having your job and keeping spending the same) staying on unemployment longer than you originally might have done before could be a better option for your family. Don’t listen to some crazy guy yelling at you to get off UI with ANY job.
- Don’t risk your health accelerating baby step 2 (getting out of debt) for the small additional income a second job would give you. Yes, some of those side hustles could get you to 1-2k a month, but personally I don’t find that worth it at the moment. Like above, the reason why UI was boosted was to keep people at home. If you’re unable to WFH, collect UI and stay at home.
Add on my normal-time advice to ignore him and continue your 401k up to the match and use credit cards if you can pay them off for rewards.... very little of what Dave is saying right now I agree with.
-
I used to listen to Dave Ramsey a lot, he was entertaining, even if his baby steps, while effective are pretty basic. However, I find he's really dropped the ball on the Covid-19 situation. He sounded like a angry old man that can't be told what to do. Quite the opposite of what we need right now. Stopped listening to him altogether. And I can't stand all of the "Ramsey" Personalities. Chris Hogan isn't too bad but the rest... As soon as I heard them on the show, DELETE...
+1
I really think that the Dave Ramsey show really is made by him and as much as he is obviously trying to keep the brand going after he's retired (or dead, since I think he'll keep doing it until those happen at the same time more or less) it's really painful.
Most of them give borderline bad financial advice and often do not really understand/know the right things.
-
It was all becoming rather silly when the economy was booming and he had callers on six figures regularly calling in, but now the economy has taken a bad turn, I think there'll be more value in his show. Both his show and the economy need to get back to basics with a new generation of people who are falling on hard times for the first time in their lives
I dunno. I’ve been getting really frustrated with him right now because he isn’t really acknowledging the situation. He’s been kind by not beating up new listeners with “you should have been doing this before!”, but he doesn’t seem to believe that things are different right now.
Here’s a few points I disagree with him with COVID:
- It’s much wiser to have more cash than his $1000 emergency fund.
- Since a large portion of his new listeners are going to be without a job (biased because unemployment may disproportionally lead to a need to manage finances, vs still having your job and keeping spending the same) staying on unemployment longer than you originally might have done before could be a better option for your family. Don’t listen to some crazy guy yelling at you to get off UI with ANY job.
- Don’t risk your health accelerating baby step 2 (getting out of debt) for the small additional income a second job would give you. Yes, some of those side hustles could get you to 1-2k a month, but personally I don’t find that worth it at the moment. Like above, the reason why UI was boosted was to keep people at home. If you’re unable to WFH, collect UI and stay at home.
Add on my normal-time advice to ignore him and continue your 401k up to the match and use credit cards if you can pay them off for rewards.... very little of what Dave is saying right now I agree with.
We can agree to disagree.
I think DR's baby steps will be highly relevant for a whole new slew of newly desprates. It's not that he isn't acknowledging the seriousness of the situation or making light of it at all.. it's that for those who took some of the key advice like having 3-6 months of emergency cash then that affords them the luxury to *not* panic.
When you've been through a few ups and downs and learn you learn that instilling good financial habits, instilling discipline and building some resilience into your plan is worth a whole lot more than earning 1% on CC rewards.
People who already have their ducks in a row can ignore him and marvel at how simplistic his advice is. It needs to be simple because his aim is to appeal to a mass audience, not tailor a specific plan for financial geeks.
-
It was all becoming rather silly when the economy was booming and he had callers on six figures regularly calling in, but now the economy has taken a bad turn, I think there'll be more value in his show. Both his show and the economy need to get back to basics with a new generation of people who are falling on hard times for the first time in their lives
I dunno. I’ve been getting really frustrated with him right now because he isn’t really acknowledging the situation. He’s been kind by not beating up new listeners with “you should have been doing this before!”, but he doesn’t seem to believe that things are different right now.
It's been several weeks since I last checked in via YouTube, but it was gratifying to see how many of his fans there expressed outrage or disappointment at much of his C19 advice, particularly his repeated admonitions to not file for unemployment and instead seek high-risk, low-paying jobs.
-
We can agree to disagree.
I think DR's baby steps will be highly relevant for a whole new slew of newly desprates. It's not that he isn't acknowledging the seriousness of the situation or making light of it at all.. it's that for those who took some of the key advice like having 3-6 months of emergency cash then that affords them the luxury to *not* panic.
When you've been through a few ups and downs and learn you learn that instilling good financial habits, instilling discipline and building some resilience into your plan is worth a whole lot more than earning 1% on CC rewards.
People who already have their ducks in a row can ignore him and marvel at how simplistic his advice is. It needs to be simple because his aim is to appeal to a mass audience, not tailor a specific plan for financial geeks.
You are correct, his message is made to be simple to someone who stumbles across him on YouTube. Doesn't mean I think its a great plan, or a plan I'd recommend to others right now. Like I said in my post, using CCs for rewards if you can pay them off.
If we were following his message correctly right now (which we are not, we're "Dave-ish"), my husband and I would have roughly $1000 right now instead of the ~5 mo emergency fund we have instead. A lot of other financial gurus also have simple plans, and they put the emergency fund ahead of debt payoff.
-
We can agree to disagree.
I think DR's baby steps will be highly relevant for a whole new slew of newly desprates. It's not that he isn't acknowledging the seriousness of the situation or making light of it at all.. it's that for those who took some of the key advice like having 3-6 months of emergency cash then that affords them the luxury to *not* panic.
When you've been through a few ups and downs and learn you learn that instilling good financial habits, instilling discipline and building some resilience into your plan is worth a whole lot more than earning 1% on CC rewards.
People who already have their ducks in a row can ignore him and marvel at how simplistic his advice is. It needs to be simple because his aim is to appeal to a mass audience, not tailor a specific plan for financial geeks.
You are correct, his message is made to be simple to someone who stumbles across him on YouTube. Doesn't mean I think its a great plan, or a plan I'd recommend to others right now. Like I said in my post, using CCs for rewards if you can pay them off.
If we were following his message correctly right now (which we are not, we're "Dave-ish"), my husband and I would have roughly $1000 right now instead of the ~5 mo emergency fund we have instead. A lot of other financial gurus also have simple plans, and they put the emergency fund ahead of debt payoff.
As far as using credit cards for points, he has a few talking points.
1. Most airline miles never get used
2. The credit card companies are smarter than you, as evidenced by the fact that their buildings are taller than your house.
Since I'm smarter than the average bear, I know that his advice doesn't really apply to me. However, most people are idiots that find their way into large amounts of debt, so they can benefit from his advice.
As for baby step one, the $1,000 emergency fund, his expectation is that your non-mortgage debt should be paid off in two years. The idea is that you should be motivated to make extra money and cut expenses to the bone until your non-mortgage debt is paid off. If you don't feel a sense of urgency to pay it off, it'll just sit around forever.
Obviously, this is an emotional approach to finances that doesn't work for mathematically-minded people like us. We just have to realize that most people don't process things like we do, and the "optimization" approach isn't going to work for those people.
If the entire world followed Dave Ramsey's financial advice, 90% of people would be better off than they currently are.
-
I sometimes listen to some of his clips on YouTube and have rolled my eyes at some of his dismissal of the COVID-19 situation, but I agree with him on two points. 1) This isn’t the time to panic and sell your retirement funds at a loss, and 2) if you’re in the debt payoff stage of his plan, drop back down to the minimum payments, keep those current, and save any excess as cash in case things get bad. If you end up not needing the cash, use it to make big debt payments as soon as things stabilize.
-
I think Dave Ramsey does a lot of good for a lot of people and have recommended his program to a few who had debt and financial issues.
No, his program isn't optimal for me and some of the people on this board, but we're not his target audience. His target audience is people who are "losing" with money, ie in deep debt. His target audience is in financial trouble because of poor financial decisions and behaviors (living beyond their means and buying into the whole consumer debt lifestyle). I think he is absolutely correct that they need to change their behaviors by not incurring new debt and getting rid of the debt they already have. For most of those people, behavior modification will be a lot more important than mathematical optimization. For them, cutting up their credit cards is likely to have a far more positive impact than using cc points. For people being harassed by debt collectors, paying off a small debt (and not getting calls from one debt collector) probably brings greater psychological reinforcement than using that money to pay down a higher interest debt but still getting the same number of bills every month. And I think his blunt responses to callers who want to spend more than half their annual income on a car loan "because the loan is interest free" are absolutely correct (and not very different than the "facepunch" discussed here). I think Dave Ramsey is kind of like AA. AA's advice on drinking alcohol isn't relevant to me, because I'm not an alcoholic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help a lot of people or that I should tell an alcoholic he/she should become a social drinker like me.
I think Dave Ramsey and MMM share most of the common fundamentals:
--live below your means
--have a healthy emergency fund
--don't get caught up in the consumer treadmill
--invest a large portion of your savings in mutual funds
--use those mutual funds to pay for the kind of retirement you envision
To me, the differences between the MMM and Ramsey philosophies are much like the argument in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" between the followers of the gourd and the followers of the sandal.
-
My SO and I started with Dave Ramsey before finding MMM. If I would have found MMM first I don't think we would be where we are now. We needed that basic training first. Dave does illicit an emotional response to financial matters which is exactly what we needed at that time. I will forever be thankful for Dave's advice because it set us on this journey. After a couple of years of changed behavior we were able to utilize CC for points and pay them off every month. We also utilize 0% interest loans on major house repairs or upgrades even though we have the cash to pay for them so we can invest those funds. We have slowly shifted away from dealing with our financial matters in an emotional way to a more mathematical approach. Its been a great journey for us.
-
My SO and I started with Dave Ramsey before finding MMM. If I would have found MMM first I don't think we would be where we are now. We needed that basic training first. Dave does illicit an emotional response to financial matters which is exactly what we needed at that time. I will forever be thankful for Dave's advice because it set us on this journey. After a couple of years of changed behavior we were able to utilize CC for points and pay them off every month. We also utilize 0% interest loans on major house repairs or upgrades even though we have the cash to pay for them so we can invest those funds. We have slowly shifted away from dealing with our financial matters in an emotional way to a more mathematical approach. Its been a great journey for us.
I started with him probably 5-6 years ago when finally admitted that we had been sinking into (more) debt for years. We were barely making progress on our modest student loans, starting to carry balances on credit cards - even with 0% balance transfer cards that just masked the problem, and just saving enough to get my 401k match. Within 2.5 years we paid off about $35k in debt making around $50k a year. We cut our expenses, got intentional with out spending, and I was able to increase my income due to a promotion and more hours from around $40k to closer to $60k.
Fast forward a few years and we're still debt averse but I've got a few credit cards that I've made at least $1,500 on between sign-up bonuses and other rewards. I pay them off every month, often times a few weeks early because even having a $1,000 balance for regular expenses bugs me and I just want to get it down to zero. I'm strongly considering borrowing several hundred thousand dollars with an SBA loan to buy a business in the future. I'm also saving 25% of my income towards retirement instead of 15% - though that's mostly to take advantage of being in a tax free zone for a limited period of time.
-
I sometimes listen to some of his clips on YouTube and have rolled my eyes at some of his dismissal of the COVID-19 situation
I noticed that too. Dave's giving out solid financial advice as usual, but he's now gotten WAY out of his lane and is handing people blatantly incorrect information on COVID ("you just can't believe ANY of the data!"). Whatever, DR. Stick to personal finance, pal. Leave the health advice to medical experts, for the love of God.
-
We can agree to disagree.
I think DR's baby steps will be highly relevant for a whole new slew of newly desprates. It's not that he isn't acknowledging the seriousness of the situation or making light of it at all.. it's that for those who took some of the key advice like having 3-6 months of emergency cash then that affords them the luxury to *not* panic.
When you've been through a few ups and downs and learn you learn that instilling good financial habits, instilling discipline and building some resilience into your plan is worth a whole lot more than earning 1% on CC rewards.
People who already have their ducks in a row can ignore him and marvel at how simplistic his advice is. It needs to be simple because his aim is to appeal to a mass audience, not tailor a specific plan for financial geeks.
You are correct, his message is made to be simple to someone who stumbles across him on YouTube. Doesn't mean I think its a great plan, or a plan I'd recommend to others right now. Like I said in my post, using CCs for rewards if you can pay them off.
If we were following his message correctly right now (which we are not, we're "Dave-ish"), my husband and I would have roughly $1000 right now instead of the ~5 mo emergency fund we have instead. A lot of other financial gurus also have simple plans, and they put the emergency fund ahead of debt payoff.
Maybe I missed it, but how much non-mortgage debt do you have, and don't you think it would make you feel better to not have it in this situation?
-
I almost exclusively watch DR on YT when I am visiting my parents and bored out of my mind. He's entertaining and viewed as a reality TV show I think he delivers the expected product. I have never looked to DR for financial or investing advice. That said I've never had debt problems so I am not part of his target demographic.
-
We can agree to disagree.
I think DR's baby steps will be highly relevant for a whole new slew of newly desprates. It's not that he isn't acknowledging the seriousness of the situation or making light of it at all.. it's that for those who took some of the key advice like having 3-6 months of emergency cash then that affords them the luxury to *not* panic.
When you've been through a few ups and downs and learn you learn that instilling good financial habits, instilling discipline and building some resilience into your plan is worth a whole lot more than earning 1% on CC rewards.
People who already have their ducks in a row can ignore him and marvel at how simplistic his advice is. It needs to be simple because his aim is to appeal to a mass audience, not tailor a specific plan for financial geeks.
You are correct, his message is made to be simple to someone who stumbles across him on YouTube. Doesn't mean I think its a great plan, or a plan I'd recommend to others right now. Like I said in my post, using CCs for rewards if you can pay them off.
If we were following his message correctly right now (which we are not, we're "Dave-ish"), my husband and I would have roughly $1000 right now instead of the ~5 mo emergency fund we have instead. A lot of other financial gurus also have simple plans, and they put the emergency fund ahead of debt payoff.
Maybe I missed it, but how much non-mortgage debt do you have, and don't you think it would make you feel better to not have it in this situation?
We're at $28k, down from $103k in August of 2018. Set to pay off August of this year. Its all student loans, and yes, I'd love to not have it right now but I also would love to have not had it 6 months ago. The only reason why I'm okay with having it right now is the interest and payment deferments until September and hubs and I stopped to pile up cash to tide us over. I had to convince my husband how having $28k in debt and $28k in the bank would be better than $0 and $0.
And you're entirely correct about us not correctly matching up with his target demographic.
-
His stance on the PPP loan program is... interesting.
https://youtu.be/7ldH7mTUe9M
-
I sometimes listen to some of his clips on YouTube and have rolled my eyes at some of his dismissal of the COVID-19 situation
I noticed that too. Dave's giving out solid financial advice as usual, but he's now gotten WAY out of his lane and is handing people blatantly incorrect information on COVID ("you just can't believe ANY of the data!"). Whatever, DR. Stick to personal finance, pal. Leave the health advice to medical experts, for the love of God.
What was all that about? He starts saying the data doesn't match what the government is saying in one video/clip, but didn't elaborate much. Pretty disappointing to see him talk like that. I'm assuming he talked at length about what he meant in another segment (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), but consumed as one Youtube clip it seemed a bit problematic. If you want to use some numbers and make a point then go for it, but just saying the government is lying to people seems odd at best and dangerous at worst. A lot of people trust him and as we know may run with little more information.
-
I sometimes listen to some of his clips on YouTube and have rolled my eyes at some of his dismissal of the COVID-19 situation
I noticed that too. Dave's giving out solid financial advice as usual, but he's now gotten WAY out of his lane and is handing people blatantly incorrect information on COVID ("you just can't believe ANY of the data!"). Whatever, DR. Stick to personal finance, pal. Leave the health advice to medical experts, for the love of God.
What was all that about? He starts saying the data doesn't match what the government is saying in one video/clip, but didn't elaborate much. Pretty disappointing to see him talk like that. I'm assuming he talked at length about what he meant in another segment (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), but consumed as one Youtube clip it seemed a bit problematic. If you want to use some numbers and make a point then go for it, but just saying the government is lying to people seems odd at best and dangerous at worst. A lot of people trust him and as we know may run with little more information.
