Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
Frugalwoods - Guilty or Not?Man... they aren't even on trial.
Lifestyle blogs are about a *lifestyle*, not boring old numbers. ;-)
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
Frugalwoods - Guilty or Not?Man... they aren't even on trial.
Frugalwoods - Guilty or Not?Man... they aren't even on trial.
Aren't they though....the court of public opinion.
I just started reading the blog the other day. It's obvious that the house and land are very, very nice and these things don't come free. The blog is well written.Their mortgage is public information. Their homestead wasn't that expensive
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
They literally wrote "we have normal jobs with standard salaries" in 2014, a year where they made $300,000k+. Liz has since purged her linkedin profile of job history, but not until many people had noticed her career as a highly compensated manager of fundraising at WGBH.
I've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
I've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
They literally wrote "we have normal jobs with standard salaries" in 2014, a year where they made $300,000k+.
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
They literally wrote "we have normal jobs with standard salaries" in 2014, a year where they made $300,000k+. Liz has since purged her linkedin profile of job history, but not until many people had noticed her career as a highly compensated manager of fundraising at WGBH.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
I've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
I guess if I really cared, I'd want a tax transcript of every year since graduation until the date she claimed they make normal salaries to give my final judgement. If they started out making $40k each and by the time they were FI were making 150k each, I'd say that's not too out of the norm for college educated professionals in their area. But again I don't really care. And I would consider their rental income investment income. I don't include my rental income if someone were to ask how much I make just like I wouldn't include my dividends, interest, or cap gains.
FW's household income has been estimated at $450-$600k currently, including $290k in executive pay, $60k rental income, a 5-figure blog, and a 6-figure book deal.
That's at least $40k PER MONTH, mang.
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
They literally wrote "we have normal jobs with standard salaries" in 2014, a year where they made $300,000k+. Liz has since purged her linkedin profile of job history, but not until many people had noticed her career as a highly compensated manager of fundraising at WGBH.
And I know plenty of people (alas, we are not among them) who make that kind of money and spend ever penny of it, and more. So again - don’t care what they make, but enjoy reading about how they have made their life.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
Interpolating United States Census Bureau Household income data, if we were to use $40k - $200k as the range for average or normal, then ~34% of households are below average or normal, where just 7% are above average or normal.
You did say "family" though. If we look only at family households, the numbers are ~25% below average, and 9% above average. Better, but still pretty lopsided in favor of high income people who wish to be thought of as average.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
Interpolating United States Census Bureau Household income data, if we were to use $40k - $200k as the range for average or normal, then ~34% of households are below average or normal, where just 7% are above average or normal.
You did say "family" though. If we look only at family households, the numbers are ~25% below average, and 9% above average. Better, but still pretty lopsided in favor of high income people who wish to be thought of as average.
If you really wanted to be accurate, you would have to look at income data for their specific location. And for two income full-time workers or full-time workers 2x. She said they made standard salaries not standard household income.
And my point was that if you asked me what average is, then thats how I would reply off the cuff. So if someone else thinks that too, then I think its plausible that they actually believe that.
I do tax returns for a living and if I were to guess what the average family's income was on the returns we prepare I would say $90k-200k.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
Interpolating United States Census Bureau Household income data, if we were to use $40k - $200k as the range for average or normal, then ~34% of households are below average or normal, where just 7% are above average or normal.
You did say "family" though. If we look only at family households, the numbers are ~25% below average, and 9% above average. Better, but still pretty lopsided in favor of high income people who wish to be thought of as average.
If you really wanted to be accurate, you would have to look at income data for their specific location. And for two income full-time workers or full-time workers 2x. She said they made standard salaries not standard household income.
And my point was that if you asked me what average is, then thats how I would reply off the cuff. So if someone else thinks that too, then I think its plausible that they actually believe that.
I do tax returns for a living and if I were to guess what the average family's income was on the returns we prepare I would say $90k-200k.
People who use tax preparation services are a self-selected population with above-average incomes.
If you really wanted to be accurate, you would have to look at income data for their specific location. And for two income full-time workers or full-time workers 2x. She said they made standard salaries not standard household income.
And my point was that if you asked me what average is, then thats how I would reply off the cuff. So if someone else thinks that too, then I think its plausible that they actually believe that.
I do tax returns for a living and if I were to guess what the average family's income was on the returns we prepare I would say $90k-200k.
I''ll get a gang of $40,000 a year families together and ask them if they thinkI've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
They literally wrote "we have normal jobs with standard salaries" in 2014, a year where they made $300,000k+. Liz has since purged her linkedin profile of job history, but not until many people had noticed her career as a highly compensated manager of fundraising at WGBH.
And I know plenty of people (alas, we are not among them) who make that kind of money and spend ever penny of it, and more. So again - don’t care what they make, but enjoy reading about how they have made their life.
I enjoy reading about how they became financially independent too. The problem is, they have intentionally misled, misdirected, and misinformed their audience about how they've attained financial freedom.
