Dave Ramsey’s survey of millionaires

[HPstache]

In his show Dave talked about the importance of choosing a marriage partner who shares financial goals. Two people teamed up in America to build wealth can do it on modest salaries. That was a lesson in Stanley‘s book too, get married, and stay married.

This perhaps pushes the question of whether the behavior of "millionaires" is even financially instructive anymore, at least in the specific sense of how to make money and how to invest it.

A massively common formula (maybe the most common) for becoming a millionaire goes something like: be born middle class and white + go to college and graduate with little debt + marry and stay married to someone with similar education and earning power + buy a house in a rising market + invest in the company 401k + don't develop a cocaine habit.  Do that for 30 or 40 years without getting profoundly unlucky or finding a way to actively screw it up and you'll be a millionaire, at least in recent history. 

I'm not sure that in the main millionaires are outliers in their specific financial decisions.  It seems much more a combination of starting with some advantages and avoiding bad choices and bad luck for a long period.  Perhaps that trajectory tells us more about what not to do than it does what we ought to do.

I totally disagree with all of that. House value isnt even usually included in net worth so not buying a house will be more likely to give you the cash on paper necessary to join the millionaires/2 millionaires club.

Yes, it is.  If Net worth doesn't include house value minus loan value, you are observing something a different metric which is not net worth.

[wageslave23]

- Helping your adults. You really don't know what the future holds - good and bad - because you're going to be helping your kids if you have a relationship with them

This is a wildcard we don't talk enough about here.  Failure to launch is real, and a little terrifying.

Failure to launch takes many paths.  Medical conditions are real and I know several that are supporting and caring for their adult children.  This went under things that I worried about and had no control over.  Drug OD and incapacitating traffic accidents are the big ones.

Just the term “failure to launch” makes me cringe. Baked in is the word failure, and reinforces this prejudice against multigenerational households. IMO we shouldn’t equate living with your parents with having failed to become a functional adult.

Really just depends if adult children are paying their share of expenses.  Whether living on their own, with roommates, or with family.

[Chris Pascale]

- Helping your adults. You really don't know what the future holds - good and bad - because you're going to be helping your kids if you have a relationship with them

This is a wildcard we don't talk enough about here.  Failure to launch is real, and a little terrifying.

Failure to launch takes many paths.  Medical conditions are real and I know several that are supporting and caring for their adult children.  This went under things that I worried about and had no control over.  Drug OD and incapacitating traffic accidents are the big ones.

In my case, paying for a wedding and then going to graduate school are lengthening the financial connection.  The relationship is wonderful but the hit to the retirement is real.  Worth every penny.

I know a couple whose very young child is diabetic. They live back home with her parents due to a need for financial and other support.

Another couple I know had a horrible mold problem in their apartment. Tests revealed they were very sick from it, and all of their possessions had to be disposed of. They've been back with his folks for a year now.

When I was 29 living in Louisiana I called my mom to ask if I could stay with her while starting a new job - just me; wife and kids were staying back in Louisiana until my wife's medical discharge was complete.

[roomtempmayo]

- Helping your adults. You really don't know what the future holds - good and bad - because you're going to be helping your kids if you have a relationship with them

This is a wildcard we don't talk enough about here.  Failure to launch is real, and a little terrifying.

Failure to launch takes many paths.  Medical conditions are real and I know several that are supporting and caring for their adult children.  This went under things that I worried about and had no control over.  Drug OD and incapacitating traffic accidents are the big ones.

Just the term “failure to launch” makes me cringe. Baked in is the word failure, and reinforces this prejudice against multigenerational households. IMO we shouldn’t equate living with your parents with having failed to become a functional adult.

Really just depends if adult children are paying their share of expenses.  Whether living on their own, with roommates, or with family.

@nereo I didn't intend it as any sort of dig at multigenerational households.

I'm not even really assuming the kid lives with the parents, which often isn't the case.

I'm thinking of situations where the kid is well into adulthood and still not on a path to financial independence, and often lacks other grownup behavior.  I don't think that's what most of us here wish for our kids, and it doesn't seem to be an outcome many here are planning for financially.

[mistymoney]

"Get married and stay married" is just the worst takeaway from this.

Staying married to a financially irresponsible partner will ruin you. Much more importantly, staying in an emotionally fraught marriage or even a marriage to a person who is just generally dismissive can wreck your health and reduce your length and quality of life. Staying in an abusive marriage might kill you. It will definitely interfere with your ability to make and execute sound financial decisions. Frankly, marriage is statistically a health and wealth risk for women.