He's completely off the rails on this topic. Take this recent gem, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7pypTCNUiU
Someone from California calls up to complain (I'm not making this up) that her "civil liberties and freedoms" are being taken because she can't open her dance studio. DANCE fucking studio! So, in her mind, once the tyrannical CA government gets off her back, people are just going to fall over themselves to crowd themselves and their kids into her dance classes. Unreal.
Then Dave, in total agreement, launches into his usual idiotic rant about how the data aren't "credible" and how people "aren't gonna stay in their homes" because the data is so "inconsistent." Uh, yeah, Dave... if anything, we are drastically UNDER counting the true number of cases in the U.S. I've seen no credible source claim we're over-counting cases.
Dave is truly the Messiah for the hordes of American fuckwits who dig themselves into insurmountable debt and apparently can't discern fact from fiction. SMH.
-
I'm becoming more of a DR fan as time goes on. Politics aside, his program seems to really help folks understand the basics of home finance - budgeting, needs vs. wants, realistic views of finances, etc. I also like his rather blunt manner when dealing with call-ins.
As an example, a close family member recently got divorced and had to start managing her own finances after ~30 years of her husband taking care of it. At first, she had a really tough time making sure money was available to pay bills, planning for less often bills like insurance or taxes, and the like. She took an offer through her church for one of the FP courses and it made a huge impact on how she handled things. Now she had a system for creating a budget, she got a handle on planning for expenses, debts are being reduced, etc. By FIRE standards, she would have a long way to go, but for the vast majority it's a good fit.
For folks that worship at the alter of FIRE this all seems remedial and quaint but for the majority of people in financial trouble this is the missing link or the needed foundation to get their finances squared away. I didn't start thinking of it that way until a friend started sending me vids of the DR call-in segments and it really hit home that there's just a huge number of people that have no idea what debt means or how to budget or just simply how money works. The same thing can be seen in the Case Studies forum.
The downside if everyone followed the DR plan is that the economy would probably collapse. lol. There is so much debt-spending keeping things going it's more than a little scary. The upside is that it's unlikely to make that big of a dent because of plain ol' human nature.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I like Dave and he has definitely helped a lot of people. But, this article makes some very good points. Dave is the kind of guy who forms an opinion based on his experiences and then thinks that's the only way to be successful. There is more than one way to succeed financially but his way is certainly low risk and has a high likelihood of success. If you are willing to put in the work, I (and many others here) would argue you can optimize further than his plan. Some ways I would optimize:
- Invest enough in your 401K to get the match. It's free money. Even if you take it out and use it to pay down debt, the match generally covers the penalties with some left over. (not that I recommend this)
- Use the snowball method but don't be afraid to make exceptions. ex: CC debt of $40K at 19% interest and student loan of $35K at 6%. Pay off the credit card debt first. If the interest rates aren't dramatically different the momentum of paying off the smallest debts keeps you motivated.
- College debt can make sense (although some people go WAY overboard)
- Paying for an investment advisor is only worth it if you need someone to talk you out of selling in a dip. Index funds are likely to perform better.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
You are right, but hindsight is 20-20. It's a lot easier to pick the funds that HAVE done better than the S&P500 than the ones that WILL do better. Supposedly he has been able to do it. But, the average investor hasn't.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
You are right, but hindsight is 20-20. It's a lot easier to pick the funds that HAVE done better than the S&P500 than the ones that WILL do better. Supposedly he has been able to do it. But, the average investor hasn't.
Yes, of course. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. However, this is the fund that many who follow Dave closely believe he is referring to, and I just wanted to point it out. The author of this article makes kind of a funny jump in criticism #1 to #2. Here is a quick youtube video of that shows a clip from the DR show and determines that he must be referring to AGTHX as well as one other American Funds Mutual fund:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYFRuBjXRNQ
-
Dave Ramsey is great for his target market. He helps people a lot. His audience is not ready for a lot of nuance. The Mr. Money Mustache crew is not his target audience.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
From his website: https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-12-reality
When Dave Ramsey says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.
-
Dave Ramsey is bad at math. If you want a debt snowball smallest to largest that's fine. But don't tell people to take out 15 year mortgages and invest in actively managed mutual funds (https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/daves-investing-philosophy):
Mutual Funds
Mutual funds let you invest in a lot of companies at once, from the largest and most stable to the newest and fastest growing. They have teams of managers who choose companies for the fund to invest in based on the fund type.
Okay, so why is this the only investment option Dave recommends? Well, Dave likes mutual funds because spreading your investment across many companies helps you avoid the risks that come with investing in single stocks—like Dogecoin. Since mutual funds are actively managed by pros trying to pick stocks that will outperform the stock market, they’re a great option for long-term investing.
He's a charlatan that is preying on the weak, or he's an idiot, pick one.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
From his website: https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-12-reality
When Dave Ramsey says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.
I stand corrected... that's new info.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
From his website: https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-12-reality
When Dave Ramsey says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.
I stand corrected... that's new info.
He's addressed why he uses that misleading number before. It was something along the lines of:
"If it gets people to invest, why does it matter whether the number is 10% or 12%? If you invest your whole life thinking you'll have $5 million at retirement and only have $4 million, are you going to be upset and wish that you hadn't invested at all? No, so quit nitpicking."
-
I started listening to Dave Ramsey in the early 2000s, when I lived in Nashville, and his show had just started getting syndicated to a few other stations in the south. He's pretty much the same guy now that he was then, except his kids are grown and his company is much, much bigger. He might have had 100 employees back then but he now has well over 1,000.
One thing I never got about him was how averse he is to public transportation and especially bicycling. Part of that comes from the character of Nashville - it's a really tough place to be a pedestrian or ride a bike.
I think though the real problem people have with Dave isn't Dave - it's that people aren't used to people having real personalities anymore. Yeah, his anti-Covid stance is insane. But then again, most successful people have big blind spots like that.
If you spend any time around sales teams and successful small business owners, you'll find that his sort of personality isn't all that rare. It's just kept out of the mainstream media, since for the most part, advertisers shy away from such characters. The thing about Dave's radio show is that a lot of the ads are for his own products, so there isn't going to be an advertiser boycott.
-
I don't really follow much of his guidelines. However, I love watching his show. His level of arrogance is through the roof and very entertaining. One of my favorite re-occurring comments that he gives is when he talks about his discretionary spending being a small percentage of his net worth. He says, "When I go out and buy a $70,000 truck, it's like you buying a biscuit. I don't put much thought into it because it's not a big purchase for me."
I enjoyed the article. I enjoyed the math section for point #2. I never understand how Dave got 12%. Now I know. When calculating my average return for my stocks and/or real estate, I have also done the compounding math. To me it's common sense. It difficult for me to understand that someone would do it differently and be praised for their high level of knowledge of personal finance.
Dave is very good with helping millions get out of debt. He deserves credit for that. However, when it comes to investing, his advice seems to lack some basic logic in more than a few areas.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
From his website: https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-12-reality
When Dave Ramsey says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.
I stand corrected... that's new info.
He's addressed why he uses that misleading number before. It was something along the lines of:
"If it gets people to invest, why does it matter whether the number is 10% or 12%? If you invest your whole life thinking you'll have $5 million at retirement and only have $4 million, are you going to be upset and wish that you hadn't invested at all? No, so quit nitpicking."
This made me sad-chuckle. I know quite a few people that define retirement as "that age I can no longer work" and they will take a look at how much money they have at that point. It's mind boggling/terrifying.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
Nice one. Agree that it's a surprisingly well written article.
-
I thought everyone already knew his investment advice is garbage (most likely he is lining the "Ramsey-certified financial planner" pockets with those front-loads).
But I love his advice on money issues with extended families and his folksy comments, like the ones above about "nit picking" or the truck and the biscuit. He's the first one to admit he's just a stubborn old hill billy: a marketing genius old hill billy who plugged into the religious financial fountain for spreading "the gospel of money management."
-
He's addressed why he uses that misleading number before. It was something along the lines of:
"If it gets people to invest, why does it matter whether the number is 10% or 12%? If you invest your whole life thinking you'll have $5 million at retirement and only have $4 million, are you going to be upset and wish that you hadn't invested at all? No, so quit nitpicking."
I agree with the sentiment, getting people to invest is better than them not investing at all. Though it does run the risk of them under-investing due to optimistic projections.
Also, the difference between 12% and 10% is more than that over a 40 year working career (what I'd assume from "invest your whole life"). 10% would end up with $2.8 million, not $4 million. Which is still plenty in this example. But not as fine if you were targeting a cool million and find yourself with only $567k at retirement.
-
I like Dave for the way he always looks at money problems through the lens of relationship.
It seems like a lot of people don't want to think about the problems in their marriage, and he never lets them get away with pretending that isn't the real problem. And his solutions are clean, boundary-wise.
I never watched him at all before this year. I'd heard of him, but knew I didn't need his help. He's entertaining, and I was really sorry to learn he's a covidiot. And apparently, a very controlling, culty type of employer.
-
Overall I'm put off a bit by the religiosity in his writing, but I did get one very useful piece of advice from him -- "If you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else." I used that as the inspiration to amortize a refinanced mortgage balance of $40K CDN over five years, with weekly payments.
Did you calculate how much this coasted you over investing in the stock market? I would think that this set you back several years from financial independence based on the stock markets return over the past decade.
Canada has different tax rules for principle residences. This can make paying off a mortgage a better strategy.
-
I've listened to a bit of him over the years.
I like his message to eliminate debt.
I do not like his messages of suggesting some financial services which are questionable.
Suze Orman is very similar. There's is an aspect to monetizing advice. The Bogleheads wiki is unique in this regard.
-
As much as I want to like the lady guru, there's nothing that draws me to Suze Orman. I've read some of her books (from the library), I've seen her on TV spots, and I'm just bored and think she's not great. All of the financial gurus are repetitive for the purpose of messaging and making their own money, I get that, but she's repetitive in a way that bores me. I do really like Gail Vaz-Oxlade and her shows. She gives people credit when they try even if they are a little obnoxious but she can see right through their BS when they are being disingenuous. I like David Bach, the latte factor guy (automatic millionaire). He's charming and very high energy. Heck, even the financial advice book by Elizabeth Warren and her daughter is quite good. Suze Orman, though? Ugh.
Dave, on the other hand, is like getting some straight shooting from my crotchety late grandpa. Sometimes you might not like what Papa has to say, or you suspect one little part of his advice is a little off, but you love him anyway and there is no point in arguing with him. You know he means well, in his way.
-
I used to love listening to Dave Ramsey, I think his advice can help most people, and he is pretty entertaining. He lost me during Covid with his actions and I stopped listening. Just stick to personal finance, I don't want to hear your opinion on politics, Covid etc.
-
As much as I want to like the lady guru, there's nothing that draws me to Suze Orman. I've read some of her books (from the library), I've seen her on TV spots, and I'm just bored and think she's not great. All of the financial gurus are repetitive for the purpose of messaging and making their own money, I get that, but she's repetitive in a way that bores me. I do really like Gail Vaz-Oxlade and her shows. She gives people credit when they try even if they are a little obnoxious but she can see right through their BS when they are being disingenuous. I like David Bach, the latte factor guy (automatic millionaire). He's charming and very high energy. Heck, even the financial advice book by Elizabeth Warren and her daughter is quite good. Suze Orman, though? Ugh.
Dave, on the other hand, is like getting some straight shooting from my crotchety late grandpa. Sometimes you might not like what Papa has to say, or you suspect one little part of his advice is a little off, but you love him anyway and there is no point in arguing with him. You know he means well, in his way.
I know she has been mentioned before in "get out of debt" threads, but Gail Vaz Oxlade is excellent for basic finances. 'Till debt do us part was a great TV show and she has lots of good books. She is pretty blunt when necessary.
-
This thread is making me wonder what happened to @swampwiz. I miss "things swampwiz found on the internet".
-
I used to love listening to Dave Ramsey, I think his advice can help most people, and he is pretty entertaining. He lost me during Covid with his actions and I stopped listening. Just stick to personal finance, I don't want to hear your opinion on politics, Covid etc.
This but he lost me well before Covid. I get it he’s an evangelical Christian and I’m not, but either I didn’t notice how much it colors his advice to individuals or his message was more relevant to me earlier in my life. It really bothers me, how he seems to address men and women differently. I recall a call from a struggling roll flipped household where the wife was the primary earner. He told the husband to stop being a baby and get a job; where he is perfectly fine with a woman being a stay at home mother or lower earner.
I also hate his take on mortgage risk at low interest rates. Yes, having a mortgage is riskier even in order to have more money in investment, but higher risk often can lead to higher rewards. It’s those calculated risks we take that lead to great things even though we know it can end up with us crashing and burning though unlikely.
Edited for clarity.
-
I used to love listening to Dave Ramsey, I think his advice can help most people, and he is pretty entertaining. He lost me during Covid with his actions and I stopped listening. Just stick to personal finance, I don't want to hear your opinion on politics, Covid etc.
Never forget:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2020/03/03/coronavirus-stock-market/
https://twitter.com/mrmoneymustache/status/1280519241771311104?lang=en
-
Dave has seemed positively unhinged about the timeshare industry targeting him these days. He just doesn't sound reasonable in the episodes he's devoting to focusing on this issue, and it should be an easy lift for him. And--as harmful as buying a time share seems to be--he just hasn't been able to produce a high volume of callers who are actually sharing stories about being abused by that industry.
-
I used to love listening to Dave Ramsey, I think his advice can help most people, and he is pretty entertaining. He lost me during Covid with his actions and I stopped listening. Just stick to personal finance, I don't want to hear your opinion on politics, Covid etc.
Never forget:
https://twitter.com/mrmoneymustache/status/1280519241771311104?lang=en
I think that's an accurate statement for the population at large. Perhaps not for certain high risk groups or for very short timeframes. "Unhealthy diet contributes to approximately 678,000 deaths each year in the U.S." - https://www.cspinet.org/eating-healthy/why-good-nutrition-important
-
Dave has seemed positively unhinged about the timeshare industry targeting him these days. He just doesn't sound reasonable in the episodes he's devoting to focusing on this issue, and it should be an easy lift for him. And--as harmful as buying a time share seems to be--he just hasn't been able to produce a high volume of callers who are actually sharing stories about being abused by that industry.
It's interesting how different people can hear the same thing and have different reactions. I like the fact that he has been going after the timeshare industry. My MIL/FIL got absolutely screwed twice by a timeshare salesman telling them lies and selling them a timeshare they couldn't use like he said. (they are great people but are the type an unscrupulous salesperson would be excited to see walk in) I've been to a couple presentations and heard the high pressure and dishonest sales tactics myself. What else can you buy for $30,000 and not be able to give away for free in a week?
If he needs more people to call in, I would be happy to share my timeshare stories. I just haven't gotten the impression he is short on callers.
-
Thanks for the reply, indeed my criticisms of DR have more to do with his tone than his side (I am anti-timeshare myself):
- He continues his (fairly baked in) sexist trajectory in responding to the "Inside Edition" reporter who has criticized him on the issue
- He is howling and screaming at an almost Kramer-esque frequency in these segments, in some cases bragging about the value of his newly constructed headquarters (seems irrelevant)
- The callers seem to often be people who sat through sales presentations, but did not buy
- He is pretty transparently trying to help the Timeshare Exit Team business survive their legal quagmire by giving them free advertising
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He does teach "biblical" finance. And the Bible never speaks well of debt. So I'll give him credit there, even if I disagree with it from a mathematical point of view.
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He does teach "biblical" finance. And the Bible never speaks well of debt. So I'll give him credit there, even if I disagree with it from a mathematical point of view.
I understand the source of his POV, I just think it’s fucking stupid.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.
So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.
I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.
So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.
I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.
Right, but timeshare companies will take little things like just paying the fees from the heir's account (not the estate) as "proof of acceptance". I'm not sure that would hold up in court but some heirs who are just trying to do the right thing have been suckered into taking over the payments.
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He doesn't oppose mortgage debt for a primary residence.
He does oppose loans for vacation homes and investment properties.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.