I''ll get a gang of $40,000 a year families together and ask them if they thinkI've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
a family making $200,000 is average, like them.
Do you have a preferred sight for your lockup?
:-)
$200k in San francisco and your practically on food stamps.This is pretty offensive. We all know people who blow their money, but there is a difference between being bad with money and actual poverty, and there is no possible world in which someone making 200k is considered poor, even in a very HCOL city. It's also pretty easy to find statistics on income, including individual vs family vs full time. There's no good excuse for representing a top 5% income as middle class, no matter how insulated from your surroundings you are.
$200k in San francisco and your practically on food stamps.This is pretty offensive. We all know people who blow their money, but there is a difference between being bad with money and actual poverty, and there is no possible world in which someone making 200k is considered poor, even in a very HCOL city. It's also pretty easy to find statistics on income, including individual vs family vs full time. There's no good excuse for representing a top 5% income as middle class, no matter how insulated from your surroundings you are.
This was obviously sarcasm. I will write "sarcasm" in the future. (BTW- sarcasm)
This was obviously sarcasm. I will write "sarcasm" in the future. (BTW- sarcasm)
I think you're making a good point here. That people can be fundamentally ignorant about how much money they make.
But (as you know) they're wrong. People who are wrong should habitually be called out for their wrongness.
I asked my Dad the average return he does (he works for a nonprofit) and he said $12k -$20k for a family of 4. (In Austin, TX, so not quite Cambridge)
I do tax returns for a living and if I were to guess what the average family's income was on the returns we prepare I would say $90k-200k.
Truly, I was never under the impression that they were minimum wage earners. I find what people earn to be much less interesting than what they spend.
They literally wrote "we have normal jobs with standard salaries" in 2014, a year where they made $300,000k+. Liz has since purged her linkedin profile of job history, but not until many people had noticed her career as a highly compensated manager of fundraising at WGBH.
And I know plenty of people (alas, we are not among them) who make that kind of money and spend ever penny of it, and more. So again - don’t care what they make, but enjoy reading about how they have made their life.
I enjoy reading about how they became financially independent too. The problem is, they have intentionally misled, misdirected, and misinformed their audience about how they've attained financial freedom.
Seriously? Isn't the other thread enough to beat this dead horse?Maybe we can merge the 2. Add in the gun thread and The Beatles thread and watch the forums implode ;-).
As I said in the other thread (or maybe it was here...who can remember) I personally really like the FW blog even though I'm not interested in.country life. I like Mrs FW a lot, enjoy her writing style and enjoyed her posts here in the past. She seems like a genuine and nice person. I hope they continue to live the dream life. I don't care how much they earned before or now. I don't really care if they chose not to disclose their income. But I do think it lessens their message but that's just me. Now I'm done with both threads.
For more context on contextual averages/norms, the average annual wage earned in Cambridge, MA is $107K.So then, they are above average quite a bit. At least he is.
citation: http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/factsandmaps/demographicfaq (5th faq from the bottom)
Really, are we judging people for earning more? For talking about their take on what frugality looks like? For earning money from their blog through affiliate and other options?
As someone who strongly believes that people are free to call themselves whatever they want to unless it is a legal/official term or requires a certification/education ( like doctor, lawyer) this just sounds wrong on so many levels.
We earn well above the average especially for the country we live in (India) and we are very much aware of it. However our income is not even a drop compared to many of the colleagues we work with. For our profession we are average if not below average earners. People who look at our travels alone might think we earn a lot but we travel on a budget which for a really shoestring budget traveler is huge.
Stuff is relative, don't like a blog don't read it.
So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?
So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?
First, $250k is three times $80k. I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".
So how are you presenting yourself on the blog? "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area." "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."
I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different.
Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate. If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough. And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.
I've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
FW's household income has been estimated at $450-$600k currently, including $290k in executive pay, $60k rental income, a 5-figure blog, and a 6-figure book deal.
That's at least $40k PER MONTH, mang.
Lol. People missing the point in here like Neo dodging bullets in the Matrix.
Look guys, when you're rich, you're above criticism. You're entitled to redefine words like "normal", "middle", "standard", and "retirement" to suit whatever purpose you want them to. Including and especially, making your self-congratulatory vanity project seem like an exercise in super-human thriftiness and the ultimate come-up story.
If you disagree with this, you're bitter and probably extremely jealous. Now stop asking questions and click the affiliate links you troglodytes!!
So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?
First, $250k is three times $80k. I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".
So how are you presenting yourself on the blog? "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area." "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."
I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different.
Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate. If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough. And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.
$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..
I think that since this forum skews higher income, people here don't really realize how well off they are.
https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/
There's some interesting data there, but I'd just like to point out that half of americans earn less than 30K. To the vast majority of americans, incomes like the Frugalwoods are far out of reach and very far from what most americans would consider standard.
So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?
First, $250k is three times $80k. I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".
So how are you presenting yourself on the blog? "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area." "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."
I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different.
Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate. If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough. And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.
$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..