If you marry someone who has similar financial goals, and if they have the executive function and self-regulatory skills to carry them out, and if they don't undergo a significant change in their goals/functioning (something you have no control over), and if they invest in you in a way equal to your investment in them-- sure, maybe that makes you more likely to end up a millionaire?

It's like saying "People who don't have bad things happen to them end up rich more often," and then trying to turn it into advice. You're more likely to be a millionaire if no one steals all your money. You're more likely to be a millionaire if the business you start doesn't fail. Sure, but... not advice.

Thanks for putting this more eloquently than I did :). I hope some enjoyed my link to the sid vicious classic singing "my way".

Hearing about women as 'helpmates' to working men in becoming millionaires makes me want to vomit, frankly. Pushing that 1950's dependency model of womanhood down our throats. Its a very dangerous trend that is coming around again, and although I know very little about the nuances of dave ramsey's schtik, it seems not out of what I know that he would willing try to push that 1950's housewife model as leading to all good things rather than financial dependence on someone else.

While I certainly feel good about crossing that millionaire milestone myself in the past few years (as a single mother who did not receive child support nor any custodial care/assistance from a coparent) a million isn't like a whole lot of money these days anyway. Right?? Is it really something to crow so much about? And in this dave ramsey survey - I think based on commentary here that a 500k house and 500k banked makes a couple "millionaires"? - so 250k each?

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons? So overall, a very cheap metric for inclusion into millaire status and IMO 250k is a nice start but not really much to crow about, let alone a rationale to shove lifestyle advice down people's throat that has no real causative mechanism, aka - roommates could produce the same cost savings, but then your don't pool your money totals with a roommate and call yourselves "millionaires" out of it.

[getsorted]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to. 

[wageslave23]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Well within a matter of months you could sell the million dollar home and rent a place and then you'd be in the exact same boat as the lifetime renter with a million dollars invested. Although I'm not even sure if that mythical creature even exists...;)

[clarkfan1979]

I've seen a bit about this study but it's short on details unfortunately.  Biggest things I wonder are how they selected the group of millionaires (were they Ramsey listeners or randomly selected) and how they defined "millionaire" (individual vs household wealth).  Both of those items could have skewed the results on certain items.

 I don’t know how they selected the millionaires for this book, but I know how Dave Ramsey define millionaires because he had he invited millionaires to come on his show a couple months ago and I just listened to that podcast yesterday.

He uses the traditional measure of net assets and yes, that includes equity in a house.

Remember who his audience is, people who cannot fathom ever reaching net assets of $1 million.

Sure those of us here on this website know that anyone with a balance sheet showing assets of 1.2 million who lives in Southern California in a house they bought in 1983 is not all that rich.

My point was more that if he is using household wealth it would overrepresent married people due to the dual incomes and the wealth being split across 2 people.  Yes, they're millionaires by definition but their expenses are also higher than a single household which makes the 1 million net worth less meaningful.

I didn't even think about factoring home values in but the flaws you identified are completely correct.  Yikes.

Don't agree with you at all on the marriage take.  Married couples almost always have fewer household expenses than if they were separate.  Thus, much easier to build wealth.

I agree that the average person has lower expenses when being married. However, I was a graduate student living on 18K/year and my wife was living on 45K/year. When we got married and my income went up to 45K/year, with a combined income of 90K. I would spend about 25K/year and my wife would spend about 45K/year. When I was single, I had 3 roommates and we lived in a 4-bedroom house. My expenses were cheaper when I was single.

I do think we are a team and help each other out which is more helpful in building wealth than roommates. 

[getsorted]

Well within a matter of months you could sell the million dollar home and rent a place and then you'd be in the exact same boat as the lifetime renter with a million dollars invested. Although I'm not even sure if that mythical creature even exists...;)

Right, because nobody ever gets stuck in a home that's too expensive for them for any reason. Houses always sell for what you need them to sell for, at the exact time you need them to sell. Who needs a diverse portfolio?

[bmjohnson35]

I think that home equity is definitely part of your total net worth as an abstract measurement.  Primary housing is like any other expense. Whether you own or you rent your home, it's a cost.  If I was using our net worth as a reference target for when you can retire, I wouldn't ever include it in my assets total. 

[HPstache]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

[HPstache]

Well within a matter of months you could sell the million dollar home and rent a place and then you'd be in the exact same boat as the lifetime renter with a million dollars invested. Although I'm not even sure if that mythical creature even exists...;)

Right, because nobody ever gets stuck in a home that's too expensive for them for any reason. Houses always sell for what you need them to sell for, at the exact time you need them to sell. Who needs a diverse portfolio?