So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.
I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.
Soon after we married, DH’s parents casually mentioned that they had added all three of their kids to their timeshare deed so that they would all inherit equally when they passed. If they had not mentioned it in conversation, we would have had no idea until they died. We very quickly got DH removed from that deed. IL’s were not happy about it (they think it’s a great investment, and there’s no really great way to say, “yes that’s good for you but horrible for us…”), but there’s no way we’re going to be tied to DHs siblings like that. Not to mention the timeshare thing. I have no clue how they did it without his signature, but they did.
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He does teach "biblical" finance. And the Bible never speaks well of debt. So I'll give him credit there, even if I disagree with it from a mathematical point of view.
Your post got me down a rabbit hole searching for data on household debt based on religious affiliation. I couldn't find anything recent, other than Islam having a ban on charging or paying interest (there are workarounds such as paying an upfront fee instead of interest on a mortgage). There was one on income by religion, and several on debt by other demographic factors such as age and race. It would be interesting to see data on debt by religious affiliation that's controlled for other factors like race, income, and education level. Do Christians actually have less debt than non-religious people, for example?
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He does teach "biblical" finance. And the Bible never speaks well of debt. So I'll give him credit there, even if I disagree with it from a mathematical point of view.
Your post got me down a rabbit hole searching for data on household debt based on religious affiliation. I couldn't find anything recent, other than Islam having a ban on charging or paying interest (there are workarounds such as paying an upfront fee instead of interest on a mortgage). There was one on income by religion, and several on debt by other demographic factors such as age and race. It would be interesting to see data on debt by religious affiliation that's controlled for other factors like race, income, and education level. Do Christians actually have less debt than non-religious people, for example?
Probably no difference. Christianity and the Bible do not forbid debt, it is never defined as a sin, but there are a few references in the Bible that debt is a foolish idea which is what Dave Ramsey clues into.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.
So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.
I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.
Soon after we married, DH’s parents casually mentioned that they had added all three of their kids to their timeshare deed so that they would all inherit equally when they passed. If they had not mentioned it in conversation, we would have had no idea until they died. We very quickly got DH removed from that deed. IL’s were not happy about it (they think it’s a great investment, and there’s no really great way to say, “yes that’s good for you but horrible for us…”), but there’s no way we’re going to be tied to DHs siblings like that. Not to mention the timeshare thing. I have no clue how they did it without his signature, but they did.
oy! Glad you got out of that timeshare thing. Yeah, not cool that they put your name on the deed.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
It's been a multi-year plan to try to set the company up to continue without him. The company changed its name to Ramsey Solutions a couple years back, and he's been grooming all of his "Ramsey personalities," including letting them do segments on his show to get them some traction. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked too well. That's the problem when a company is built around one personality. Shifting away isn't easy.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
It's been a multi-year plan to try to set the company up to continue without him. The company changed its name to Ramsey Solutions a couple years back, and he's been grooming all of his "Ramsey personalities," including letting them do segments on his show to get them some traction. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked too well. That's the problem when a company is built around one personality. Shifting away isn't easy.
Part of the problem is that the other personalities tend to refer to Ramsey solutions/the baby steps too much, I was listening to George Kamel the other day on the earn and invest podcast, it was boring because he referred to Ramsey solutions and the baby steps too often. George I know where you work, stop telling me every 2 minutes.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
It's been a multi-year plan to try to set the company up to continue without him. The company changed its name to Ramsey Solutions a couple years back, and he's been grooming all of his "Ramsey personalities," including letting them do segments on his show to get them some traction. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked too well. That's the problem when a company is built around one personality. Shifting away isn't easy.
I've wondered if this isn't as much about growth as it is about succession. Each of these new personalities has spun off additional content.
Among the personalities, I actually find some value, and the segments with John Doloney in particular have a lot of extra insight.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
It's been a multi-year plan to try to set the company up to continue without him. The company changed its name to Ramsey Solutions a couple years back, and he's been grooming all of his "Ramsey personalities," including letting them do segments on his show to get them some traction. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked too well. That's the problem when a company is built around one personality. Shifting away isn't easy.
I don't see this succeeding if I'm honest.
I enjoy listening to Dave Ramsey, because it's great entertainment. But the "it" part is almost exclusively the "Dave" part.
Almost none of the Ramsey personalities are remotely as interesting to listen to, as hard as they try to be.
-
Curious from the Ramsey listeners: In all of the timeshare talk does Disney Vacation Club ever come up? It's a timeshare but it is probably the only one on earth that has appreciated over time. Also has an end date instead of continuing forever.
Not an owner so I don't have a dog in the fight. Just think it would be funny if that came up and he lumped it in with everything else.
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He doesn't oppose mortgage debt for a primary residence.
He does oppose loans for vacation homes and investment properties.
Likely because everyone would laugh him off if he said to buy a house cash. One of his baby steps is still to pay off the house early so I would argue he still isn't too in favor of it.
-
My wife and I benefit from continued participation of her parents in the DVC, so I have listened carefully for this. I have never heard DR specifically name them among the problems.
It baffles me why the economics of DVC are so different than the others. Perhaps it's because Disney has private control of their theme parks, rather than the main attraction being "a beach" like it is in Myrtle Beach, for example.
-
I can’t take seriously anyone who insists all debt regardless of rate, term, and use is a moral failing. It’s simplistic and fucking stupid.
He does teach "biblical" finance. And the Bible never speaks well of debt. So I'll give him credit there, even if I disagree with it from a mathematical point of view.
I understand the source of his POV, I just think it’s fucking stupid.
It's the part where you're thinking that's tripping you up.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
It's been a multi-year plan to try to set the company up to continue without him. The company changed its name to Ramsey Solutions a couple years back, and he's been grooming all of his "Ramsey personalities," including letting them do segments on his show to get them some traction. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked too well. That's the problem when a company is built around one personality. Shifting away isn't easy.
I don't see this succeeding if I'm honest.
I enjoy listening to Dave Ramsey, because it's great entertainment. But the "it" part is almost exclusively the "Dave" part.
Almost none of the Ramsey personalities are remotely as interesting to listen to, as hard as they try to be.
Any clip with Christy Wright or the pastor guy is boring.
But forget about the "get-out-of-debt-show" being what it is on the surface, and let's dig down to the heart of it. Dave traded in the integrity of his brand when he (as a guy who won't ride an elevator alone with a lady so as to protect both of their virtue) backed up Chris Hogan when it was known that he slept with a relative, a co-worker, and a fan. The co-worker was let go, and Mrs. Hogan, who wanted leadership within the corp to help, was accused of trying to hurt the company.
Sorry, is it a company? Or are they doing the work of a great God? If the latter, then a jezebel like Chris Hogan can't come in like a whore of Babylon and slut it up all over the place. He needs to meet the corp standard or go back to being a banker where he can raw-dog to his heart's content.
One thing I like about Dave is that he did make a positive change or two as a result of listening to people on his team. For example, he used to say (regarding a son or daughter at college) that you can't support Little Johnny if he's a weed head or Little Suzy if she's sleeping around. It was a common example and one time on air you could almost hear Rachel Cruz miming to him not to criticize Suzy for her sexuality, and I don't think he has since. Another time he had on-air a blogger who criticized him, and Ramsey got nailed on his investment return percentage, and while he acted like a baby about it in the moment, he actually did adjust his percentages after.
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.
So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.
I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.
Soon after we married, DH’s parents casually mentioned that they had added all three of their kids to their timeshare deed so that they would all inherit equally when they passed. If they had not mentioned it in conversation, we would have had no idea until they died. We very quickly got DH removed from that deed. IL’s were not happy about it (they think it’s a great investment, and there’s no really great way to say, “yes that’s good for you but horrible for us…”), but there’s no way we’re going to be tied to DHs siblings like that. Not to mention the timeshare thing. I have no clue how they did it without his signature, but they did.
oy! Glad you got out of that timeshare thing. Yeah, not cool that they put your name on the deed.
Share "How I Got Out of my Timeshare" with anyone it may help.
https://oldpodcast.com/timeshare/
-
Hmmm...slimy timeshare salespeople versus a Bible-thumping egomaniac?
Hmmm...
I might need a moment.
-
My wife and I benefit from continued participation of her parents in the DVC, so I have listened carefully for this. I have never heard DR specifically name them among the problems.
It baffles me why the economics of DVC are so different than the others. Perhaps it's because Disney has private control of their theme parks, rather than the main attraction being "a beach" like it is in Myrtle Beach, for example.
I believe it's propped up by the fact their resorts are so ungodly expensive and so many want to stay close to the theme parks.
-
My wife and I benefit from continued participation of her parents in the DVC, so I have listened carefully for this. I have never heard DR specifically name them among the problems.
It baffles me why the economics of DVC are so different than the others. Perhaps it's because Disney has private control of their theme parks, rather than the main attraction being "a beach" like it is in Myrtle Beach, for example.
I believe it's propped up by the fact their resorts are so ungodly expensive and so many want to stay close to the theme parks.
Yeah, I think they're also limiting the supply so they don't flood the market.
-
My FiL approached me last month asking me what I thought of the new Riviera resort and if I thought I wanted to buy some of my own points.
That's a nope.
-
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
Exactly this. I had my crap together and was ready to move on from Dave Ramsey well before I experienced his material.
Friends of ours went to a Dave Ramsey class, and in one of the group sessions all the participants are to report debt and savings. Whoever is leading the session adds them all up, and shows the totals to the group. The amount of debt held by all the participants is supposed to tower greatly over the amount of savings: while mortgages are included as a debt, I think they are not offset by home values. Also, most people have more debt than savings.
The message is: imagine if we switched these numbers (if the debt of the group became the money the group had) how much more awesome we could be! Well, our friends shared what those totals looked like for their group, and let's just say that if we had participated, they wouldn't have been able to make their point, even though we still carry student loan debt.
-
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
Exactly this. I had my crap together and was ready to move on from Dave Ramsey well before I experienced his material.
Friends of ours went to a Dave Ramsey class, and in one of the group sessions all the participants are to report debt and savings. Whoever is leading the session adds them all up, and shows the totals to the group. The amount of debt held by all the participants is supposed to tower greatly over the amount of savings: while mortgages are included as a debt, I think they are not offset by home values. Also, most people have more debt than savings.
The message is: imagine if we switched these numbers (if the debt of the group became the money the group had) how much more awesome we could be! Well, our friends shared what those totals looked like for their group, and let's just say that if we had participated, they wouldn't have been able to make their point, even though we still carry student loan debt.
Huh. Whoever that coordinator was did not do that properly. It's a reporting of non-mortgage debt, # of credit cards, and "cash on hand"... you are not calculating net worth in this exercise so there is no home value or investment portfolios included. Source: I've coordinated financial peace university 6 times.
-
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
Exactly this. I had my crap together and was ready to move on from Dave Ramsey well before I experienced his material.
Friends of ours went to a Dave Ramsey class, and in one of the group sessions all the participants are to report debt and savings. Whoever is leading the session adds them all up, and shows the totals to the group. The amount of debt held by all the participants is supposed to tower greatly over the amount of savings: while mortgages are included as a debt, I think they are not offset by home values. Also, most people have more debt than savings.
The message is: imagine if we switched these numbers (if the debt of the group became the money the group had) how much more awesome we could be! Well, our friends shared what those totals looked like for their group, and let's just say that if we had participated, they wouldn't have been able to make their point, even though we still carry student loan debt.
Huh. Whoever that coordinator was did not do that properly. It's a reporting of non-mortgage debt, # of credit cards, and "cash on hand"... you are not calculating net worth in this exercise so there is no home value or investment portfolios included. Source: I've coordinated financial peace university 6 times.
Well that’s a dumbass metric. Why do I want a bunch of “cash on hand” instead of in an investment portfolio? My “cash in hand” is probably low 5 figures (10-15k?) because it doesn’t make me any money sitting in a savings account. It’s all in mutual funds and 401ks and 529s. But my non-mortgage debt is fairly minimal too; but do things like a car lease count as debt?
And number of credit cards? Who cares? Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter? Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%. I haven’t closed the account because why would I? Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.
-
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
Exactly this. I had my crap together and was ready to move on from Dave Ramsey well before I experienced his material.
Friends of ours went to a Dave Ramsey class, and in one of the group sessions all the participants are to report debt and savings. Whoever is leading the session adds them all up, and shows the totals to the group. The amount of debt held by all the participants is supposed to tower greatly over the amount of savings: while mortgages are included as a debt, I think they are not offset by home values. Also, most people have more debt than savings.
The message is: imagine if we switched these numbers (if the debt of the group became the money the group had) how much more awesome we could be! Well, our friends shared what those totals looked like for their group, and let's just say that if we had participated, they wouldn't have been able to make their point, even though we still carry student loan debt.
Huh. Whoever that coordinator was did not do that properly. It's a reporting of non-mortgage debt, # of credit cards, and "cash on hand"... you are not calculating net worth in this exercise so there is no home value or investment portfolios included. Source: I've coordinated financial peace university 6 times.
Another FPU coordinator here. Can confirm, it's definitely non-mortgage debt.
I'll also add that the point is not to see how much more debt we have than cash on hand. The point is to compare non-mortgage debt at the beginning of the course to non-mortgage debt at the end of the course. And the same thing with cash on hand. See how much debt we paid off and savings we grew in just 9 weeks?
-
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
Exactly this. I had my crap together and was ready to move on from Dave Ramsey well before I experienced his material.
Friends of ours went to a Dave Ramsey class, and in one of the group sessions all the participants are to report debt and savings. Whoever is leading the session adds them all up, and shows the totals to the group. The amount of debt held by all the participants is supposed to tower greatly over the amount of savings: while mortgages are included as a debt, I think they are not offset by home values. Also, most people have more debt than savings.
The message is: imagine if we switched these numbers (if the debt of the group became the money the group had) how much more awesome we could be! Well, our friends shared what those totals looked like for their group, and let's just say that if we had participated, they wouldn't have been able to make their point, even though we still carry student loan debt.
Huh. Whoever that coordinator was did not do that properly. It's a reporting of non-mortgage debt, # of credit cards, and "cash on hand"... you are not calculating net worth in this exercise so there is no home value or investment portfolios included. Source: I've coordinated financial peace university 6 times.
Well that’s a dumbass metric. Why do I want a bunch of “cash on hand” instead of in an investment portfolio? My “cash in hand” is probably low 5 figures (10-15k?) because it doesn’t make me any money sitting in a savings account. It’s all in mutual funds and 401ks and 529s. But my non-mortgage debt is fairly minimal too; but do things like a car lease count as debt?
One of the overarching goals of Financial Peace University is to become debt free, plain and simple. This is a simple metric is calculating how far from being debt free the class is, not class net worth. You report the same metrics at the end of class and it typically shows class progress towards becoming debt free. I've attached the form that the people taking the class fill out. If someone were able to calculate the debt that they owe due the the car lease, they could add it.
-
But in the end, you need to graduate from the elementary school called Ramsey University so you can live your life. If you do it without ever getting a credit car again, that's fine, but at some point you should be able to stop saying "Dave says" and move on to "I choose."
Exactly this. I had my crap together and was ready to move on from Dave Ramsey well before I experienced his material.
Friends of ours went to a Dave Ramsey class, and in one of the group sessions all the participants are to report debt and savings. Whoever is leading the session adds them all up, and shows the totals to the group. The amount of debt held by all the participants is supposed to tower greatly over the amount of savings: while mortgages are included as a debt, I think they are not offset by home values. Also, most people have more debt than savings.
The message is: imagine if we switched these numbers (if the debt of the group became the money the group had) how much more awesome we could be! Well, our friends shared what those totals looked like for their group, and let's just say that if we had participated, they wouldn't have been able to make their point, even though we still carry student loan debt.
Huh. Whoever that coordinator was did not do that properly. It's a reporting of non-mortgage debt, # of credit cards, and "cash on hand"... you are not calculating net worth in this exercise so there is no home value or investment portfolios included. Source: I've coordinated financial peace university 6 times.
Another FPU coordinator here. Can confirm, it's definitely non-mortgage debt.