Wow. Good for you.
If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.
So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?
First, $250k is three times $80k. I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".
So how are you presenting yourself on the blog? "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area." "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."
I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different.
Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate. If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough. And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.
$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..
Wow. Good for you.
If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.
What if the blog is - work your ass off and make good choices and you can be high income too? If someone makes $30/hr, and works 75 hrs a week (like I work) that’s 35 hrs of overtime a week. At an overtime rate of $45/hr, that’s about an extra $75k per year!
Most lower income people don’t want to hear that, though. They’d rather assume every person making 200k-300k a year is there by some stroke of luck, and doesn’t work 10x harder than they do now, or to get to where they’re at.
Yeah - I make a ton, I also have worked harder and more than a LOT of people. This petty jealousy in this thread seems to discredit that.
Who cares what someone makes in a blog? It’s about SPENDING LESS. Honestly - I think it’s 1000x harder to live on 40k when you make 300k, vs living off 40k when you make 40k. It takes a ton of self control when you’re making more.
So if I started a blog (which I doubt I ever would) people would look at me and be like “well he made xx dollars,” and discredit me?
First, $250k is three times $80k. I think that $80k is what most people on this board would consider "normal high income" vs. "crazy high income".
So how are you presenting yourself on the blog? "I make a reasonable salary to support my family of 4 in my HCOL area." "I make such a low salary that I have no choice but to live in poverty."
I think the problem most people have is the "normal, average, everyday salaries" messaging of people who were probably making $300k+ combined (pre-kids too; the median incomes are generally for families of 4). That is not a normal, average salary. Not even close.
Now if the message was "we started as normal middle class kids from the midwest and worked our way up to high paid managerial positions, and saved all we could" it would be different.
Instead people feel mislead. Because it wasn't JUST the 90% savings rate (for awhile they didn't count 401k in their savings rate when they claimed 70ish%) that got them to their homestead so quickly. It was the $300k a year PLUS the 90% savings rate. If you "only" make $80k, that 90% savings rate is going to be pretty impossible, and still not enough. And yet, reading their blog, you might think you are pulling in MORE than them- since you know you have a decent salary, and they have a "normal salary" at a nonprofit.
$80k so far this year... we’re only 3 months into it..
Wow. Good for you.
If you blog is "I make a lot of money but don't fall in the trap of spending it all" - maybe it would be interesting.
If it is "I'm average and just like you. All you need to do is make your own seltzer and you too can be FI" then, I think people would be annoyed when they find out your earnings; that you misled them.
i find this a little amusing. I have recently started reading through the FW blog, and I don't see any attempts to really hide their income. E.G. Their July 2015 spending is $3350, including their mortgage. They say they save 70%+ of their income. They must have income AFTER TAXES AND 401K (or whatever it is called over there) of at least $11166 per month, or take home $134,000 a year. Minimum.Bingo!
They also clearly say they don't talk about their income or their stash. But their incomes are higher than average, and they acknowledge it.
I wonder how much of the "Guilty" issue is jealousy?
I've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
FW's household income has been estimated at $450-$600k currently, including $290k in executive pay, $60k rental income, a 5-figure blog, and a 6-figure book deal.
That's at least $40k PER MONTH, mang.
holy shit
Lol. People missing the point in here like Neo dodging bullets in the Matrix.
Look guys, when you're rich, you're above criticism. You're entitled to redefine words like "normal", "middle", "standard", and "retirement" to suit whatever purpose you want them to. Including and especially, making your self-congratulatory vanity project seem like an exercise in super-human thriftiness and the ultimate come-up story.
If you disagree with this, you're bitter and probably extremely jealous. Now stop asking questions and click the affiliate links you troglodytes!!
In case it wasn't clear, I'm just having a bit of fun here. =)
Either way though, others are right, enough is kind of enough. Team "willful deception" has done an effective enough job of proving our point, and we've probably turned too far down the corner of wild speculation.
I'll do my part to stop bumping either thread after this post. Before I go, I just want to reiterate that while I believe certain members of the PF blogger community to engage in deception, I don't think they're bad people. The Frugalwoods seem super nice and probably donate a lot to charities that I would like. Someone in the other thread made a good comparison to used car salesman. Just because they profit off of dishonesty, doesn't mean that used car salespeople are bad. It's just the nature of the business. I wish it weren't that way, and I'm willing to be vocal about it, but I get that it is what it is to some extent.
I liked some of the tangents we got on in here. Especially ones about whether where you live in American redefines what middle class means. Maybe I'll start a thread about that if I think the subject is meaty enough.
Agreed.
I feel like a bunch of people were like “whoa, that seems misleading” and then a pile of people debated tangential issues that had little to do with people feeling misled and focused more on perceived criticism of the income itself or exactly how much they disclosed, neither of which are really the main issue.
I think most people would be pretty chill had their statement all along been “we make very high incomes, which helps in achieving our goals, but we don’t allow it to determine our lifestyle and would live this way even if our income doubled,” which is the truth and IMO an admirable one at that.