I think you're confusing net worth with something else.

[getsorted]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

I didn't say "it doesn't count toward your net worth." I'm saying having 100% of your net worth in your primary residence would be unwise for many if not most people. Most financial advisors do not recommend making your home the place where all of your net worth is. When I'm looking for people to emulate when increasing my net worth, the person with a million-dollar house and nothing else is not someone who I'd say "Oh yeah, I'll do what that guy does."

We are on a FIRE forum. You can't spontaneously generate living income from your million-dollar house without moving out of it. Value is meaningless unless it can be realized when you need to realize it.

[HPstache]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

I didn't say "it doesn't count toward your net worth." I'm saying having 100% of your net worth in your primary residence would be unwise for many if not most people. Most financial advisors do not recommend making your home the place where all of your net worth is. When I'm looking for people to emulate when increasing my net worth, the person with a million-dollar house and nothing else is not someone who I'd say "Oh yeah, I'll do what that guy does."

We are on a FIRE forum. You can't spontaneously generate living income from your million-dollar house without moving out of it. Value is meaningless unless it can be realized when you need to realize it.

You said "including it is bogus".  That's another way of saying "it doesn't count toward your net worth".  A FIRE number is not the same thing as net worth, that's not what anyone else here is discussing.

[nereo]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

I didn't say "it doesn't count toward your net worth." I'm saying having 100% of your net worth in your primary residence would be unwise for many if not most people. Most financial advisors do not recommend making your home the place where all of your net worth is. When I'm looking for people to emulate when increasing my net worth, the person with a million-dollar house and nothing else is not someone who I'd say "Oh yeah, I'll do what that guy does."

We are on a FIRE forum. You can't spontaneously generate living income from your million-dollar house without moving out of it. Value is meaningless unless it can be realized when you need to realize it.

The line I quibble with is "including home equity is bogus". 
For many of us the equity in our homes *is* inherently incorporated into our wealth management strategy, be it a HELOC as one potential method for dealing with large expenses or as a paid off home to lower total monthly expenses or as a source of direct income by having a renter.

[getsorted]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

I didn't say "it doesn't count toward your net worth." I'm saying having 100% of your net worth in your primary residence would be unwise for many if not most people. Most financial advisors do not recommend making your home the place where all of your net worth is. When I'm looking for people to emulate when increasing my net worth, the person with a million-dollar house and nothing else is not someone who I'd say "Oh yeah, I'll do what that guy does."

We are on a FIRE forum. You can't spontaneously generate living income from your million-dollar house without moving out of it. Value is meaningless unless it can be realized when you need to realize it.

The line I quibble with is "including home equity is bogus". 
For many of us the equity in our homes *is* inherently incorporated into our wealth management strategy, be it a HELOC as one potential method for dealing with large expenses or as a paid off home to lower total monthly expenses or as a source of direct income by having a renter.

Then would you accept, "Blindly considering home value as an asset without qualification around how much of one's net worth is tied up in it, or any strategic considerations around how its value would be realized if needed during retirement, is bogus"?

[HPstache]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

I didn't say "it doesn't count toward your net worth." I'm saying having 100% of your net worth in your primary residence would be unwise for many if not most people. Most financial advisors do not recommend making your home the place where all of your net worth is. When I'm looking for people to emulate when increasing my net worth, the person with a million-dollar house and nothing else is not someone who I'd say "Oh yeah, I'll do what that guy does."

We are on a FIRE forum. You can't spontaneously generate living income from your million-dollar house without moving out of it. Value is meaningless unless it can be realized when you need to realize it.

The line I quibble with is "including home equity is bogus". 
For many of us the equity in our homes *is* inherently incorporated into our wealth management strategy, be it a HELOC as one potential method for dealing with large expenses or as a paid off home to lower total monthly expenses or as a source of direct income by having a renter.

Then would you accept, "Blindly considering home value as an asset without qualification around how much of one's net worth is tied up in it, or any strategic considerations around how its value would be realized if needed during retirement, is bogus"?

If you're talking about net worth?  No.

[getsorted]

I guess that's fine if you exclude the context of this thread (what useful conclusions can be drawn from this information about people who have a net worth of $1 million) and purpose of this forum (strategizing ways to generate income so that employment becomes optional).

[iris lily]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Agreed.

I remember when our asset sheet reached $2 million and I was relieved because if I got a divorce I would still be a millionaire.

[iris lily]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Sure, if you don't consider what you owe on it.  It's your equity in it that counts toward your net worth.  A million dollar house completely paid off is worth a million dollars to your net worth, just like owning a $20K car outright is.