I'll also add that the point is not to see how much more debt we have than cash on hand. The point is to compare non-mortgage debt at the beginning of the course to non-mortgage debt at the end of the course. And the same thing with cash on hand. See how much debt we paid off and savings we grew in just 9 weeks?
I'm probably remembering it wrong then. I know I thought at the time that my invested money would balance out all the reported debt, but I guess that's excluded. That's good since it's not information I'd want to share in person.
-
I love how half the people on this thread are like, "Well I have a lot credit cards and I have a lot of money, blah, blah, blah...". Cool story bro, so do I but I also have the common sense to know that Dave Ramsey doesn't apply to me.
-
.
And number of credit cards? Who cares? Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter? Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%. I haven’t closed the account because why would I? Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.
I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all. I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills. Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.
-
I love how half the people on this thread are like, "Well I have a lot credit cards and I have a lot of money, blah, blah, blah...". Cool story bro, so do I but I also have the common sense to know that Dave Ramsey doesn't apply to me.
My problem is that Ramsey’s bullshit isn’t marketed as “money management for financial alcoholics”, it’s marketed as “this is the one true way”.
-
I love how half the people on this thread are like, "Well I have a lot credit cards and I have a lot of money, blah, blah, blah...". Cool story bro, so do I but I also have the common sense to know that Dave Ramsey doesn't apply to me.
My problem is that Ramsey’s bullshit isn’t marketed as “money management for financial alcoholics”, it’s marketed as “this is the one true way”.
That's the packaging that appeals to the devoutly Christian audience that he largely traffics in.
-
I love how half the people on this thread are like, "Well I have a lot credit cards and I have a lot of money, blah, blah, blah...". Cool story bro, so do I but I also have the common sense to know that Dave Ramsey doesn't apply to me.
My problem is that Ramsey’s bullshit isn’t marketed as “money management for financial alcoholics”, it’s marketed as “this is the one true way”.
That's the packaging that appeals to the devoutly Christian audience that he largely traffics in.
Yup. And it’s odious to take advantage of the mentally handicapped.
[MOD NOTE: No, let's not insult people.]
-
That new guy, George Kamal, at least seems pretty intelligent. Listening to an episode with him and Ken Colemen and it's glaring the difference between the 2. Ken just regurgitates the same lines over and over again, but dumb people listen to him and buys his books. IMO Ken and Kristi are the worst and just try to push their own material for sales. Deloney is tolerable from a purely psychologist/non $$ advice point of view. I dont even count Rachel Cruz (DR's daughter) in the mix, she is barely on.
Of course, all my opinion :)
Sidenote....what happened to Anthony O'Neal?? He disappeared it seems. I would put him in the same group as Ken and Kristi, but not quite as blatant as them
-
Sidenote....what happened to Anthony O'Neal?? He disappeared it seems. I would put him in the same group as Ken and Kristi, but not quite as blatant as them
I got curious on this and saw this tweet from him:
https://twitter.com/AnthonyONeal/status/1431222002107527168
The goal isn’t to turn up in your 20’s/30’s and retire at 65.
The goal is to use your 20’s/30’s to build wealth and retire whenever you want.
Maybe he FIRE'd from his job :-)
It's a little confusing though. He's got a page https://www.ramseysolutions.com/anthony-oneal but not on https://www.ramseysolutions.com/personalities so I'm not sure what's up with that.
-
Saw this elsewhere. Sums it up pretty well.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRS7sCtQ/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRSvVkAR/
Ps this guy is hilarious
-
.
And number of credit cards? Who cares? Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter? Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%. I haven’t closed the account because why would I? Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.
I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all. I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills. Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.
MOST people's minds don't work like the minds of the people on this forum. I'm not sure why people on this forum have such a hard time understanding that.
-
.
And number of credit cards? Who cares? Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter? Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%. I haven’t closed the account because why would I? Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.
I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all. I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills. Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.
MOST people's minds don't work like the minds of the people on this forum. I'm not sure why people on this forum have such a hard time understanding that.
My "some" was me being optimistic. I have seen some young people get much more sensible in their financial thinking as they hit their late 20s. And more sensible in general, the speeding tickets disappear, the partying/drinking calms down, etc.
-
I listened to Dave Ramsey for a few minutes yesterday, first time in probably a year or two. I noticed how he's now calling it just "The Ramsey Show" as opposed to the "The Dave Ramsey Show". I suppose so he can start pulling himself out to have his kids or other folks eventually take over.
It's been a multi-year plan to try to set the company up to continue without him. The company changed its name to Ramsey Solutions a couple years back, and he's been grooming all of his "Ramsey personalities," including letting them do segments on his show to get them some traction. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked too well. That's the problem when a company is built around one personality. Shifting away isn't easy.
I remember listening to the show when I lived in Nashville upwards of 20 years ago and it was still a local show. I only recall one black caller during that time period and Dave really talked down to her in that way that southerners really talk down to people (it's a lot different than how northerners handle the same situation). At some point he realized it was good business to start attracting a black audience and that's when he brought on Chris Hogan, who became his right-hand man for many years. Chris was, by far, his best co-host.
I subscribe to Anthony O'Neil's channel on youtube. Dave has given him a license to branch out but there are definitely still boundaries if you want to work at that place, and there have to be. How could the place operate without its various personalities living their lives in close accordance with what they teach?
Anthony O'Neil talks about his getting caught up in cars and expensive externalities when he was young, and how he paid a steep price for it, but now as a Ramsey personality he talks about how he built his own very expensive house and paid cash for a Porsche. I imagine that he is making over $100k but I don't understand why he still wants those things. He also talked once about buying a 7,000sq foot house that would have cost over $1 million. You live in Nashville, which is relatively expensive, but you can definitely get a house for under $500k, and there is no reason to buy a large house as a single man.
-
I liked when Chris Hogan was a co- or sub-host on the main show. I thought his podcast was targeted at too basic a level. I didn't read the Everyday Millionaires book, but it seemed like the closest the brand would ever get to legitimate, systematic research, and I have a Ph.D. in economics, so it seemed like an excellent study for the company to be doing. I spend so much less time commuting to- and from work today, that I've largely moved on, tho.
-
Chris Hogan's advice/knowledge of financial stuff is painfully terrible.
-
I heard a good analogy today on the Bigger Pockets podcast. Debt is like a car. If you don't know how to drive, you probably shouldn't get behind the wheel. And you should probably listen to DR.
-
Chris Hogan's advice/knowledge of financial stuff is painfully terrible.
I just listen to him for his voice.
-
I was listening to Paula Pant today and thought, "she really is the total opposite of Dave Ramsey, isn't she?"
Paula answering a question: "Let's explore a framework that might assist you in coming to an answer..."
Dave answering a question: "Baby steps. I'll send you a book. Join a Dave Ramsey club at your church. I'm better than I deserve."
-
Chris Hogan's voice is a good balance to Dave Ramsey's voice.
DR talking to a guy in deep debt who has a truck loan AND a $42K car loan, telling him he's got to buckle down on his lifestyle:
"You been eatin' candy so much you got a stomach ache, that's what it amounts to."
Classic.
-
Here’s an aside question: is it true that timeshare ownership automatically transfers to an estate if the owner dies? I don’t know where I got that impression, but I have it.
I think timeshares are incredibly stupid but one should be able to get out of one’s timeshare obligation when one dies, for fks sake.
It's true that timeshare companies will tell mourning heirs that they are now responsible for the maintenance fees. They may even be able to collect on fees that are past due. In general, it's not true that an heir is required to take ownership (or pay future fees) unless they do something crazy like put their name on the deed with the original owner.
Good.I didn’t see how these obligations could carry on beyond death unless the heir actively did something to take on that responsibility.
So any complainy pants post I see about this means the heir actively participated at one point in ownership.
I sure hope Dave makes it clear in his programs that heirs need not and SHOULD NOT accept timeshare properties from the deceased person’s estate.
Right, but timeshare companies will take little things like just paying the fees from the heir's account (not the estate) as "proof of acceptance". I'm not sure that would hold up in court but some heirs who are just trying to do the right thing have been suckered into taking over the payments.
Catching up on threads and touching base on the timeshare issue. My parents bought a timeshare in the 90s against their financial advisor's advice with me and my sisters listed as beneficiaries. They were convinced that we would want it but none of us did. We were able to unload it just before my Dad passed away (Mom had already died) but it was a hassle and we had to involve an attorney to facilitate things. Sisters were convinced we would be stuck with it, I wasn't so sure about that as we were beneficiaries it was not like we were on the deed. Anyhoo, getting rid of it involved paying something like 2x maintenance fees, don't remember the exact details. My parents had friends who had a timeshare at the same property (and who were the ones who talked them into it) and at the same time we managed to unload ours, those friends' daughters were still fighting with the property management.
Don't always agree with Dave but on the timeshare issue, I have no argument with him there.
ETA: Thinking further, the timeshare was deeded back after a lot of hassle, plus the maintenance fees.
-
I was listening to Paula Pant today and thought, "she really is the total opposite of Dave Ramsey, isn't she?"
Paula answering a question: "Let's explore a framework that might assist you in coming to an answer..."
Dave answering a question: "Baby steps. I'll send you a book. Join a Dave Ramsey club at your church. I'm better than I deserve."
I have been listening to a lot of "Afford Anything" lately, and I do like Paula and Joe and their approach. Lately I'm listening a lot more to this than to Dave, and I found the last half of the episode with Laurence Kotlikoff really interesting.
There are times when Ramsey does try to educate a caller--and he's explicit about doing this--from principles so they can make their own decisions, and I think these reasons provide a genuine value that is underneath the baby step process. He has modified the baby steps in response to a lot of inquiries, as--for example--when he implemented a "Baby Step 3B" which is building up a down payment for a house with the same intensity as he advocates for paying off the consumer debt in step 2.
-
DR worked well in a world where information and support is scarce and not freely available. However the proliferation of financial
advice programmes available on the Internet is making him more and more of a relic of a previous era.
While I think there is still a big place for him in helping people with serious debt issues - which is, let's face it - entirely a behavioural issue rather than an educational issue, when it comes to a building a full framework for long term wealth building his baby step programme is like teaching a granny to suck eggs.
Good financial advice needs to be tailored to individual preference and circumstances. You don't invest the same if you're a 50yr old widow with kids who's received a large inheritance as you do if you're a 25yr old ivy league graduate with a high earning career ahead of them, but DR would just point them both in the same direction. His problem for serious investment buffs is that he isn't at all knowledgeable about markets. Listening to him still waffling on about "mutual funds" as a catch all for equity investments, it's clear that he doesn't have even a fraction of the knowledge that he should have to be dishing out professional financial advice. Behavioural advice - yes, but not financial advice.
-
The growth of his brand and his business in recent years would suggest that his advice is still found relevant by many; it feels like this growth has accelerated. We--as mustachians--can articulate important reasons that the information he offers falls short. But there seems to be a certain kind of person who finds it useful.
-
@talltexan - Agree - I found Dave Ramsey extremely useful when I was in my early twenties and just getting started. I learned to approach consumer & financial decisions critically, and to set financial goals that can be broken up into achievable chunks. Powerful stuff at that stage of life, when inhibitions are low and hedonic adaptation starts raging if left unchecked.
I just heard a clip of his show for the first time in about 12 years, and it's boring now, but I'm grateful to have heard the message when I did.
-
So I happened to catch a few min of the show, and I noticed that they're giving copies of Legacy Journey to debt-free scream participants instead of the Chris Hogan books now.
-
So I happened to catch a few min of the show, and I noticed that they're giving copies of Legacy Journey to debt-free scream participants instead of the Chris Hogan books now.
They're re-doing the Everyday Millionaires book now and making it DR's. It even has the same subtitle.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1942121598/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1942121598&linkCode=as2&tag=melissajhogan-20&linkId=afa95f393a1c0c727f884e9caf0a4877
In 2022, I'm sure that will be the giveaway book.
-
It's going to be hard for any of the Ramsey Personalities to replace him. He's pretty much a cult leader, and I get the vibe that only hires people who won't challenge or disagree with him. It's a bunch of yes-men and yes-women. Notice how often he cuts his co-hosts off mid-sentence, rarely acknowledges what they say. He's clearly hoping to pass the torch to someone so he can retire soon. But in order to do that, he would need to find someone with as big of an ego / as entertaining as him. Like a lot of cult leaders, I suspect he wouldn't have any tolerance for someone similar to himself! So he's stuck.
The only person who will politely interrupt him on air and try to get things back on track is his daughter, Rachel.
Still, I think Dave Ramsey himself is super fun to listen to, most of the time. I used his baby steps and it worked out well. I don't agree on his specific investment advice and will side with Bogle and Buffett.
-
So I happened to catch a few min of the show, and I noticed that they're giving copies of Legacy Journey to debt-free scream participants instead of the Chris Hogan books now.
They're re-doing the Everyday Millionaires book now and making it DR's. It even has the same subtitle.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1942121598/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1942121598&linkCode=as2&tag=melissajhogan-20&linkId=afa95f393a1c0c727f884e9caf0a4877
In 2022, I'm sure that will be the giveaway book.
I noticed some (I haven't checked all of them) of the Ramsey Solutions books are copyrighted by Lampo Licensing LLC instead of the individual authors. It leads me to suspect that the authors themselves don't even write the books. Maybe as employees they are assigned a book that a contract writer put together based on Dave's instructions, get their photo taken for the cover, and go off on tour to sell it. If that is true, it makes sense Dave would just replace himself on the cover of a Chris Hogan book.
-
His radio show is starting to get harder to listen to when responsible people call in and have very reasonable low interest rate debt. I was listening to one of his personalities yesterday, but not Dave himself.
Woman is mid-20's and has 32K of student loan debt below 2%. She has 14K of cash. She has about 3K of cash left over every month. Instead of putting 3K/month toward student loans, she asked if she could split the difference. Put 1.5K toward student loans and 1.5K into the stock market (brokerage account with index funds)
Answer: Take your 14K in cash and put 13K toward your student loans that are killing you. Now at 19K with your student loans, you can put 3K toward your student loans and be debt free in 6 months.
Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.
Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.
-
His radio show is starting to get harder to listen to when responsible people call in and have very reasonable low interest rate debt. I was listening to one of his personalities yesterday, but not Dave himself.
Woman is mid-20's and has 32K of student loan debt below 2%. She has 14K of cash. She has about 3K of cash left over every month. Instead of putting 3K/month toward student loans, she asked if she could split the difference. Put 1.5K toward student loans and 1.5K into the stock market (brokerage account with index funds)
Answer: Take your 14K in cash and put 13K toward your student loans that are killing you. Now at 19K with your student loans, you can put 3K toward your student loans and be debt free in 6 months.
Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.
Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.
The target audience for Ramsey's show is absolutely *NOT* those who want to do things the mathematically-optimal way. (And let's be fair, that group probably isn't tuning in in the first place). Rather, Ramsey's show is more behaviorally-focused: much like programs designed to get people out of gambling/substance/other additions, his show is designed to get people who have behavioral patterns of overspending/financial irresponsibility into a framework of not doing blatantly stupid stuff, and simplifying their finances to the point where they don't feel overwhelmed.
If you're actively deliberating whether to pay off your mortgage or invest money in the stock market, you're not Ramsey's target audience. His target audience is people who aren't saving/paying off debt in the first place, who have a habit of overspending and thus accumulating debt on various lines of credit. (And yes, some of Ramsey's "conventional wisdom" doesn't always apply when we live in a world where people have loans whose interest rates lie somewhere below the current rate of inflation.)
All that said, while I'm not a big Dave Ramsey fan myself, his message *does* help some people get on a path towards more financial responsibility. I just wish that he didn't grossly oversimplify many subjects, but apparently that's the sort of message that sells to a subset of people.
-
This is a pretty good reason to revive this thread, IMO:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/18/3-things-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-retirement/?source=eptyholnk0000202&utm_source=yahoo-host&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
I'm not a huge Fool Fan, but I think they nailed it on this one. At least it's a good start on what should be a much longer list.