I know I wouldn’t have taken issue or said a damn thing when Nate’s income was inevitably revealed, I would have been like “wow, over 300K certainly *is* high income, they weren’t kidding.”
But hey, what do I know? Apparently I’m judgemental, jealous, and invasively demanding of people’s private financial information because I find a blogger disingenuous.
Tough crowd.
I'm curious, how many people who see the Frugalwoods as willfully misrepresenting their income, also see MMM as willfully misrepresenting his spending.I think it depends how honest he is about what he excludes or not. He can say that he lives on 25K a year, plus the studio, plus the business trips, plus whatever, and it's clear that he isn't actually living on 25K a year but he says he's meeting his basic needs on 25K a year, all the other stuff is extra. I personally don't care that the FW make a lot of money, but it does annoy me that they say they have normal salaries, since they clearly don't. The difference is how they talk about it, not what the actual numbers are. I don't believe that bloggers have to disclose every bit of their financial picture. But they should at least be honest about how they choose to represent themselves.
For me, the latter aggravates me, but the former I just shrug off. Brains are weird.
I'm curious, how many people who see the Frugalwoods as willfully misrepresenting their income, also see MMM as willfully misrepresenting his spending.
For me, the latter aggravates me, but the former I just shrug off. Brains are weird.
We have high-paying jobs. While this alone isn’t a predictor of financial health, or the ability to achieve financial independence at a young age, it sure does help. Yes, we’re extreme frugal weirdos and yes, we save 71% of our incomes every year and yes, minus our mortgage we spent $13,000 in all of 2014. But, we recognize how fortunate we are to be able to do this.
Lots of people work much harder, longer hours than we do for vastly less money. They might live just as frugally as we do–forgoing cable, restaurants, haircuts, and cars newer than 19 years old–but they won’t be able to save at the high rate we do.
Which rule says that threads Dicey disagrees with can't be posted?Not my rules:
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
My husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
Whether they are rich or not is subjective.
Yeah- the Frugalwoods are rich. But they weren't necessarily rich when they started all this. I can't believe she said that now though. Even I say I'm rich, and neither my husband or I make 6 figures on our own. We are "middle class" by the definition of lifestyle, not assets. I can see her claiming "middle class", but she is rich. They are millionaires, probably multiple times over.
I particularly liked their recent post on city vs. country. They actually spend a lot more now than when they were living in the city. It isn't about saving just to save; it's about living an intentional life.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact? JFC...
Whether they are rich or not is subjective. The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true. So yes, I think that's an honest summary. Certainly more honest than your criticism.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact? JFC...
Whether they are rich or not is subjective. The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true. So yes, I think that's an honest summary. Certainly more honest than your criticism.
$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.
$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact? JFC...
Whether they are rich or not is subjective. The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true. So yes, I think that's an honest summary. Certainly more honest than your criticism.
$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.
$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.
Bullshit.
First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames. How did you even determine that is Nate? Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country? So that's dubious to begin with.
Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k. That's $18k/mo gross. As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year. So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.
Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.
So yeah, it's up for dispute. But I applaud your imagination.
------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference. Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362
/edit
They only have one Thames on their team...
https://secure.actblue.com/about
He has a pretty distinct look.
Let's everybody turn the anger down just a notch, talk about what we know for sure.
We should also realize that their *current* income isn't all that relevant to the way they got to where they are, and what their current *spending* is.
Toque.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
So you pulled that $40k/mo out of your ass and are now treating it as a fact? JFC...
Whether they are rich or not is subjective. The fact that they were average middle class kids is likely true. So yes, I think that's an honest summary. Certainly more honest than your criticism.
$30k per month is Nate's executive compensation plus the Cambridge house income, which have been repeatedly documented here and not up for dispute.
$10k+ per month is a conservative estimate of their combined blog income and book income.
Bullshit.
First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames. How did you even determine that is Nate? Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country? So that's dubious to begin with.
Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k. That's $18k/mo gross. As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year. So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.
Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.
So yeah, it's up for dispute. But I applaud your imagination.
------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference. Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362
/edit
Bullshit.
First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames. How did you even determine that is Nate? Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country? So that's dubious to begin with.
Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k. That's $18k/mo gross. As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year. So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.
Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.
So yeah, it's up for dispute. But I applaud your imagination.
------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference. Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362
/edit
It's incredible to find someone this obtuse in real life.
Actblue's 2016 990 filing shows total compensation of $271k: https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I (https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I)
As executive director, Nate's income has increased on average 10.2% from 2014 to 2016. Given this trend, he more likely than not makes around $329,103 or $27,425 per month as of 2018. Do you really think that a political donation platform, in a year of midterm elections and unprecedented political donations, is going to start compensation their executive director less??
I have a huge problem withe these "not for profit" organisations. Fuck them.
If you had any conscience, people should be working here for little or nothing.
Theres plenty of skilled people, early retirees included, who would gladly do these sort of jobs.
That way, most of the funds would go to the real deserving cases.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
Bullshit.
