Self Efficacy and FIRE - How the Guardian got it wrong

[gillstone]

I loved the call out today against the Guardian article.  Reading both MMM and the original article I started pondering the fancy-pants term “self-efficacy”.  It’s an individual’s belief in their ability to accomplish a goal or complete a task.  If you believe that you can save enough, you will adopt the habits you need to save enough.  If you don’t think you’ll make it, you’ll never get started. 

Articles like the one in the Guardian say it’s impossible for the middle class to retire because forces outside the individual’s control make it impossible.  In effect this strips the middle class of agency and self-efficacy.  It tells readers that they will never really be able to retire, so go buy another latte and enjoy the shittiest ride ever. 
What’s sad is that even if there is some truth to their argument that the safety net has too many holes, the stated cause denies the option of a solution.  If the fatcats really are responsible and have stripped the middle class and lower classes of even the ability to choose when or how long they work or if they can save enough money, then how can it ever get better? Pieces that decry the victimhood of 80% of the population then shrug and say it will never get better are, at best, masturbatory.

If the Guardian, the paper of the middle class, really wanted to energize a group of people for change, then it would publish more articles that emphasize frugality, self-reliance, and self-discipline. It would help people see how they ca change old habits and start making better decisions. 

This isn’t an entirely fair comparison because it’s difficult to gather data on both sides.  But go look at the forums here and see how many people are working on their badassity because of a blog and its community that focus on how the individual can control their own life. Then go find out how much real, tangible good in the world is done by articles that tells folks to not even try.

OK so off the soapbox and question to whoever reads this…How can pieces about how hard it can be for the middle class be done better?

[odput]

OK so off the soapbox and question to whoever reads this…How can pieces about how hard it can be for the middle class be done better?

Simple...offer solutions.

One of the reasons that so many people are working on their badassity now (myself included) is because MMM often describes ways to do it.  The general consumer public isn't quite ready for the brash tone that he usually uses to do it, but sometimes I wonder if someone were to write one of these articles then suggest a couple things to get the ball rolling if they would have a different impact/reaction.

[jordanread]

OK so off the soapbox and question to whoever reads this…How can pieces about how hard it can be for the middle class be done better?

Simple...offer solutions.

odput, I think that's only part of it. I think we can go even more simply than that. Offering solutions is great, and I love the things MMM recommends. However, with the tone of that article, and the tone I've heard in others has to do with an epidemic of excusitis.
I think that solutions are only as useful as the understanding that you are not a victim, and that you have the control to fix it.
These articles have a tendency to follow the National Conversation, which seems to be how much inequality there is with the middle class, as opposed to taking accountability, which then gives one the power to change.
A good start would be an article in which it shows what decisions you make and the costs of it. At that point, we can then start mentioning ways to fix it.

[Starstuff]

I think the media needs to start separating "excuses" and "actual causes of difficulty."

Actual Causes of Difficulty (or ACD) (including, but not limited to):
1. Being raised in a food desert and/or an area with seriously underfunded schools
2. Major medical bills
3. A physical or mental disability impacting ability to work, or being caregiver for such an individual

ACD's are legitimate reasons that a person may be struggling. They are mitigating factors beyond an individuals control that are very difficult to overcome. For example, a child raised in a food desert, or by a parent who cannot/does not provide fresh meals, will not have developed as well as a child raised on fresh food, and so will have done worse in his/her already poorly funded school. This will limit opportunities later in life. Can this be overcome? Of course it can. So can Everest. But most people are not able to scale that mountain, at least not without help. A pedestrian who gets hit by a car and has no (or I guess, Bronze, these days) insurance is going to get hit with some major bills. They had no control over that factor, and will struggle while they pay off these debts.

ACD's are not avoidable, excuses are. "Needing" the nicer version of something, "deserving" this thing that costs money, or "having to" spend this amount are excuses. If you CAN do it for less, then no matter what the reason, you are CHOOSING to do it for more.

I think a lot of the excusitis in this country has to do with what the social justice communities call "privilege." People really need to step back and look at reality before spouting off how hard it is to choose to live with less. There are people in this country who work as hard as their situation allows (ACD's), spend as little as possible, and struggle to eat. They legitimately have no way to get ahead. $100,000 a year does not "disappear quickly" has Heidi said in the comments. You make choices, and they have consequences. Calling it anything else is to disparage those who will struggle to make $100,000 in their lifetimes. Saying you "deserve" to live in a nicer house because you can "afford it" is to say that someone who lives in a weekly hotel because of an ACD doesn't deserve a nicer shelter. We all deserve to live in a safe place, and to have enough to eat, a good education, and good medical care that doesn't bankrupt us. Beyond that your life is luxury, and calling it anything but is blindness and privilege.

[tooqk4u22]

My main issue with the blog post was the absolute surprise to expect anything less from a liberal writer who is writing for a liberal publication (I made a comment of same in the comments of the post but MMM deleted it - that's ok). 

While MMM and the MMM forum crowd has a left of center bent I found it interesting that he was calling BS on the standard liberal position - which is that the general population is to disadvantaged/poor/stupid/deserving/entitled/etc to be accountable/responsible for themselves so the government MUST step in to make it right.  Unfortunately, the criticized article is exactly where we are as a society and unfortunately the liberals don't think we are left enough.....they want to go further and make it so EVERYONE is dependant.

[horsepoor]

Reading through some of the comments was kind of a Twilight Zone experience.  Heidi's comments in particular.

Why on earth would she NOT tell parents that they are trading off XX years of retirement in exchange for a big house, SUV and the latest toys and piano lessons for Sally and Johnny?