I don't necessarily agree with Dave, but I think #1 in this article is the reason Dave claims #2. I don't think Dave ever says that the S&P500 returns 12%, I do think that he claims with good mutual funds you can return 12%. Whether this magical mutual fund exists or not, depends on how big of a data set you are using. He usually says something like choosing a mutual fund with 20 or 30 year track record... I think that AGTHX has returned something like 17% since it's inception in 1973, not sure what the actual CAGR is over that time frame less fees though... probably over 12%?
From his website: https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-12-reality
When Dave Ramsey says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.
Is this the flaw / B.S. in Dave Ramsey 12% logic?
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp)
"The S&P 500 Index originally began in 1926 as the "composite index" comprised of only 90 stocks.1 According to historical records, the average annual return since its inception in 1926 through 2018 is approximately 10%–11%.[cite] The average annual return since adopting 500 stocks into the index in 1957 through 2018 is roughly 8%."
-
I guess I dig the folksiness and of course the love-ya-brother / here’s a face punch schtick. The advice is way to uniform and geared toward people who get into consumer debt for me to take seriously, but I do ge t a kick out of it.
-
.
And number of credit cards? Who cares? Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter? Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%. I haven’t closed the account because why would I? Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.
I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all. I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills. Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.
I see you've met my ex-husband. Some people need Dave Ramsey. I married a couple of them. He's like AA for people who are bad with money.
-
To answer the title of this thread, I think Dave Ramsey is an asshole. I think he used to be just a blunt guy and very certain in his opinions. But how he handles Covid, disagreements with employees, the Chris Hogan situation*, the "righteous living" clause, and general attitude that he is king drive me nuts. I wonder what his kids actually think of him, or what their spouses think of him. And he definitely wants to retire and pass the mantle on, but there are no good options. The main one got very publicly fired (Chris). His daughter, and I hate to say this, does not have a voice for radio. She's gorgeous, so I think she does really well doing Youtube videos where you both hear and see her. I don't watch any of her content, but I have a spendypants friend who loves her and has gotten her book, journal thing, and envelope system. 20's and early 30's women, especially moms with young kids, is a great market for her because I don't think Dave hits that market overall very much. But I don't think she can take on the radio show, which is the engine behind the whole thing. And as someone else pointed out, the personalities don't really write the books. I think they are part of a process, probably get input into what goes into the book, and probably do "writing" so the book has their voice. Like, may actually write out most of what ends up in the final product, but are working off an extensive outline with all of the content already laid out for them. And Lampo Group owns everything - I think that was a big reason why that one guy (can't remember his name) left several years ago - all of his work done there was not his, including the books.
*if you don't know, Dave and the board of Lampo Group were meddling in Chris's marriage, and wanting the couple to go to counseling at their church and then that pastor report back to them...rather than fire Chris for obviously violating their righteous living clause. Meanwhile firing other employees for having sex outside of marriage.
-
.
Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.
Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.
I caught this ep on Youtube and found the answer to this question spectacularly bad. Dave wasn't involved in this one but the two guys agree selling a cash-flowing rental to pay down debt (that included a boat) to be a fine solution. It was insane.
On another note, does anyone have any information about the SmartVester Pros? I am picturing a bunch of Edward Jones-ish affiliates. Never, ever have I heard Vanguard or Fidelity being mentioned or recommended for the people that call in who are sitting on a pile of cash.
-
.
Another woman called in and asked if she should sell her rental property to pay off her primary mortgage. Rental property cash-flowed about $1,000/month. Her extended family own rentals and told her it was a bad idea.
Answer: Sell the rental property and pay off your primary mortgage. The stress and weight of two mortgages are strangling you. Be debt free.
I caught this ep on Youtube and found the answer to this question spectacularly bad. Dave wasn't involved in this one but the two guys agree selling a cash-flowing rental to pay down debt (that included a boat) to be a fine solution. It was insane.
On another note, does anyone have any information about the SmartVester Pros? I am picturing a bunch of Edward Jones-ish affiliates. Never, ever have I heard Vanguard or Fidelity being mentioned or recommended for the people that call in who are sitting on a pile of cash.
The few SmartVester Pros I know are Edward Jones advisors. I haven't asked about the program to know how it really works though.
As far as mentioning Vanguard or Fidelity, there have been a few times I have heard it mentioned as a fund provider, he is very careful not to mention specific investments and the closest I know if is when he mentions an index fund, like an s&P500 fund. I am sure this has a lot to do with compliance as well as pushing them to one of his SmartVester Pros so he can receive the referral money.
-
.
And number of credit cards? Who cares? Balance in those cards is far more important; I bet between us my wife and I have 10-15, maybe even 20 credit cards; most have zero balance and are rarely used, so why does it matter? Like I have a credit card for our local electronics store, we bought all of our appliances there for my last house and paid them off at 0%. I haven’t closed the account because why would I? Only helps my credit having it open and I’ve managed to not run out and buy 10 80” TVs even though the credit is sitting there waiting for me.
I'm guessing someone who needs Financial Peace University would see all those credit cards and use them all. I have known people who looked at a bank account and saw money in it and thought they could spend it, even though in reality that money was ear-marked for rent/mortgage and bills. Some people's minds do not work like the minds of people on the forums.
I see you've met my ex-husband. Some people need Dave Ramsey. I married a couple of them. He's like AA for people who are bad with money.
Was your husband a twin? I could have written the very same thing about my ex. ;-)
-
It's going to be hard for any of the Ramsey Personalities to replace him. He's pretty much a cult leader, and I get the vibe that only hires people who won't challenge or disagree with him. It's a bunch of yes-men and yes-women. Notice how often he cuts his co-hosts off mid-sentence, rarely acknowledges what they say. He's clearly hoping to pass the torch to someone so he can retire soon. But in order to do that, he would need to find someone with as big of an ego / as entertaining as him. Like a lot of cult leaders, I suspect he wouldn't have any tolerance for someone similar to himself! So he's stuck.
The only person who will politely interrupt him on air and try to get things back on track is his daughter, Rachel.
Still, I think Dave Ramsey himself is super fun to listen to, most of the time. I used his baby steps and it worked out well. I don't agree on his specific investment advice and will side with Bogle and Buffett.
Yeah, when he's not doing it anymore they'll lose 90% of their market overnight.
What I find most disagreeable about Dave is that he doesn't know what 'socialist' actually means.
-
I caught an episode about five years ago where Dave read the Abraham Lincoln quote (from a speech he gave to Congress in 1861):
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
I was shocked. I never expected to hear Dave Ramsey advocating for Marxist ideas on air.
-
I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19. He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.
The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.
-
I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19. He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.
The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.
Did MMM lose you too?
-
I like the new guy Dr. John Delony. It seems Dave actually respects his opinion and authority.
The rest of them I don't care for it all. A bunch of yes men and women.
-
I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19. He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.
The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.
All agreed. Round of applause for your joke in the last bit lololol.
-
I like the new guy Dr. John Delony. It seems Dave actually respects his opinion and authority.
The rest of them I don't care for it all. A bunch of yes men and women.
Dr. John seems to go beyond the Ramsey narrative in interesting ways, I'm really impressed by him in the limited amount I've listened.
-
I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19. He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.
The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.
Did MMM lose you too?
Does MMM operate a large headquarters where he forbade employees to work from home or wear masks even before the vaccines, and did he throw a huge corporate holiday party during last December's COVID wave in which he forbade both guests and hired staff (e.g., caterers) to wear masks? If yes, then yeah, I think I'll add MMM to my "ignore, is not rational and may actually be causing harm" list.
-
I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19. He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.
The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.
Did MMM lose you too?
Does MMM operate a large headquarters where he forbade employees to work from home or wear masks even before the vaccines, and did he throw a huge corporate holiday party during last December's COVID wave in which he forbade both guests and hired staff (e.g., caterers) to wear masks? If yes, then yeah, I think I'll add MMM to my "ignore, is not rational and may actually be causing harm" list.
Yeah, MMM's post was rather tone deaf and aged very poorly as the facts of the pandemic eventually became clear, but it was nothing like was DR has done.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
-
IMO, it's not simply a case of Ramsey being "wrong" about COVID. We're all wrong about things sometimes. But when we're not sure about something, do we go out there and act like we're an expert, shout our ill-informed opinions from the highest rooftop, and double down against anyone who says, "Hey you might be off here."? Of course not.
Ramsey acted like he was SO sure and SO confident and that his (as we know) moronic ideas about crowded indoor maskless functions were perfectly reasonable. A wise person would have probably have just quietly deferred to medical professions but no, he had to put it out there front and center, like a good ole boy with a "my way or the highway" mindset about things way outside his area of expertise, whatever that is these days.
So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.
-
IMO, it's not simply a case of Ramsey being "wrong" about COVID. We're all wrong about things sometimes. But when we're not sure about something, do we go out there and act like we're an expert, shout our ill-informed opinions from the highest rooftop, and double down against anyone who says, "Hey you might be off here."? Of course not.
Ramsey like he was SO sure and SO confident and that his (as we know) moronic ideas about crowded indoor maskless functions were perfectly reasonable. A wise person would have probably have just quietly deferred to medical professions but no, he had to put it out there front and center, like a good ole boy with a "my way or the highway" mindset about things way outside his area of expertise, whatever that is these days.
So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.
What really got to me about that incident was that he forbade others to wear masks. Especially the caterers. It looked like a power play.
-
IMO, it's not simply a case of Ramsey being "wrong" about COVID. We're all wrong about things sometimes. But when we're not sure about something, do we go out there and act like we're an expert, shout our ill-informed opinions from the highest rooftop, and double down against anyone who says, "Hey you might be off here."? Of course not.
Ramsey like he was SO sure and SO confident and that his (as we know) moronic ideas about crowded indoor maskless functions were perfectly reasonable. A wise person would have probably have just quietly deferred to medical professions but no, he had to put it out there front and center, like a good ole boy with a "my way or the highway" mindset about things way outside his area of expertise, whatever that is these days.
So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.
What really got to me about that incident was that he forbade others to wear masks. Especially the caterers. It looked like a power play.
Oh it absolutely was just straight up an abuse of power, just for optics (we're not afraid here at Ramsey Solutions!) and to feed his ego.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
-
So yes, him acting like an idiot on this issue absolutely should affect peoples' opinions of him on other issues too.
Ramsey’s actions related to Covid didn’t change my view of him one iota. His rampant sexism and bad investment advice were already enough evidence for me.
-
I think for the general person who is financially illiterate, he is a positive influence. He focuses on behavioral personal finance, which is arguably more important than anything. For those wanting more optimal strategies, they'll quickly move on from him. Note: This is just my opinion of him from a personal finance standpoint, I don't really care what his personal views are.
-
I used to like Dave, but he lost me with his attitude about Covid 19. He is entertaining on the radio, to me he's becoming a bitter old man.
The only personality I could stand was Chris Hogan, well looks like he F'ed that gig up.
Did MMM lose you too?
Does MMM operate a large headquarters where he forbade employees to work from home or wear masks even before the vaccines, and did he throw a huge corporate holiday party during last December's COVID wave in which he forbade both guests and hired staff (e.g., caterers) to wear masks? If yes, then yeah, I think I'll add MMM to my "ignore, is not rational and may actually be causing harm" list.
Yeah, MMM's post was rather tone deaf and aged very poorly as the facts of the pandemic eventually became clear, but it was nothing like was DR has done.
Yes, that's what soured me on Dave. It's fine to have your own beliefs but he intentionally put his employees health at risk. Last I heard, MMM doesn't impose his will on other people.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?
I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?
I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.
A broken clock is right twice a day. I don't have the mental or physical space to store a broken clock.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?
I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.
So you’re saying we shouldn’t dismiss his intellectual output regarding behavioural personal finance, because that’s his specialty? While he’s telling people the stock market returns 12% per year (and even skips the “on average” in some instances)? That’s just setting people up to fail.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?
I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.
Nonsense.
DR isn't rich and powerful because he created any brilliant financial advice, he's rich and famous because of his personality. He hasn't produced any fucking groundbreaking financial content; he basically just tells people to stop being idiotic with their money, and breaks the concept of tackling debt down the the kind of intellectual pablum that an infant could digest.
His product is largely his personality, so why wouldn't his personality be up for judgement.
Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.
Why was Harvey Weinstein's rampant rape an open secret in Hollywood? Because his product was more valuable than the product of the women he was raping.
As long as we are willing to say things like "well, we can value their contribution without judging the irrelevant, personal details of the creator", then we will always have men like R Kelly making fucking great music and literally holding female children imprisoned as sex slaves.
There are more than enough brilliant people out there to fill all of the gaps that would be left by holding people in power accountable for their moral failings.
There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.
-
Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.
Why was Harvey Weinstein's rampant rape an open secret in Hollywood? Because his product was more valuable than the product of the women he was raping.
As long as we are willing to say things like "well, we can value their contribution without judging the irrelevant, personal details of the creator", then we will always have men like R Kelly making fucking great music and literally holding female children imprisoned as sex slaves.
There are more than enough brilliant people out there to fill all of the gaps that would be left by holding people in power accountable for their moral failings.
There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.
Hear, hear!
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?
I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.
Nonsense.
...
Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.
...
There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.
I'm not arguing that Dave Ramsey should escape consequences for criminal behavior. I am arguing that we should not dismiss material such as that contained in The Total Money Make-over from the conversation about how people can make responsible financial choices.
-
I don't understand the case for dismissing a public personality (whose specialty is not health-specific) because they're wrong on the COVID issue, but they get important other issues right. I'm talking about intellectual engagement with their content, not personally being around them or their employees.
I don't want extra people to die. COVID seems to have resulted in 15-20% more deaths occurring than would under "business as usual". So shouldn't I give a thought leader about that % weight to their overall corpus of ideas when evaluating them?
Your values are different from mine here.
As others have noted, it wasn't just that Ramsey was initially wrong—lots of people, including MMM were—it was the digging in his heels, abusing his power, and disseminating dangerously false information to his huge national audience. As you've said, he's a thought leader. If a thought leader is that wrong and irresponsible and refuses to even entertain the possibility that he may have been wrong, then I wonder if he's been wrong on other things and simply refuses to consider new information as a matter of principle. Someone who is unable or unwilling to learn from mistakes is not someone I trust with leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Agreed that you do not want someone running a business who is so closed to the possibility of being wrong, and so stubborn about public health. I would not hire such a person to manage an organization. But isn't being a thought leader about the intellectual material?
I think you're starting to argue that a person who is dramatically un-open to negative feedback cannot produce intellectual output of quality. In the case of Dave Ramsey we have the intellectual output available to judge right there, and we don't need to guess at the flaws of the personality behind it.
Nonsense.
...
Apart from that, this notion that the character of powerful people should be untouchable because they produce something of value is *exactly* why society protects monsters in power.
...
There's no shortage of brilliance out there, we don't need to protect the morally bankrupt just because they have something of value to offer.
I'm not arguing that Dave Ramsey should escape consequences for criminal behavior. I am arguing that we should not dismiss material such as that contained in The Total Money Make-over from the conversation about how people can make responsible financial choices.
Has anyone actually done that though?
I've been reading DR threads here for YEARS and never have I seen anyone dismiss the actual good advice he gives.
One can criticize him AND think that the world would be better off without him without saying that they think literally every thing that the person has ever said is total garbage.
That's a leap that I've literally never seen anyone ever say.
Hell, I've heard Donald Trump say some interesting and intelligent things in my lifetime, it doesn't mean I don't think he's a rotting fart of a human being who should never be listened to.
DR has some very questionable financial advice and has set an example of absolutely offensive, immoral behaviour in terms of the pandemic. So yes, I would be perfectly happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because there are COUNTLESS financial personalities out there who could easily fill the demand of giving very basic financial advice.
He's nothing special in terms of his advice. That is not his value AT ALL. His value is in his personality and the way in which he's entertaining, so people are inclined to want to listen to him. Hell, we have people in this forum who so don't need his advice who choose to listen for pure entertainment's sake.
So what is DR *really* bringing to the table? His personality.
And if his personality is the problem, then do you see why I find it fair game to heavily criticize his entire empire since that's what it's based on?