First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames. How did you even determine that is Nate? Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country? So that's dubious to begin with.
Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k. That's $18k/mo gross. As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year. So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.
Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.
So yeah, it's up for dispute. But I applaud your imagination.
------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference. Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362
/edit
It's incredible to find someone this obtuse in real life.
Actblue's 2016 990 filing shows total compensation of $271k: https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I (https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I)
As executive director, Nate's income has increased on average 10.2% from 2014 to 2016. Given this trend, he more likely than not makes around $329,103 or $27,425 per month as of 2018. Do you really think that a political donation platform, in a year of midterm elections and unprecedented political donations, is going to start compensation their executive director less??
The link above from the other thread disputes this claim. So your statement of income is, again, wildly speculative.
However, I agree that he earns a lot of money. But I still don't see how this is at odds with the fact that they grew up middle class. I don't see how it's at odds with the claim that they are frugal. And I don't see how you think that I'm obtuse because I believe that speculative guesses need to be supported with evidence.
It may be at odds with whether they are rich or not, but that's generally based on assets and not income. Would you like to put your wild speculation skills to work and pull an asset number out of your ass for them?
I'm curious, how many people who see the Frugalwoods as willfully misrepresenting their income, also see MMM as willfully misrepresenting his spending.
For me, the latter aggravates me, but the former I just shrug off. Brains are weird.
Bullshit.
First, you have a tax filing of someone named James Thames. How did you even determine that is Nate? Because there's only one person with the last name Thames in the country? So that's dubious to begin with.
Second, even if it is him, it was listed at around $220k. That's $18k/mo gross. As listed in the other thread, that was James Thames's highest earning year. So it's dubious to take someone's highest year and project it both forward and backwards as if it's standard.
Third, your "conservative" estimate of their book and blog is also pulled out of your ass.
So yeah, it's up for dispute. But I applaud your imagination.
------------------------------------------------------
edit: here's a link to the salary post from the other thread for your easy reference. Again, note that this is under James Thames, so we have no actual proof that this is even the same guy.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-up-with-the-frugalwoods/msg1948362/#msg1948362
/edit
It's incredible to find someone this obtuse in real life.
Actblue's 2016 990 filing shows total compensation of $271k: https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I (https://www.docdroid.net/view/access/id/lZkMKUV/token/yK26CJPAArIxRYyhwWH9gcm1I)
As executive director, Nate's income has increased on average 10.2% from 2014 to 2016. Given this trend, he more likely than not makes around $329,103 or $27,425 per month as of 2018. Do you really think that a political donation platform, in a year of midterm elections and unprecedented political donations, is going to start compensation their executive director less??
The link above from the other thread disputes this claim. So your statement of income is, again, wildly speculative.
However, I agree that he earns a lot of money. But I still don't see how this is at odds with the fact that they grew up middle class. I don't see how it's at odds with the claim that they are frugal. And I don't see how you think that I'm obtuse because I believe that speculative guesses need to be supported with evidence.
It may be at odds with whether they are rich or not, but that's generally based on assets and not income. Would you like to put your wild speculation skills to work and pull an asset number out of your ass for them?
The link above actually supports my claim. I don't know why you would want to ignore other components of executive pay but even if you did, you would see a 23% increase in base salary from 2014 ($200k) to 2016 ($246k) versus the mere 20.4% increase in total compensation from 2014 ($225) to 2016 ($271k) that I quoted. So again, thank you for correcting my estimate upwards. I should have pulled it out of your ass instead of mine.
Now that you've conceded they are rich, you seem to be moving the goalposts. The conversation is about misleading statements about their income, especially in the run-up to the book release. This conversation isn't about how they grew up or how frugal they are-- I've never questioned that.
After a quick Google search I can't find anything they've published that truly misrepresents their income. In every reference I have found they claim to be high earners.
I found a line where they claim to not have 'absurdly high incomes' which some may argue they do, but I think that's splitting hairs.
How hard were you looking? In a very recent article, published in the Guardian ahead of their book release, Liz writes the following:QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
Do you really think that's an honest summary of their income, when they currently make $40k per MONTH?
I do wonder what the typical household income for FW readers is. Given that the whole concept of FI seems to attract above average earners (see: this forum), I'm guessing the median FW reader has a household income that is well above median. They're probably bringing in more $$$ than most of their readers, but I somehow doubt this is a case of a family that makes $400k/year doling out advice largely to families that make <$50k/yr. I would guess more a case of family making $400k advising other families who are also in the 6-figure bracket (how many of the people here posting that FW are misleading also make a median or less household income?).
Let's everybody turn the anger down just a notch, talk about what we know for sure.
We should also realize that their *current* income isn't all that relevant to the way they got to where they are, and what their current *spending* is.
Toque.
MOD NOTE: Getting angry at internet strangers about other internet strangers is, well, strange.
Chill out, or bans will be coming.
Calmly present what you think, or don't post. Don't attack other posters.
Cheers!