It seemed like an either/or discussion, where it's "not fair" to suggest saving 50% or more of salary to people who are spending all their money on bloated lifestyles and wondering why they can't retire, leveled at the poor waifs who insist on living a life of misery and privation on $25K per year.  Aren't there about 75,000 different spending levels in between living on $25K and 100K?  And isn't it pretty self-evident that retirement comes earlier and earlier for anyone deciding to spend closer to the $25K than the 100K, given equal incomes?  Duh.  It's too bad that simple math offends people.

And I'm saying this as a DINK with a combined gross of about $160K - we have two mortgages, two car notes, and probably won't retire before age 50 if not later, so I guess I should have been nodding in slack-jawed agreement at the Guardian article and taking umbrage at MMM's response.  However, I KNOW that our choices are what put us where we are, and that our continued choices are what will keep us working.  It's a choice, and everyone should acknowledge that, rather than playing the blame game.

The article sure made it sound like anyone who MAKES $25K per year must have a pretty shitty life, and I think that's a pretty shitty thing to say.  How weird it would be if simply making more money made us biologically incapable of enjoying things that people who make less money might enjoy.  The discussion in the comments also didn't point out (that I noticed) that even if someone is living on less because they have to, they still have a lot to gain by cutting out some luxuries and saving.  In fact, I'd say a $10K cushion could mean a lot more to someone making $20K than a $50K cushion to someone earning $100K.  No, they can't retire on that, but it's better than nothing and can give them a buffer against future economic blows.

[HappierAtHome]

And I'm saying this as a DINK with a combined gross of about $160K - we have two mortgages, two car notes, and probably won't retire before age 50 if not later, so I guess I should have been nodding in slack-jawed agreement at the Guardian article and taking umbrage at MMM's response.  However, I KNOW that our choices are what put us where we are, and that our continued choices are what will keep us working.  It's a choice, and everyone should acknowledge that, rather than playing the blame game.

I think that knowing you have choices is what makes the difference.

I have a friend who saves 0% of her income. However, she knows that if she wanted to save she could stop buying a lot of crap. She and I respect each other as we recognise that we've made different choices, but that we're both doing what we want to do. She never complains even a little bit about being "poor" or not earning as much as I do.

I have another friend (who earns as much as I do) who complains constantly about how she doesn't earn enough to be able to save more than about 10% of her income, it's not fair, everything is too expensive, it's easy for YOU HappierAtHome because you have a high-earning partner... etc.

One is saving and the other is not, but no prizes for guessing which one I predict will be happier and more successful in her life.

[horsepoor]

That's what's so maddening about the article.  It makes it sound like there IS no choice to be made. It almost seems unethical, like not telling a patient about an alternative treatment because they may not like the side effects.

Don't get me wrong, I've been guilty of being complainy, and spendy and all that, and would like to go back in time and kick my former self's ass for several things.  But I can definitely incorporate some MMM advice going forward and decide where the right balance between current spending and future FI is for me.  Why would anyone want a financial planner to hide that information from them?  So bizarre.

[Travis]

it's not fair, everything is too expensive

And this is what caught Heidi so much flak over the article.  She kept trying reinforce the notion that spending and income were the same thing. They have little to do with each other.  For your friend to complain about everything being too expensive, the simple answer is "stop buying expensive crap."  That's sound advice regardless of your income level.  In fact, it should have a more profound effect the lower on the income scale you go since it makes up a larger share.  I make $113k/year and my best friend and her husband probably pull in around $30k with nothing to spare.  Life is difficult for them, but 1) she's learned how to live with those numbers and 2) she doesn't give me a hard time for making more since she knows I spend about as much as she does.  Am I fortunate that I'll probably have a more comfortable retirement than her? Of course, but that's a function of my spending habits more than it is of my income. If I tried hard enough I could justify why I needed to spend every dime I made, but I don't.  I know if she suddenly doubled her salary she might increase her spending by a couple percent, but then look for ways to save the rest of it.  She wouldn't miss it.

1. Being raised in a food desert and/or an area with seriously underfunded schools
2. Major medical bills
3. A physical or mental disability impacting ability to work, or being caregiver for such an individual

Those are all perfect reasons why some people have financial difficulty, but certainly not a majority of the population.  Just because life is tough for some families doesn't mean the rest of the world gets to play the blame game. If Heidi's readers feel they "need" to expand their cost of living to include all available income, then that's their personal problem to solve and nobody else.

[gillstone]

That's what's so maddening about the article.  It makes it sound like there IS no choice to be made. It almost seems unethical, like not telling a patient about an alternative treatment because they may not like the side effects.

Its the defeatism that makes it particularly toxic.  Many barriers to class mobility are external (cost of health care, lack of access to good schools, food deserts etc...) but the one that is most crippling is internal.  If you do not believe that you can effect change in your life, then you never will.  A line of logic that presupposes defeat is poison to class mobility.  I have worked with very low income communities steeped in genrational poverty, and the programs that worked best were ones that made a first step of getting them to believe they have some control over the direction of their lives. 

The excusitis movement (my new favorite term) is a cancer on the social justice movement. It is an unhealthy mutation of a legitimate exploration of systemic poverty that will defeat any effort to fix actual problems in society.  It both saps the motivation for action and provides ammunition to those who oppose change because any effort to fix systemic causes is just called a bunch of whining and excuses by the "takers" of society.

[Hedge_87]

I'll admit before finding this blog/forum I probably would have  been nodding in agreeance with Heidi. I would have said I make good money and no matter what I seem to do I just can't get ahead it's. Not my fault wah wah. However a few quick face punches chased my complainypants and defeatism away (not to say I don't relapse from time to time). I've found myself much happier after trimming most of the fat off my life. There is still a little to go but I'm getting there. It seems like there is no personal accountability in society any more. I'm tired of whinny news articles always taking the blame off the individual and putting on to something outside their control.