Because if it was based on the actual financial advice, then every single human being with basic financial common sense would be as rich and famous as DR.
Let's not give the man credit for anything that he hasn't earned. He didn't reinvent the wheel of financial advice, he just delivered the exact same type of basic, basic, dumbfuck simple financial advice as everyone else, but with a flair that caught people's attention.
He hasn't created any brilliant ideas or content, so let's not pretend that he has.
-
Dave Ramsey says you shouldn't contribute to retirement until you're debt free except for the house, even forgoing employer matching. Meanwhile, he does NOT tell you stop tithing 10% to the church. Granted, I'm not religious so I'm biased to think tithing is strange, but if you're in a hair-on-fire debt situation, paying 10% of your income as essentially a club membership is not a smart financial move. If someone was donating 10% to Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International or some other non-church charity, he'd tell them to knock it off until they had some actual money in the bank.
-
Yes, and he also claims that credit cards are always bad, no exceptions, even if you pay them off in full every month, and anyone who uses them is a moron.
It's fine that he can't trust himself with them. It's myopic to apply one's own shortcomings to everyone else.
-
Dave Ramsey says you shouldn't contribute to retirement until you're debt free except for the house, even forgoing employer matching. Meanwhile, he does NOT tell you stop tithing 10% to the church. Granted, I'm not religious so I'm biased to think tithing is strange, but if you're in a hair-on-fire debt situation, paying 10% of your income as essentially a club membership is not a smart financial move. If someone was donating 10% to Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International or some other non-church charity, he'd tell them to knock it off until they had some actual money in the bank.
His math is just really really bad. In general I'm fine with "debt snowball" until he is telling people to pay off their 0% debt and take on 15 year mortgages for no good reason.
-
Dave Ramsey says you shouldn't contribute to retirement until you're debt free except for the house, even forgoing employer matching. Meanwhile, he does NOT tell you stop tithing 10% to the church. Granted, I'm not religious so I'm biased to think tithing is strange, but if you're in a hair-on-fire debt situation, paying 10% of your income as essentially a club membership is not a smart financial move. If someone was donating 10% to Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International or some other non-church charity, he'd tell them to knock it off until they had some actual money in the bank.
His math is just really really bad. In general I'm fine with "debt snowball" until he is telling people to pay off their 0% debt and take on 15 year mortgages for no good reason.
Exactly, this is why I find the argument that his intellectual property is somehow so valuable on its own to be kind of ridiculous.
DR's value is his persuasiveness, and the fact that he has used that to convince millions of people to get out of debt. That has value, but *his* value is his ability to persuade people, so when he turns that ability towards nefarious, immoral goals, then it's irrational to try a d separate out his financial knowledge as somehow separate and sacrosanct, since it's largely garbage anyway.
It's actually a testament to just how persuasive DR is that he's been so successful at getting people to get out of debt, despite his actual advice being mediocre at best to downright idiotic when looking at the actual math of it.
This is why it's ridiculous for people to say that his work is somehow above his personal failings.
We're not talking about finding out that Einstein had sex with underage boys and saying that we should throw out half of what we know about physics because of "cancel culture."
We're saying that a man who got VERY rich by being bombastic and persuasive should be held accountable for the things that he says while being bombastic and persuasive.
-
I've already posted on this thread but I'll reiterate that I happened to live in Nashville back when Dave's show was local. It was my introduction to a lot of this stuff. I was the first time I heard strangers speak openly about their financial situations. The anonymity of radio made it possible.
Having suffered terrible and completely random career, health, and money setbacks in my early adult life, I became much more risk averse than the average person. I did not follow Dave's scorched-earth advice to the letter, but I definitely patterned my actions after his ideas. For example, I broke his rules when I bought a property speculatively and with a personal loan from the bank, but I then used the profits to pay off low-interest loans, including a 0% loan on my washer and dryer. Yeah, I'd have come out ahead if I had put that money in the market, but there was no way to know that back then.
Most dramatically, on his advice, I got a second job when I was 30 years old and still work there every weekend and on some weeknights. I've made about $250,000 at that part-time job. When I applied to buy a second house, the mortgage broker laughed at my application since he had basically never seen anyone in my position with zero consumer debt. No student loans, no car loan, no credit card debt. My credit score was over 800.
-
I've already posted on this thread but I'll reiterate that I happened to live in Nashville back when Dave's show was local. It was my introduction to a lot of this stuff. I was the first time I heard strangers speak openly about their financial situations. The anonymity of radio made it possible.
Having suffered terrible and completely random career, health, and money setbacks in my early adult life, I became much more risk averse than the average person. I did not follow Dave's scorched-earth advice to the letter, but I definitely patterned my actions after his ideas. For example, I broke his rules when I bought a property speculatively and with a personal loan from the bank, but I then used the profits to pay off low-interest loans, including a 0% loan on my washer and dryer. Yeah, I'd have come out ahead if I had put that money in the market, but there was no way to know that back then.
Most dramatically, on his advice, I got a second job when I was 30 years old and still work there every weekend and on some weeknights. I've made about $250,000 at that part-time job. When I applied to buy a second house, the mortgage broker laughed at my application since he had basically never seen anyone in my position with zero consumer debt. No student loans, no car loan, no credit card debt. My credit score was over 800.
Okay sure, but none of his advice is anything that you couldn't have easily sought out yourself. DR doesn't manage to help millions of people because his advice is so amazing, he manages to help millions of people because he's entertaining enough to get a radio show that people actually want to listen to, which as you said, is often the first time anyone hears people talking about personal finance openly.
It's great that people are exposed to this stuff because of DR, but that doesn't make his advice particularly good.
DR is to finance what Dr Oz is to medicine.
-
I've already posted on this thread but I'll reiterate that I happened to live in Nashville back when Dave's show was local. It was my introduction to a lot of this stuff. I was the first time I heard strangers speak openly about their financial situations. The anonymity of radio made it possible.
Having suffered terrible and completely random career, health, and money setbacks in my early adult life, I became much more risk averse than the average person. I did not follow Dave's scorched-earth advice to the letter, but I definitely patterned my actions after his ideas. For example, I broke his rules when I bought a property speculatively and with a personal loan from the bank, but I then used the profits to pay off low-interest loans, including a 0% loan on my washer and dryer. Yeah, I'd have come out ahead if I had put that money in the market, but there was no way to know that back then.
Most dramatically, on his advice, I got a second job when I was 30 years old and still work there every weekend and on some weeknights. I've made about $250,000 at that part-time job. When I applied to buy a second house, the mortgage broker laughed at my application since he had basically never seen anyone in my position with zero consumer debt. No student loans, no car loan, no credit card debt. My credit score was over 800.
And if you had actually followed his advice to the letter, your credit score would have been zero (well, nonexistant), and getting the mortgage would have been a bit more challenging.
-
I agree with y'all that DR is definitely not the best personal finance expert out there. However, his monomaniacal obsession with killing debt might be the reason he became so popular while lots of other experts failed to win over that poorly educated, negative-net-worth demographic.
Ramsey's books have all the subtlety and finesse of "Dick and Jane" picture books for toddlers. He chews up and spits out the same thing over and over: all debt is bad. There's a whole lot more to personal finance than that, yes, but that also might be the only way to help the Americans that have zero financial knowledge. (Or maybe even negative amount of knowledge, if they have bad beliefs like "my credit card limit is how much money I should spend.")
At the risk of sounding like a pompous elitist, not everyone is bright - but everyone gets credit card offers. If you take a random poorly educated person and start telling them that they need to pay off their credit cards and contribute to retirement funds and make a budget and invest in their own education and look for a better job, etc, their heads will explode. :(
I'm not on board with Ramsey's 10% tithing rule, among others, but he's the living proof that if you go allll the way down to where the bottom 20% live (you know, the 80/20 principle?) and break things down into almost insultingly simple pieces, and keep things almost insultingly simple - you can succeed where the others failed.
Ramsey is far from perfect, but he also did more to educate the worst-off Americans than just about anybody else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
I agree with y'all that DR is definitely not the best personal finance expert out there. However, his monomaniacal obsession with killing debt might be the reason he became so popular while lots of other experts failed to win over that poorly educated, negative-net-worth demographic.
Ramsey's books have all the subtlety and finesse of "Dick and Jane" picture books for toddlers. He chews up and spits out the same thing over and over: all debt is bad. There's a whole lot more to personal finance than that, yes, but that also might be the only way to help the Americans that have zero financial knowledge. (Or maybe even negative amount of knowledge, if they have bad beliefs like "my credit card limit is how much money I should spend.")
At the risk of sounding like a pompous elitist, not everyone is bright - but everyone gets credit card offers. If you take a random poorly educated person and start telling them that they need to pay off their credit cards and contribute to retirement funds and make a budget and invest in their own education and look for a better job, etc, their heads will explode. :(
I'm not on board with Ramsey's 10% tithing rule, among others, but he's the living proof that if you go allll the way down to where the bottom 20% live (you know, the 80/20 principle?) and break things down into almost insultingly simple pieces, and keep things almost insultingly simple - you can succeed where the others failed.
Ramsey is far from perfect, but he also did more to educate the worst-off Americans than just about anybody else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
which I don't think anyone has argued against
-
which I don't think anyone has argued against
That was how I interpreted your earlier comment: "despite his actual advice being mediocre at best to downright idiotic when looking at the actual math of it."
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
-
which I don't think anyone has argued against
That was how I interpreted your earlier comment: "despite his actual advice being mediocre at best to downright idiotic when looking at the actual math of it."
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Yes, but I have never argued that he hasn't helped many people, if you read all of my posts in this thread, I have been very clear. DR hasn't helped anyone because his advice is amazing, he's helped people because his personality is entertaining, and his often reasonably good advice is ubiquitous.
What makes DR so successful is his personality, not the quality of his advice. As I said, like Dr Oz is to medicine.
Dr Oz has probably saved millions of lives by getting people to go get things checked, but the actual content of a lot of his advice is pure garbage.
-
DR hasn't helped anyone because his advice is amazing, he's helped people because his personality is entertaining, and his often reasonably good advice is ubiquitous.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The world is filled with charismatic personal finance experts, but I personally think that Ramsey beat them all because he was charismatic and willing to chew up his advice into insultingly tiny pieces, whereas most of the rest of his competition tried offering more complicated solutions. He got his radio show and all the other charisma-friendly media only after he sold all his books. It's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" problem, I suppose. :)
-
DR hasn't helped anyone because his advice is amazing, he's helped people because his personality is entertaining, and his often reasonably good advice is ubiquitous.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The world is filled with charismatic personal finance experts, but I personally think that Ramsey beat them all because he was charismatic and willing to chew up his advice into insultingly tiny pieces, whereas most of the rest of his competition tried offering more complicated solutions. He got his radio show and all the other charisma-friendly media only after he sold all his books. It's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" problem, I suppose. :)
Fair enough, I kind of consider his delivery to be part of his personality. His information is definitely formatted to be more digestible, but that doesn't change the meat and potatoes of the advice itself, which is nothing special.
So instead of saying it's his personality that made him so successful, I'm willing to change it to his delivery that made him so successful.
Exactly the same way MMM's delivery is what made him famous, not the nuts and bolts of his advice, which is essentially common sense, and very basic math, but delivered in a way that makes you think.
And MMM too should be held accountable for the things he says that aren't strictly financial. Which is the ONLY point I've been defending here.
Not whether or not DR has value, but whether that value absolves him of responsibility for his non finance positions on controversial topics.
-
Then there’s this. Ugh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/16/dave-ramsey-employee-covid-precaution-lawsuit/
-
Shocking claims, if true.
It will be interesting to see how things go in court, assuming there isn't a settlement.
-
Shocking claims, if true.
It will be interesting to see how things go in court, assuming there isn't a settlement.
I would be shocked if this wasn't settled. DR has deep pockets and an NDA on this would be worth a lot.
-
Pretty sure I've expressed my feelings about DR way upthread. I haven't kept up because I don't care about DR. It popped up in my feed today, so I got caught up. I did so because I just read that DR is coming to a major metropolitan mainstream radio station near me. (KSFO, to replace Chip Franklin. Someone please tell me Google is wrong.)
Anyway, this snippet cannot go unremarked upon:
Most dramatically, on his advice, I got a second job when I was 30 years old and still work there every weekend and on some weeknights. I've made about $250,000 at that part-time job. When I applied to buy a second house, the mortgage broker laughed at my application since he had basically never seen anyone in my position with zero consumer debt. No student loans, no car loan, no credit card debt. My credit score was over 800.
Kudos to you for getting and maintaining what is known in mustachian circles as a "side hustle". However, I lol'd at the bolded part. Who the fuck do you think you're bragging to? Take a number and find your place in line, sir.
Your comment made me think of a fun social experiment. Take two recent college graduates with similar backgrounds and identical financial pictures. Let's make them the same race, gender, and give them the same degree from the same school, just to keep the field flat. Send one to DR's FP "University" and introduce the other to the MMM blog and forum. Have them start a Case Study for good measure. Then compare their progress at regular intervals. You We know who's going to win, but it's still a fun thought exercise.
When you compare the results, you'll be sure to remember that credit scores predict creditworthiness, not measure actual wealth, right?
One more thought. Unless you have ZERO credit cards (not likely if your credit score is that high), your credit report will show ALL current CC activity as "consumer debt", even though you pay it in full every month. And we mustachians love our credit cards. So useful for cash and travel rewards, not to mention churning.
A mortgage broker is a salesperson. If they want to blow your skirts up, that's fine, but this crowd is less easily impressed. Mostly though, it's DR were not impressed with and that's unlikely to change.
Oh, and that the fuck strikeout is mine and original. I don't want anyone to think it's a rule violation. We like our swear words here, but not everyone remembers that.
-
Dave Ramsey says you shouldn't contribute to retirement until you're debt free except for the house, even forgoing employer matching. Meanwhile, he does NOT tell you stop tithing 10% to the church. Granted, I'm not religious so I'm biased to think tithing is strange, but if you're in a hair-on-fire debt situation, paying 10% of your income as essentially a club membership is not a smart financial move. If someone was donating 10% to Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International or some other non-church charity, he'd tell them to knock it off until they had some actual money in the bank.
His math is just really really bad. In general I'm fine with "debt snowball" until he is telling people to pay off their 0% debt and take on 15 year mortgages for no good reason.
And even worse, delaying 401k contributions and forgoing the employer match until you pay off that 0% (or even 2-3%) debt.
-
I always cringe when Ramsey bashes Fauci, Covid & Covid restrictions etc...doing everything he can short of calling it a fraud......and then 5 mins later someone calls in and says "I lost my dad a few weeks ago to Covid, and I am wondering what to do with his estate"
"I am so sorry, that's terrible"
-
Pretty sure I've expressed my feelings about DR way upthread. I haven't kept up because I don't care about DR. It popped up in my feed today, so I got caught up. I did so because I just read that DR is coming to a major metropolitan mainstream radio station near me. (KSFO, to replace Chip Franklin. Someone please tell me Google is wrong.)
Anyway, this snippet cannot go unremarked upon:
Most dramatically, on his advice, I got a second job when I was 30 years old and still work there every weekend and on some weeknights. I've made about $250,000 at that part-time job. When I applied to buy a second house, the mortgage broker laughed at my application since he had basically never seen anyone in my position with zero consumer debt. No student loans, no car loan, no credit card debt. My credit score was over 800.
Kudos to you for getting and maintaining what is known in mustachian circles as a "side hustle". However, I lol'd at the bolded part. Who the fuck do you think you're bragging to? Take a number and find your place in line, sir.
Your comment made me think of a fun social experiment. Take two recent college graduates with similar backgrounds and identical financial pictures. Let's make them the same race, gender, and give them the same degree from the same school, just to keep the field flat. Send one to DR's FP "University" and introduce the other to the MMM blog and forum. Have them start a Case Study for good measure. Then compare their progress at regular intervals. You We know who's going to win, but it's still a fun thought exercise.