Around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals $277,000 in todays dollars. That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time. In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did. And this does not account for investment income.MMM never misrepresented himself as an "average" income earner. He not only showed us what he earned and what he saved, but has fully acknowledged that he had a high income and that's what allowed him to FIRE in his thirties. Even said it in the last paragraph of the link you posted:
Just sayin...
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802
"Other people will scoff at the high salaries involved, compared to the US median level. I won’t deny that – we had it easy, which is why we retired in our early thirties."
Again, this thread isn't about their income numbers past or present, or even them not disclosing those numbers. Its about misreprenting themselves as "average income earners". Does it matter. Meh...maybe not. But it's the same to me as it would be if a very low income person who claims to be FIRE and self supporting on that income fails to disclose support, opportunities or freebies they have gotten or may still get that allowed them to FIRE on that low income.
Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish.Of course it wasn't! If they had said that, the image they fostered of having "standard" "typical" salaries and of not being rich would be blown away! As has been said many times on this and the other thread, many people like their blog, appreciate their humility with respect to certain privileges they have and fully admit they actually are quite frugal and have some good tips and motivating advice. But to falsely present that salary (or even salaries half that) as typical and standard, no matter how much you like everything else about them, well...it's a fair complaint!
Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish.Of course it wasn't! If they had said that, the image they fostered of having "standard" "typical" salaries and of not being rich would be blown away! As has been said many times on this and the other thread, many people like their blog, appreciate their humility with respect to certain privileges they have and fully admit they actually are quite frugal and have some good tips and motivating advice. But to falsely present that salary (or even salaries half that) as typical and standard, no matter how much you like everything else about them, well...it's a fair complaint!
Btw, none of their advice was: go out and earn $300k like us and do as you wish.Of course it wasn't! If they had said that, the image they fostered of having "standard" "typical" salaries and of not being rich would be blown away! As has been said many times on this and the other thread, many people like their blog, appreciate their humility with respect to certain privileges they have and fully admit they actually are quite frugal and have some good tips and motivating advice. But to falsely present that salary (or even salaries half that) as typical and standard, no matter how much you like everything else about them, well...it's a fair complaint!
Present evidence or a quote that they represented that their salaries were typical and standard. These people aren’t delusional, they know that their salaries are exceptional. They can’t change that. However, their success is based on their frugality and savings, far more than their earning. They choose to not emphasize their earnings because then people focus on that instead of the savings/frugality and dismiss their advice. I don’t blame them. You people have 2 posts going solely because some of you are incredibly jealous because of how much they make and how it helped them attain FI earlier, when combined with the savings/frugality. Again, tacky.
I''ll get a gang of $40,000 a year families together and ask them if they thinkI've got to come clean: I'm kinda loving this mild drama. Maybe this is the internet mustachion version of reality TV. I don't even like reality TV, but this has been entertaining.
Haha, I agree. I had to go back and see what they were "guilty" of. I thought she violated copyright laws or breached a contract. I consider any family with an income of $40k - $200k average or normal. Better lock me up too!
a family making $200,000 is average, like them.
Do you have a preferred sight for your lockup?
:-)
MOD NOTE: Getting angry at internet strangers about other internet strangers is, well, strange.
Cheers!
It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances. I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential). Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc. I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile.
Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal. I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.
It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances. I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential). Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc. I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile.
Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal. I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.
Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world. Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.
It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances. I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential). Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc. I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile.
Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal. I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.
Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world. Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.
Meh. When you only share one side of the story (spending) you get to write the narrative. When you share the whole story, the reader gets to write the narrative.
They have written a very detailed aaccount of their spending. I tabulated each month and they spent a bit over $54k a year ($4500/month). That includes a mortgage and high property taxes.It would actually be quite cool if someone like me published 'full frontal' finances. I graduated in 1996 making 42k and saved about 50% with a whole lot of hardship (but maximizing the 401k was essential). Right from the get go, I knew I wanted freedom more than I wanted a fancy car, house, wardrobe, etc. I did buy a used CBR600 for ~1k and a used Supra after cashing in on an out of state job and running my 300k mile Honda into the ground for some 40 cents per mile.
Anyway, what I was getting at is that making 40k/yr and having a 50% savings rate isn't even all that frugal. I wouldn't say that I was frugal, I was just prudent. But when someone making 300k/yr says they are frugal, it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
I have every month of finances since I graduated documented, so maybe I'll feel like showing how different my early years were (especially given the negative market returns) vs. having a decent 'stache and above average income working for me in 2009 onward.
Except for the fact that they also documented their spending and shared it with the world. Unlike their income, which is apparently open to lots of baseless speculation, their spending is one area where no speculation is needed.
Meh. When you only share one side of the story (spending) you get to write the narrative. When you share the whole story, the reader gets to write the narrative.
Incomes are highly relative based upon region. Cost of living is highly relative thus the conversations about geographic arbitrage. 40k household income in New York City is broke. I suspect Boston, where they were, is a similarly expensive area. A low six figure household income could likely be middle class in their area and thus arguably what many Americans consider average-ish.