I didn't say "it doesn't count toward your net worth." I'm saying having 100% of your net worth in your primary residence would be unwise for many if not most people. Most financial advisors do not recommend making your home the place where all of your net worth is. When I'm looking for people to emulate when increasing my net worth, the person with a million-dollar house and nothing else is not someone who I'd say "Oh yeah, I'll do what that guy does."

We are on a FIRE forum. You can't spontaneously generate living income from your million-dollar house without moving out of it. Value is meaningless unless it can be realized when you need to realize it.

On another forum I frequent we recently talked about how much of our net worth is tied up in our dwellings.

For me, it is around 12%. We have two residences in flyover country.

There was an element of “how much SHOULD your net worth be tied up,in a residence” but there is no formula, and things in flyover country are different than things on the coasts.

But we would likely agree here on the MMM site that being 70 years and and having 80% of one’s assets in a house isn’t a good financial picture.

[wageslave23]

The home equity debate is really due to simplistic financial views. I have had 4 homes at one time. In any given year I may be buying a home, selling a home, living in one, renting, paying off a mortgage, cash out refinancing, or getting a heloc.  You have to live somewhere. You can either rent it from someone else or rent it from yourself. You can have a mortgage or pay cash. And you can change any of those variables to your liking.  My networth doesn't change whenever I do a cash out refinance or move from a house I own to an apartment that I rent.

[zolotiyeruki]

I often hear that they get more expensive as they age, but I would be interested in hearing which areas those expenses increase.

We just sent our first off to college, and there are still five more in the house.  Here are some examples of ways kids get more expensive as they age:

--clothes get more expensive.  Ages 0-5 you can get used clothes for pennies on the dollar.  Some day I'd like to fund a startup company making kevlar pants for 6-10-year-old boys.  Bigger clothes get more expensive.
--orthodontia and other dental work
--activities and interests get more expensive
--driver's ed.  And the hike in car insurance premiums when they get their license.
--busier social lives means more gas money, and possibly another car, depending on circumstances
--(variable depending on location).  Our school registration, class, and activity fees go *way* up for high schoolers.  We also have to pay for the AP tests. Our school district's finances are in *terrible* shape, and so we get nickel-and-dimed to the ends of the earth.
--Christmas gifts (for things they want) get more expensive.
--college visits, and moving out to college.  We helped DS1 get settled (i.e. paid for a bunch of his apartment stuff), and that cost a bit.  We're also flying him home for Christmas, and that costs, too.
--Food.  Got a kid involved in a rigorous sport?  Groceries will go WAY up.  When I was in high school, I was eating probably 4-5,000 calories per day.

[nereo]

I often hear that they get more expensive as they age, but I would be interested in hearing which areas those expenses increase.

We just sent our first off to college, and there are still five more in the house.  Here are some examples of ways kids get more expensive as they age:
[snip]

great list zolotiyeruki, i really appreciate your input with such a large group of kids.  Follow up - in what areas did they cost less as they got older?

also, does your school system charge for meals?

[ender]

I guess that's fine if you exclude the context of this thread (what useful conclusions can be drawn from this information about people who have a net worth of $1 million) and purpose of this forum (strategizing ways to generate income so that employment becomes optional).

Home equity can still be useful for generating income, though.

[zolotiyeruki]

great list zolotiyeruki, i really appreciate your input with such a large group of kids.  Follow up - in what areas did they cost less as they got older?

also, does your school system charge for meals?

Yes, except for those who qualify for free- or reduced-price lunch. 

In what ways did they get cheaper?  Honestly, nothing comes to mind.  I guess we're no longer buying diapers?  That said, the first child is always the most expensive, and subsequent children are a lot cheaper, thanks to hand-me-downs of all sorts (clothes, toys, etc)

[GuitarStv]

great list zolotiyeruki, i really appreciate your input with such a large group of kids.  Follow up - in what areas did they cost less as they got older?

also, does your school system charge for meals?

Yes, except for those who qualify for free- or reduced-price lunch. 

In what ways did they get cheaper?  Honestly, nothing comes to mind.  I guess we're no longer buying diapers?  That said, the first child is always the most expensive, and subsequent children are a lot cheaper, thanks to hand-me-downs of all sorts (clothes, toys, etc)

We were paying a shit-ton for daycare before our son was in school when my wife and I were both working.  I can't imagine ever having expenses go back up to that level as he ages.  Maybe during university if we're paying for everything?

[cannotWAIT]

"Get married and stay married" is such terrible advice. The advice should be "Enter into marriage only if you are very, very sure, keep your assets separate if you do, and don't be afraid to admit you made a mistake."