Thought experiments like this are interesting, but I think at its core, this is relying on comparing a very blunt, coherent set of Ramsey practices ("Pay off Mortgage"; "don't use credit cards"; 'tithing to church won't affect your financial progress") with perhaps somewhat more vague notions of Mustachianism. ("Save more than 40% of your income"; "find a way to drive a car 1/4 as much as you were before"). @Dicey , you and I are obviously in the "Don't pay off your mortgage" club, so our ideas about the MMM movement may be more aligned than others on this thread.
My first reaction to this post was that you had in mind the idea that MMM-folks will advance more rapidly because of their (our) very high savings rates.
Dave Ramsey will often callers in the intense debt payoff period whom he suggests devote something like 30%-50% proportion of their cash flow to paying off consumer debt, though. While MMM advocates people sustain a 50% savings rate for 15 years, Ramsey typically only advocates that for something like 2 years. And all of this assumes that "Pay off the debt first" types aren't actively seeking additional income during that intense debt pay down period that they wouldn't seek out later.
-
I always cringe when Ramsey bashes Fauci, Covid & Covid restrictions etc...doing everything he can short of calling it a fraud......and then 5 mins later someone calls in and says "I lost my dad a few weeks ago to Covid, and I am wondering what to do with his estate"
"I am so sorry, that's terrible"
Makes me glad I haven't listened to him in a long time.
-
I did happen to catch an episode with Ken Coleman and John Deloni where a caller wanted to know whether it made sense to quit his job to avoid a vaccine mandate. I suppose it makes sense that they couldn't implore him to just get the jab when their own workplace is being run so poorly by this measure.
-
I did happen to catch an episode with Ken Coleman and John Deloni where a caller wanted to know whether it made sense to quit his job to avoid a vaccine mandate. I suppose it makes sense that they couldn't implore him to just get the jab when their own workplace is being run so poorly by this measure.
I remember that call specifically, I think it was this past summer. From what I remember Ken was towing the line more than John was with his reply. John at least made an attempt to be a voice of reason/rationality/look at the science and decide what's best for you/ in his response.
I listen solely for entertainment purposes, but I find myself tuning out more when Dave is actually hosting. He is wearing on me.
-
Ugh. People everywhere have gone nuts with the anti vax stuff. That's popping up in the lo carb community too. DR has always been a little hard to take.
-
I did happen to catch an episode with Ken Coleman and John Deloni where a caller wanted to know whether it made sense to quit his job to avoid a vaccine mandate. I suppose it makes sense that they couldn't implore him to just get the jab when their own workplace is being run so poorly by this measure.
I remember that call specifically, I think it was this past summer. From what I remember Ken was towing the line more than John was with his reply. John at least made an attempt to be a voice of reason/rationality/look at the science and decide what's best for you/ in his response.
I listen solely for entertainment purposes, but I find myself tuning out more when Dave is actually hosting. He is wearing on me.
I think Dr. John is excellent (and I probably mentioned this upthread). I also haven't been listening steadily since early 2020, so it's certainly possible he's said or done some stuff that is...less than excellent.
-
Ugh. People everywhere have gone nuts with the anti vax stuff. That's popping up in the lo carb community too. DR has always been a little hard to take.
There’s actually a whole podcast about anti-vax conspiracy stuff as peddled and monetized in the yoga and wellness industries. It’s called Conspirituality. It’s fairly long-winded, but it’s also pretty fascinating.
-
Then there’s this. Ugh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/16/dave-ramsey-employee-covid-precaution-lawsuit/
Not the first time I've seen stories that he's a first class douchebag to work for.
-
Then there’s this. Ugh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/16/dave-ramsey-employee-covid-precaution-lawsuit/
Not the first time I've seen stories that he's a first class douchebag to work for.
Thought the same but was also surprised that his business employs 900 people.
-
Then there’s this. Ugh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/16/dave-ramsey-employee-covid-precaution-lawsuit/
Not the first time I've seen stories that he's a first class douchebag to work for.
Thought the same but was also surprised that his business employs 900 people.
I guess between producing the radio show, the Youtube channel, hawking the books, overseeing all the grassroots church stuff, the shady real estate deals, the seminars, the Ramsey Investment Advisors, the in-house legal team, not to mention all the minimum wage girls* holding it all together, it adds up to a lot of people.
*60 year-old-women.
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
-
I think any plan that is able to help people get out of debt that otherwise wouldn't have (even if the math isn't perfect) is a good thing. But I firmly believe DR is a scumbag and I can't stand him.
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
Oh... so he is being accused and tried for murder? No, he is not. It's a wrongful termination suit.
It's ridiculous to call someone a murderer on a hunch that his mask policy may have caused a chain reaction a killed someone. That is nonsense. Show me proof that this happened then we will talk about how no court of law would ever call someone a murderer for a chain reaction of an infectious disease. Otherwise Charaureleus is just making shit up, calling someone a murderer, just because they don't agree with Dave Ramsey's politics.
Do I think Dave is is the wrong? Yes. He is probably going to lose a wrongful termination suit or it will be settled. Do I think we should just go around outright calling people murderers with based on their poor mask policy that may have caused a chain reaction that killed someone? I feel like this forum is better than that.
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
Oh... so he is being accused and tried for murder? No, he is not. It's a wrongful termination suit.
It's ridiculous to call someone a murderer on a hunch that his mask policy may have caused a chain reaction a killed someone. That is nonsense. Show me proof that this happened then we will talk about how no court of law would ever call someone a murderer for a chain reaction of an infectious disease. Otherwise Charaureleus is just making shit up, calling someone a murderer, just because they don't agree with Dave Ramsey's politics.
Do I think Dave is is the wrong? Yes. He is probably going to lose a wrongful termination suit or it will be settled. Do I think we should just go around outright calling people murderers with based on their poor mask policy that may have caused a chain reaction that killed someone? I feel like this forum is better than that.
I agree with you that it is incorrect to call Dave a murderer. He's likely endangering his workforce but is not directly killing people.
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
Oh... so he is being accused and tried for murder? No, he is not. It's a wrongful termination suit.
It's ridiculous to call someone a murderer on a hunch that his mask policy may have caused a chain reaction a killed someone. That is nonsense. Show me proof that this happened then we will talk about how no court of law would ever call someone a murderer for a chain reaction of an infectious disease. Otherwise Charaureleus is just making shit up, calling someone a murderer, just because they don't agree with Dave Ramsey's politics.
Do I think Dave is is the wrong? Yes. He is probably going to lose a wrongful termination suit or it will be settled. Do I think we should just go around outright calling people murderers with based on their poor mask policy that may have caused a chain reaction that killed someone? I feel like this forum is better than that.
I agree with you that it is incorrect to call Dave a murderer. He's likely endangering his workforce but is not directly killing people.
That said, it should not be called a "political opinion."
Workplace health and safety policies that knowingly put employees at risk are not a political opinion, they are avoidable workplace dangers that can reasonably be expected to result in possible, avoidable death.
That's not politics, that's reckless, irresponsible policy on behalf of an employer.
I don't care what the person's political leanings are, putting staff in avoidable danger is unacceptable.
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
Oh... so he is being accused and tried for murder? No, he is not. It's a wrongful termination suit.
It's ridiculous to call someone a murderer on a hunch that his mask policy may have caused a chain reaction a killed someone. That is nonsense. Show me proof that this happened then we will talk about how no court of law would ever call someone a murderer for a chain reaction of an infectious disease. Otherwise Charaureleus is just making shit up, calling someone a murderer, just because they don't agree with Dave Ramsey's politics.
Do I think Dave is is the wrong? Yes. He is probably going to lose a wrongful termination suit or it will be settled. Do I think we should just go around outright calling people murderers with based on their poor mask policy that may have caused a chain reaction that killed someone? I feel like this forum is better than that.
I agree with you that it is incorrect to call Dave a murderer. He's likely endangering his workforce but is not directly killing people.
That said, it should not be called a "political opinion."
Workplace health and safety policies that knowingly put employees at risk are not a political opinion, they are avoidable workplace dangers that can reasonably be expected to result in possible, avoidable death.
That's not politics, that's reckless, irresponsible policy on behalf of an employer.
I don't care what the person's political leanings are, putting staff in avoidable danger is unacceptable.
Exactly, Health and Safety regulations are not just for on the shop floor. They apply to any workplace, including office situations.
-
I did happen to catch an episode with Ken Coleman and John Deloni where a caller wanted to know whether it made sense to quit his job to avoid a vaccine mandate. I suppose it makes sense that they couldn't implore him to just get the jab when their own workplace is being run so poorly by this measure.
I heard this call and I thought they handled it well, without judgment. They did ask why the caller didn't wish to be vaccinated. They still didn't pass judgment - I don't remember the reason - but they then segued into a discussion of the caller's career, prospects of finding another job, etc.
-
I did happen to catch an episode with Ken Coleman and John Deloni where a caller wanted to know whether it made sense to quit his job to avoid a vaccine mandate. I suppose it makes sense that they couldn't implore him to just get the jab when their own workplace is being run so poorly by this measure.
I heard this call and I thought they handled it well, without judgment. They did ask why the caller didn't wish to be vaccinated. They still didn't pass judgment - I don't remember the reason - but they then segued into a discussion of the caller's career, prospects of finding another job, etc.
I remember a caller who worked in healthcare refusing to be vaccinated - either for political reasons or the usual "no one tells ME what to do" reasons. And of course they had debt and no other job offers, not to mention no FU money. but Dave more or less told them to hold fast to their moral principles.
While it's hard to lose healthcare workers during this time or any time really, do we want people who don't hold firm ideas about public health and wellbeing providing care to the general population?
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
Oh... so he is being accused and tried for murder? No, he is not. It's a wrongful termination suit.
It's ridiculous to call someone a murderer on a hunch that his mask policy may have caused a chain reaction a killed someone. That is nonsense. Show me proof that this happened then we will talk about how no court of law would ever call someone a murderer for a chain reaction of an infectious disease. Otherwise Charaureleus is just making shit up, calling someone a murderer, just because they don't agree with Dave Ramsey's politics.
Do I think Dave is is the wrong? Yes. He is probably going to lose a wrongful termination suit or it will be settled. Do I think we should just go around outright calling people murderers with based on their poor mask policy that may have caused a chain reaction that killed someone? I feel like this forum is better than that.
While not a charge for murder the employee is suing the company for the death of her husband after she contracted covid at work then her husband caught it and died.
https://abc7.com/amp/sees-candy-lawsuit-covid-candies/11049968/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
He's a murderer. He refused to allow employees to wear masks, and discourages getting vaccines. With 900 workers, someone or a member of their family has probably died.
False
I agree that Chraurelius may have been a bit dramatic, but how do you know their assertion is "false"?
Yeah, we'll let the courts decide that one. It isn't the first such complaint Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has received. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dave-ramsey-fired-staffer-taking-covid-precautions-lawsuit-says-rcna8835)
Oh... so he is being accused and tried for murder? No, he is not. It's a wrongful termination suit.
It's ridiculous to call someone a murderer on a hunch that his mask policy may have caused a chain reaction a killed someone. That is nonsense. Show me proof that this happened then we will talk about how no court of law would ever call someone a murderer for a chain reaction of an infectious disease. Otherwise Charaureleus is just making shit up, calling someone a murderer, just because they don't agree with Dave Ramsey's politics.
Do I think Dave is is the wrong? Yes. He is probably going to lose a wrongful termination suit or it will be settled. Do I think we should just go around outright calling people murderers with based on their poor mask policy that may have caused a chain reaction that killed someone? I feel like this forum is better than that.
While not a charge for murder the employee is suing the company for the death of her husband after she contracted covid at work then her husband caught it and died.
https://abc7.com/amp/sees-candy-lawsuit-covid-candies/11049968/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is the difference between a civil law suit and a criminal one. Civil law suits have a lower burden of proof and center around what a reasonable person should have done (by a “preponderance of the evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Critically it does not involve intent. For a criminal suit the burden is to show intent or a willful disregard for the law.
-
What is your opinion of Dave Ramsey?
Dave Ramsey is the GOAT
-
From the NBC News story: “Ramsey believed taking preventative measures [against Covid] were against the will of God,” the complaint stated.
Ramsey also is known to carry a handgun and supposedly brandished it at a meeting on at least one occasion. So much for trusting God for protection.
-
From the NBC News story: “Ramsey believed taking preventative measures [against Covid] were against the will of God,” the complaint stated.
Ramsey also is known to carry a handgun and supposedly brandished it at a meeting on at least one occasion. So much for trusting God for protection.
We just need to figure out how to make masks as cool as guns to this group.
-
Dave Ramsey is one of few Internet finance gurus that actually have people vouching for the effectiveness for his advice (for years). Internet is filled with fly-by-night self-appointed gurus who give terrible advice and sell courses that don't work. Some are outright frauds and many are questionable advice-giver ("Buy individual stocks that pay high dividends!", etc.). So I have no problem with Ramsey at all, considering the number of garbage people out there.
-
Dave Ramsey is one of few Internet finance gurus that actually have people vouching for the effectiveness for his advice (for years). Internet is filled with fly-by-night self-appointed gurus who give terrible advice and sell courses that don't work. Some are outright frauds and many are questionable advice-giver ("Buy individual stocks that pay high dividends!", etc.). So I have no problem with Ramsey at all, considering the number of garbage people out there.
You should read this thread. Just because he isn't a scammy as some doesn't mean that he isn't a garbage person as well.
-
Good 'ol compassionate DR is at it again:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/radio-host-dave-ramsey-insists-223911331.html
-
Good 'ol compassionate DR is at it again:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/radio-host-dave-ramsey-insists-223911331.html
I don't think I disagree with him on this point.
-
Good 'ol compassionate DR is at it again:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/radio-host-dave-ramsey-insists-223911331.html
I don't think I disagree with him on this point.
Seriously, there are a lot of reasons why DR is a bad Christian. This example is pretty low on the list.
-
Ramsey argues in The Legacy Journey that wealth carries with it the obligation to be managed effectively, and he cites bible verses in making this argument. He also argues that wealthy people are called to be generous to others.
-
In a separate thought from the discussion of the rental properties, I happened to observe on FB that one of my HS friends recently started a new job working in Analytics for Ramsey Solutions. I'll see if I can extract any juicy information from him.
-
In a separate thought from the discussion of the rental properties, I happened to observe on FB that one of my HS friends recently started a new job working in Analytics for Ramsey Solutions. I'll see if I can extract any juicy information from him.
He may not be willing to say much, even if he does have juicy info. From this Tennessean article (https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2021/01/29/is-dave-ramseys-empire-best-place-work-america/4281535001/):
Ramsey’s return to in-person work frustrated Heather Fulk. She has asthma, which puts her at higher risk if infected with COVID-19. After learning employees were being called back to headquarters, she made what she thought was an innocuous comment in a private Facebook post.
“Jon’s [Heather's spouse] company [Ramsey Solutions] wants to bring all 900 employees back asap when a majority can do their work from home,” she wrote on April 20. “I do *not* understand how people don’t see we are setting ourselves up for a huge second wave. Ugh, people make me so angry.”
Before long, Jon got a call from his supervisor who said a co-worker had reported Heather’s comment. They had a screenshot of the post, sent by the co-worker’s spouse.
A few weeks later, Jon was fired. In his exit interview, Armando Lopez, head of human resources at Ramsey, confirmed that the cause was his wife’s social media comment, according to a recording of the meeting.
-
Based on other FB activity, I don't believe my friend would be troubled by the failings of the Ramsey organization that have been mentioned in this discussion thread.
-
Love Dave. His system works. Is it the best of the best? Depends how you measure.
-
Religious institutions aside, anybody who ties their business directly to deities is detestable in my book.
-
Love Dave. His system works. Is it the best of the best? Depends how you measure.
Sure, if you're debt ridden. It does NOT work if your goal is FIRE. Most of us are here to achieve FIRE or to help others in their quest for same. Overall, very few people are here with the goal of getting out of debt just so they can become (or ontinue to be) masters of overconsumption.
-
Love Dave. His system works. Is it the best of the best? Depends how you measure.
Sure, if you're debt ridden. It does NOT work if your goal is FIRE. Most of us are here to achieve FIRE or to help others in their quest for same. Overall, very few people are here with the goal of getting out of debt just so they can become (or ontinue to be) masters of overconsumption.