They’re not that high income that it justifies the critical response I’ve seen from folks.
Ugly thread here-getting pretty close to personal attacks.
Almost nobody actually wants FIRE bloggers to have transparent finances.
Readers want attitude, conviction, slick pictures, guys with beards and girls in flannels. Essentially, they want to be marketed to.
Don't hate on the FW for being popular and perhaps not 100% transparent. Hate on the community for wanting to be lied to about FIRE.
Hate on the community for wanting to be lied to about FIRE.
So I don't really understand the outrage - is it the realization that frugal living alone is not the key to financial independence?
I think if we can agree on anything, it's that the community is not a monolith. Some want transparency, some don't. Everyone should want a *consistent* story though.
For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.
For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.
I'm super impressed this guy hired actors to appear in years worth of stock photos and to do television interviews. These blogs must rake in even MORE than I thought.
For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.
I'm super impressed this guy hired actors to appear in years worth of stock photos and to do television interviews. These blogs must rake in even MORE than I thought.
Dont be a wiseass, you get the point. And yeah, once you get as many eyeballs as MMM has this shit is lucrative!
Maybe the problem is that some of you take these blogs too seriously/literally. These blogs are ENTERTAINMENT. They exist to sell eyeballs. They are not offering financial advice and it would be illegal for them to do so. Frugalwoods or MMM are not required to divulge their actual income or expenses. For all you know all this shit could be made up by some fat guy typing shit into his computer from his bed.Credibility is pretty important when giving advice to others on how to live their life. You're right that some of these blogs only exist to convert traffic into revenue but those types generally don't last long in circles like this.
Credibility is pretty important when giving advice to others on how to live their life. You're right that some of these blogs only exist to convert traffic into revenue but those types generally don't last long in circles like this.
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.
So I don't really understand the outrage - is it the realization that frugal living alone is not the key to financial independence?
No outrage from me.
I think you've hit on it-people are upset b/c they thought the FW were able to accomplish all of that on frugality alone, and had an income more in line with the US median. If you read carefully you could have figured out they have a pretty good income, but people don't want to think critically, engage in math, etc.
They just want to buy into a story that says they can escape the rat race, even on a school teacher's salary.
You're right. There are two sides to the coin of financial success:spend wisely but also make a lot of money. But financial bloggers are disincentivized from talking about the "make money" part because most of their audience is poor-to-middle-income people who aren't able or willing to make the big life changes they would need to to dramatically increase their incomes. So the bloggers emphasize the uncontroverisal and easily actionable "eat rice and beans" stuff, because telling someone making $40k they need to double or triple their income, and by the way, your wife needs to work too, would not make for popularity.
The Soda Stream hack she described is probably dangerous, because the CO2 they use is likely contaminated with who knows what industrial chemicals.
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.
Read the thread. It's actually pretty good.
In defense of this thread, I bought their book. I think I have a right as a reader to have an opinion on what I read. It’s a memoir which by its nature invites discussion of their lives.
Not to mention that even if commercial grade and food grade differed, you could always buy a 20lb canister of food grade. Any bubbly drinks you've had in your life from a restaurant fountain are served from them. Back when my roommate and I were homebrewing, that's what we did for our kegerator.The Soda Stream hack she described is probably dangerous, because the CO2 they use is likely contaminated with who knows what industrial chemicals.
Source?
I've worked in an industry that uses pressurized tanks in the production of consumed goods. All the gases come from one or two national suppliers and according to those suppliers, there is no difference in the "food grade" vs "commercial grade". It's all the same gas. This is for larger tanks; the little things for paintball have some lubricants added in. If the suppliers are lying/misleading, I would like to know.
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.Careful. If you clutch your pearls too hard they'll break.
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.Careful. If you clutch your pearls too hard they'll break.
The Soda Stream hack she described is probably dangerous, because the CO2 they use is likely contaminated with who knows what industrial chemicals.
Source?
I've worked in an industry that uses pressurized tanks in the production of consumed goods. All the gases come from one or two national suppliers and according to those suppliers, there is no difference in the "food grade" vs "commercial grade". It's all the same gas. This is for larger tanks; the little things for paintball have some lubricants added in. If the suppliers are lying/misleading, I would like to know.
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.Careful. If you clutch your pearls too hard they'll break.
Ah yes. An ad hominem attack on the basis of femininity being weak and easily tilted is really an excellent counter to me trying to hold accountable a group of people I normally respect, appreciate, and love to be associated with. Yet again, a drop in the quality of rhetoric. This is precisely an illustration of the sort of thing I'm criticizing in this thread.
My news light diet must be working as I have no idea what this thread is about.
What interests me is how many people are critical of the FW family, and how many people are outraged by discussion of the MMM divorce.I don't see MMM's marital status as central to his story in the same way the FW's income and real estate windfalls are. It's more like discussions around MMM's blog income which aren't really taboo.
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.Careful. If you clutch your pearls too hard they'll break.