[GuitarStv]

If you feel the need to keep your assets separate look long and hard at the whole idea of marriage.

[Heckler]

https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research

@iris lily Linking your first post to the survey source would be the honorable thing, just for clicks and eyeballs for Dave.

[zolotiyeruki]

We were paying a shit-ton for daycare before our son was in school when my wife and I were both working.  I can't imagine ever having expenses go back up to that level as he ages.  Maybe during university if we're paying for everything?

Fair enough--we're a single income family, and DW is a SAHM, so daycare was never a factor in our finances.

[Turtle]

The only footnotes I could find in Ramsey's PDF or article were for the comparisons to national statistics.  There was nothing about the methodology of how they found/picked/qualified the folks who were part of the survey, nor about whether it was total net worth or liquid net worth or some other determination for what a "Millionaire" is.

The term "Millionaire" is thrown about as if it is a single person, when it comes to the salary, family of origin, and education questions.  And yet, one must assume that if it's 10,000 surveyed that some of them would be married. 

That makes me wonder if this survey was somewhat self-selected by people who already listen to his show or read his articles.

Without context as to how the "survey" was conducted, it's nothing more than another D.R. clickbait article and nothing I'd want to quote anywhere.

At least with the Millionaire Next Door books there were real footnotes and additional available information. 

[cannotWAIT]

If you feel the need to keep your assets separate look long and hard at the whole idea of marriage.

Believe me, I have.

[iris lily]

The only footnotes I could find in Ramsey's PDF or article were for the comparisons to national statistics.  There was nothing about the methodology of how they found/picked/qualified the folks who were part of the survey, nor about whether it was total net worth or liquid net worth or some other determination for what a "Millionaire" is.

The term "Millionaire" is thrown about as if it is a single person, when it comes to the salary, family of origin, and education questions.  And yet, one must assume that if it's 10,000 surveyed that some of them would be married. 

That makes me wonder if this survey was somewhat self-selected by people who already listen to his show or read his articles.

Without context as to how the "survey" was conducted, it's nothing more than another D.R. clickbait article and nothing I'd want to quote anywhere.

At least with the Millionaire Next Door books there were real footnotes and additional available information.

I said it above, but to repeat: Dave Ramsy defines assets of a million dollars in the classic way: assets minus debts. He repeated his definition on the podcast I recently heard.

So sure, it includes equity in dwellings.

[farmecologist]

The only footnotes I could find in Ramsey's PDF or article were for the comparisons to national statistics.  There was nothing about the methodology of how they found/picked/qualified the folks who were part of the survey, nor about whether it was total net worth or liquid net worth or some other determination for what a "Millionaire" is.

The term "Millionaire" is thrown about as if it is a single person, when it comes to the salary, family of origin, and education questions.  And yet, one must assume that if it's 10,000 surveyed that some of them would be married. 

That makes me wonder if this survey was somewhat self-selected by people who already listen to his show or read his articles.

Without context as to how the "survey" was conducted, it's nothing more than another D.R. clickbait article and nothing I'd want to quote anywhere.

At least with the Millionaire Next Door books there were real footnotes and additional available information.

I said it above, but to repeat: Dave Ramsy defines assets of a million dollars in the classic way: assets minus debts. He repeated his definition on the podcast I recently heard.

So sure, it includes equity in dwellings.

Yep, the classic definition of net worth absolutely does include home value, as you pointed out.

In fact, the FIRE community often separates "net worth" from "investable assets.   In fact, you can see that clearly in the "race to <insert number here>" threads.

 
 

[ixtap]

Would seem that to be fair/equal, a couple would need 1 million each to start talking/making comparisons?

I agree. There are plenty of stories on this forum about people who have had to un-FIRE or do a radical lifestyle readjustment after divorce to understand why.

Sharing expenses is great, but calculating your future income need based on the expectation that you will be splitting expenses with a partner is a very real risk.

I also agree, including home equity is bogus. Having a million dollar home and no other assets is nothing to aspire to.

Agreed.

I remember when our asset sheet reached $2 million and I was relieved because if I got a divorce I would still be a millionaire.

We are just now there (I assume, last check in was still a little shy). And our tenth anniversary is in a couple of weeks; my own SS record is abysmal (first academic job was in state that doesn't pay into SS, several years of grad stipends not paid as earned income...), so this is important, as well.

I prefer to keep him, though!

[iris lily]

https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research

@iris lily Linking your first post to the survey source would be the honorable thing, just for clicks and eyeballs for Dave.

Ok thanks! I have not seen the study, so will look at it.