It's been said before multiple times on this thread, but this is it in a nut shell. DR works great for people who have tons of debt. If you have tons of debt, you likely need all of the psychological things that come with the method. His advice is super sound (minus the math of paying off lower interest stuff, but again, if you're in that boat, you probably need to do it his way for the psychological boost). There will always be a divide, because if you've gotten out of debt with his plan, you're likely going to be a loyal adherent. If you're focus is at all on RE, he's not the guy for you, and people in that boat will rightly call him out for his flaws on that end.
-
I like him okay. I got some good pieces of advice from him here and there back when I had some consumer debt a few years back. I don't agree with him regarding credit cards as I churn them and have gotten an extra $2700 from them in the past 3 years, without paying a dime or interest or buying anything more than I already buy. (I also have an excellent credit score as a result and have the ability to get an emergency loan at a low interest rate if something bad happens.) I also don't agree with him suggesting mutual funds and to go to his web site for a li$t of hi$ approved financial a$$i$tant$; I am more in line with JL Collins and focus on Vanguard total index funds.
It's fun to watch his shows once and a while, reminding of what I went through in the past. It's funny to hear him scolding others in debt: "I want you eating beans and rice, and don't step into a restaurant unless you are working there as a side hustle to pay off your debt." LOL. I am watching his show right now for fun :)
As far as debt payment, it made more sense for me to pay off the highest interest loans first. But for some people, paying off the small ones first might help them, feeling they are accomplishing more; not for me though.
I am neutral about him with respect to Christianity since I am Christian, but I disagree with prosperity gospel.
-
In a separate thought from the discussion of the rental properties, I happened to observe on FB that one of my HS friends recently started a new job working in Analytics for Ramsey Solutions. I'll see if I can extract any juicy information from him.
He may not be willing to say much, even if he does have juicy info. From this Tennessean article (https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2021/01/29/is-dave-ramseys-empire-best-place-work-america/4281535001/):
Ramsey’s return to in-person work frustrated Heather Fulk. She has asthma, which puts her at higher risk if infected with COVID-19. After learning employees were being called back to headquarters, she made what she thought was an innocuous comment in a private Facebook post.
“Jon’s [Heather's spouse] company [Ramsey Solutions] wants to bring all 900 employees back asap when a majority can do their work from home,” she wrote on April 20. “I do *not* understand how people don’t see we are setting ourselves up for a huge second wave. Ugh, people make me so angry.”
Before long, Jon got a call from his supervisor who said a co-worker had reported Heather’s comment. They had a screenshot of the post, sent by the co-worker’s spouse.
A few weeks later, Jon was fired. In his exit interview, Armando Lopez, head of human resources at Ramsey, confirmed that the cause was his wife’s social media comment, according to a recording of the meeting.
Yup, seeing this goes along with the way I view him, as a terrible human being that lacks any compassion.
-
So it's been more than nine weeks, but I feel like I should come in and acknowledge good stuff alongside the bad that we've put in this thread:
Dave and Rachel took an interesting--and I think correct--approach to a caller from Wed, 4/20: it's the "Help, I have $500,000 in the bank, and I'm too scared to invest it" episode.
-
So it's been more than nine weeks, but I feel like I should come in and acknowledge good stuff alongside the bad that we've put in this thread:
Dave and Rachel took an interesting--and I think correct--approach to a caller from Wed, 4/20: it's the "Help, I have $500,000 in the bank, and I'm too scared to invest it" episode.
Link? The only episode I could find was from 2019... maybe a rebroadcast?
-
So it's been more than nine weeks, but I feel like I should come in and acknowledge good stuff alongside the bad that we've put in this thread:
Dave and Rachel took an interesting--and I think correct--approach to a caller from Wed, 4/20: it's the "Help, I have $500,000 in the bank, and I'm too scared to invest it" episode.
Link? The only episode I could find was from 2019... maybe a rebroadcast?
https://www.ramseysolutions.com/shows/the-ramsey-show
3rd column, first row
-
Thanks
-
Putting aside his teachings, which I don't follow or have any opinion, his site has some useful calculators in the tools section that are free and easy to use.
-
Putting aside his teachings, which I don't follow or have any opinion, his site has some useful calculators in the tools section that are free and easy to use.
?!
You mean like his ‘retirement calculator’ which recommends [only] 15% savings rate, implies 10-12% total returns and ignores inflation?
Or his budgeting app which keeps pushing users towards a “full-featured” paid version (ironic?) for $100/6 months when those features are free elsewhere?
Or the bare bones calculator that applauds you even when paying off a sub 1% loan?
How are those “good” calculators?
-
Putting aside his teachings, which I don't follow or have any opinion, his site has some useful calculators in the tools section that are free and easy to use.
?!
You mean like his ‘retirement calculator’ which recommends [only] 15% savings rate, implies 10-12% total returns and ignores inflation?
Or his budgeting app which keeps pushing users towards a “full-featured” paid version (ironic?) for $100/6 months when those features are free elsewhere?
Or the bare bones calculator that applauds you even when paying off a sub 1% loan?
How are those “good” calculators?
I use and like this one.
Easy to forecast and play with numbers. Let’s you choose the return percentage.
https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/investment-calculator
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Putting aside his teachings, which I don't follow or have any opinion, his site has some useful calculators in the tools section that are free and easy to use.
?!
You mean like his ‘retirement calculator’ which recommends [only] 15% savings rate, implies 10-12% total returns and ignores inflation?
Or his budgeting app which keeps pushing users towards a “full-featured” paid version (ironic?) for $100/6 months when those features are free elsewhere?
Or the bare bones calculator that applauds you even when paying off a sub 1% loan?
How are those “good” calculators?
Please re-read my opening line again. I have used the investment calculator the most and the savings rate and total returns are set by the user, regardless of his teachings. I don't have to provide any personal info to gain access to the calculator. Providing a free limited version vs. one with more features is a rather common marketing tactic. I have never used the budgeting tool. At the end of the day, people do have to think for themselves.
-
No misunderstanding here - I simply find his calculators to be pretty sub-standard compared to what else is available for free on the internet. The calculator’s instructions also make suggestions that conflict with the values and goals espoused on the MMM forum, and they blatantly funny people towards giving Dave more money for things which can be gotten for free.
Hard pass.
-
Latest dust up related to Ramsey involves him ranting about 4% withdrawal rates being too low and saying you can do 8%. Apparently we're all nerds with calculators who live in our mother's basement:
https://twitter.com/mbontrager5/status/1722478848573329702
Big ERN had a good breakdown of how bad of advice this is:
https://earlyretirementnow.com/2023/11/12/dave-ramsey-8-percent-withdrawal-rate/
-
Latest dust up related to Ramsey involves him ranting about 4% withdrawal rates being too low and saying you can do 8%. Apparently we're all nerds with calculators who live in our mother's basement:
https://twitter.com/mbontrager5/status/1722478848573329702
Big ERN had a good breakdown of how bad of advice this is:
https://earlyretirementnow.com/2023/11/12/dave-ramsey-8-percent-withdrawal-rate/
There's already a thread here discussing that specifically:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/dave-ramsey-suggests-an-8-withdrawal-rate-to-never-run-out-of-money/
-
He is a bigot, I had a friend of a friend who was hired by Ramsey and then once Ramsey found out the church the person belonged to he fired them.
-
I’ve lately been listening to the Ramsey podcast. After years of hearing about how bad Dave Ramsey is, I was surprised that I enjoy his program. I can’t say I’m going to enjoy it forever, probably at some point he’ll start wearing on me, as most of them do.
But I like his stern dad-like delivery style and also his guidance in just leading some people through common sense decisions that have astonishing consequences they don’t seem to think about.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
-
I’ve lately been listening to the Ramsey podcast. After years of hearing about how bad Dave Ramsey is, I was surprised that I enjoy his program. I can’t say I’m going to enjoy it forever, probably at some point he’ll start wearing on me, as most of them do.
But I like his stern dad-like delivery style and also his guidance in just leading some people through common sense decisions that have astonishing consequences they don’t seem to think about.
No one here has ever said otherwise. The consensus here has always been that his basic advice is sound for people who need to get out of debt.
The issue people take with him is that he's a hypocritical bigot who has deeply hurt many people, and he gives dumb shit investing advice that helps him sell shitty financial products.
It's precisely the fact that he's generally likable and says generally helpful stuff that makes him so dangerous because the more popular he gets, the more power he has to cause damage because of his hypocrisy and bigotry.
He may be likable, he's just not a good person.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
Just FYI, in this day and age, that has a distinctly sexual connotation.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
Just FYI, in this day and age, that has a distinctly sexual connotation.
Sure.
I dip in now and then to the sub Reddit “sugar daddies” . But I do not see Dave Ramsey as my sugar or any kind of daddy, .
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
Just FYI, in this day and age, that has a distinctly sexual connotation.
Sure.
I dip in now and then to the sub Reddit “sugar daddies” . But I do not see Dave Ramsey as my sugar or any kind of daddy, .
N'ah, Daddy is now a sexual term for older sexualized men, it comes from the gay community but spread into common parlance. For example, Pedro Pascal is the current iconic "Daddy" actor and is relentlessly sexualized with the moniker.
I wasn't saying you thought that of DR, I was just letting you know that if you use the term "Daddy" in reference to an older man, people are likely to assume you mean it sexually.
ETA: wait...why do you visit a Reddit group about sugar daddies???
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
Just FYI, in this day and age, that has a distinctly sexual connotation.
Sure.
I dip in now and then to the sub Reddit “sugar daddies” . But I do not see Dave Ramsey as my sugar or any kind of daddy, .
N'ah, Daddy is now a sexual term for older sexualized men, it comes from the gay community but spread into common parlance. For example, Pedro Pascal is the current iconic "Daddy" actor and is relentlessly sexualized with the moniker.
I wasn't saying you thought that of DR, I was just letting you know that if you use the term "Daddy" in reference to an older man, people are likely to assume you mean it sexually.
ETA: wait...why do you visit a Reddit group about sugar daddies???
Yes, I’m aware that Pedro Pascal was at the top of the sub Reddit that polled for everyone’s favorite daddies. I barely know who that guy is. My vote was for Jeffrey Dean Morgan.
I peruse the sugar daddy sub because it’s interesting. I’m not looking for a sugar daddy or a sugar baby, it’s just one slice of American life.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
I can't watch the Ramit show for this very reason. The style and format bothers me. My perception is that he takes the position of marriage counselor with very personal questions and statements about human behavior. He is not qualified to do this and it bothers me. I hope that it's helpful for people. I wonder how many people break up after being on his show.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
Just FYI, in this day and age, that has a distinctly sexual connotation.
Sure.
I dip in now and then to the sub Reddit “sugar daddies” . But I do not see Dave Ramsey as my sugar or any kind of daddy, .
N'ah, Daddy is now a sexual term for older sexualized men, it comes from the gay community but spread into common parlance. For example, Pedro Pascal is the current iconic "Daddy" actor and is relentlessly sexualized with the moniker.
I wasn't saying you thought that of DR, I was just letting you know that if you use the term "Daddy" in reference to an older man, people are likely to assume you mean it sexually.
ETA: wait...why do you visit a Reddit group about sugar daddies???
Yes, I’m aware that Pedro Pascal was at the top of the sub Reddit that polled for everyone’s favorite daddies. I barely know who that guy is. My vote was for Jeffrey Dean Morgan.
I peruse the sugar daddy sub because it’s interesting. I’m not looking for a sugar daddy or a sugar baby, it’s just one slice of American life.
Big cultural difference here. The term “sugar daddy” is quite different from the other “daddy Dave”
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
Just FYI, in this day and age, that has a distinctly sexual connotation.
Sure.
I dip in now and then to the sub Reddit “sugar daddies” . But I do not see Dave Ramsey as my sugar or any kind of daddy, .
N'ah, Daddy is now a sexual term for older sexualized men, it comes from the gay community but spread into common parlance. For example, Pedro Pascal is the current iconic "Daddy" actor and is relentlessly sexualized with the moniker.
I wasn't saying you thought that of DR, I was just letting you know that if you use the term "Daddy" in reference to an older man, people are likely to assume you mean it sexually.
ETA: wait...why do you visit a Reddit group about sugar daddies???
Yes, I’m aware that Pedro Pascal was at the top of the sub Reddit that polled for everyone’s favorite daddies. I barely know who that guy is. My vote was for Jeffrey Dean Morgan.
I peruse the sugar daddy sub because it’s interesting. I’m not looking for a sugar daddy or a sugar baby, it’s just one slice of American life.
Big cultural difference here. The term “sugar daddy” is quite different from the other “daddy Dave”
Yeah, that was a stretch even for this board to make. Goodness.
-
Yeah, that was a stretch even for this board to make. Goodness.
I think you might be misinterpreting nereo, I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that the phrase "Daddy Dave" could easily be read to have sexual connotation. Also, Iris and I get along well, I was just playfully teasing her that she may have unintentionally sounded like she was sexualizing DR, which is funny, but also gross.
A lot of us are actually good friends here and mean well when we respond to each other.
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
I can't watch the Ramit show for this very reason. The style and format bothers me. My perception is that he takes the position of marriage counselor with very personal questions and statements about human behavior. He is not qualified to do this and it bothers me. I hope that it's helpful for people. I wonder how many people break up after being on his show.
Sometimes I cheer them on in breaking up, the couples on Ramit’s show.
I can think of one instance where they did break up after appearing on Ramit’s podcast.
-
Yeah, that was a stretch even for this board to make. Goodness.
I think you might be misinterpreting nereo, I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that the phrase "Daddy Dave" could easily be read to have sexual connotation. Also, Iris and I get along well, I was just playfully teasing her that she may have unintentionally sounded like she was sexualizing DR, which is funny, but also gross.
A lot of us are actually good friends here and mean well when we respond to each other.
I actually read the total money makeover because someone on here posted the security gland bit which I thought was hilariously pornographic (also misogynist and a bit icky in a way that i associate with stand up comedy from the 90s, but it was funy because it was so unexpected). Sadly that was the only sex-related joke to make it past the censors.
-
Yeah, that was a stretch even for this board to make. Goodness.
I think you might be misinterpreting nereo, I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that the phrase "Daddy Dave" could easily be read to have sexual connotation. Also, Iris and I get along well, I was just playfully teasing her that she may have unintentionally sounded like she was sexualizing DR, which is funny, but also gross.
A lot of us are actually good friends here and mean well when we respond to each other.
I actually read the total money makeover because someone on here posted the security gland bit which I thought was hilariously pornographic (also misogynist and a bit icky in a way that i associate with stand up comedy from the 90s, but it was funy because it was so unexpected). Sadly that was the only sex-related joke to make it past the censors.
Lol!
-
I listen to Dave Ramsey once in a while. Man, I have to say...I've been listening to the Ramit Sethi podcast "I will teach you to be rich" and I find myself longing for Dave Ramsey to smack these people and just make it stop. Very different style and the contrast makes me appreciate Dave Ramsey's no nonsense approach more than I used to.
Ramit just lets them go around and around in circles. For the most part the couples are making absolutely bananas financial choices and need face punches as well as marriage/relationship counseling and to me Ramit seems completely unqualified. It's a hate listen for sure and sometimes I can't take it anymore and turn it off.
Whereas Ramsey gives the bottom line after asking a few questions and if there's a strong "batshit crazy" element to the call-in's story he just says y'all need marriage counseling and shuts it down.
Hunh! Funny!
I thought Ramit’s last couple of shows were really really good. He likes to delve into (what he sees as) the roots of each person’s attitude about money and have them come to the realization that those fears, thoughts, and values guide the often bad decisions they are making today.
I think that is a worthy endeaver, but yes, hearing daddy Dave slap ‘em upside o’the head is a cleanser for Ramit’s style.
I agree with you on the Ramit part. It's interesting to see the "why" behind where certain people get their money behaviors.
I find Dave's show boring because you know what he is going to say before the caller even finishes their question. He has a template and once you understand it, there isn't much left to learn from him.