Ah yes. An ad hominem attack on the basis of femininity being weak and easily tilted is really an excellent counter to me trying to hold accountable a group of people I normally respect, appreciate, and love to be associated with. Yet again, a drop in the quality of rhetoric. This is precisely an illustration of the sort of thing I'm criticizing in this thread.
I don't know your gender, and gender has nothing to do with it. At issue is your facile argument that anyone who thinks their intentions are pure is above criticism, combined with the post's sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude and complete unwillingness to actually engage with the substance of the topic.
What does "she is trying to help people - and I can't believe you unwashed masses deign to post on my classy forum" do to advance the quality of rhetoric?
"Guilty or not"? We're seriously putting human beings, ultimately trying to help others, on mock trial here? The broader swaths of this forum is stooping to depths that truly, deeply disappoint me.Careful. If you clutch your pearls too hard they'll break.
Ah yes. An ad hominem attack on the basis of femininity being weak and easily tilted is really an excellent counter to me trying to hold accountable a group of people I normally respect, appreciate, and love to be associated with. Yet again, a drop in the quality of rhetoric. This is precisely an illustration of the sort of thing I'm criticizing in this thread.
I don't know your gender, and gender has nothing to do with it. At issue is your facile argument that anyone who thinks their intentions are pure is above criticism, combined with the post's sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude and complete unwillingness to actually engage with the substance of the topic.
What does "she is trying to help people - and I can't believe you unwashed masses deign to post on my classy forum" do to advance the quality of rhetoric?
Gender has nothing to do with it? Could you point to any historical references of men wearing, and clutching, strands of pearls as a basis of this phrase? The phrase is absolutely rooted in women's supposedweakness.
So they make a lot of money. I don't get why this pisses people off. They are average people without NFL/rockstar level talent that figured out how to make money and put it to use. It's not like they were trust fund kids who claimed to be self made millionaires here.
So they make a lot of money. I don't get why this pisses people off. They are average people without NFL/rockstar level talent that figured out how to make money and put it to use. It's not like they were trust fund kids who claimed to be self made millionaires here.
They need to be upfront about this to the penny. They detail on their blog their expenditures but not their income. I think the post from yesterday detailed they spent $4377 last month. If I do that more than a month or so, I will find myself downstream with no oars really quickly. And yet it's a fraction of their income.
Summary
- Some random online bloggers are relatively frugal
- They also have a high income
- They didn't disclose said high income in their story
- Random people are upset about being misled by other random people from the interwebs
So they make a lot of money. I don't get why this pisses people off. They are average people without NFL/rockstar level talent that figured out how to make money and put it to use. It's not like they were trust fund kids who claimed to be self made millionaires here.
New poster here, though a longtime reader and learner at these forums. This is a bit off-topic, but what surprises me more than the Frugalwoods' income is their seemingly endless font of TIME. Like, how does Mr. Frugalwoods work full-time (albeit from home), supposedly do at least some childcare, AND accomplish all the homesteading stuff he does??? Mrs. Frugalwoods is pretty upfront that she doesn't participate in most of that physical labor.
New poster here, though a longtime reader and learner at these forums. This is a bit off-topic, but what surprises me more than the Frugalwoods' income is their seemingly endless font of TIME. Like, how does Mr. Frugalwoods work full-time (albeit from home), supposedly do at least some childcare, AND accomplish all the homesteading stuff he does??? Mrs. Frugalwoods is pretty upfront that she doesn't participate in most of that physical labor.
There are still 72 hours in the week after subtracting 40 hours of work and 8 hours a day to sleep.
My dad rebuilt the kitchen and the bathrooms in my childhood home growing up. This was in between working a high stress, white collar job that required a lot of travel. I really envy that sort of work ethic.
Good point. Maybe I should really be wondering about his seemingly endless font of ENERGY?
New poster here, though a longtime reader and learner at these forums. This is a bit off-topic, but what surprises me more than the Frugalwoods' income is their seemingly endless font of TIME. Like, how does Mr. Frugalwoods work full-time (albeit from home), supposedly do at least some childcare, AND accomplish all the homesteading stuff he does??? Mrs. Frugalwoods is pretty upfront that she doesn't participate in most of that physical labor.
New poster here, though a longtime reader and learner at these forums. This is a bit off-topic, but what surprises me more than the Frugalwoods' income is their seemingly endless font of TIME. Like, how does Mr. Frugalwoods work full-time (albeit from home), supposedly do at least some childcare, AND accomplish all the homesteading stuff he does??? Mrs. Frugalwoods is pretty upfront that she doesn't participate in most of that physical labor.
There are still 72 hours in the week after subtracting 40 hours of work and 8 hours a day to sleep.
My dad rebuilt the kitchen and the bathrooms in my childhood home growing up. This was in between working a high stress, white collar job that required a lot of travel. I really envy that sort of work ethic.
At their age, the more you do it the easier it gets. You know how when you get home after a long day of work, veg on the couch, and just have no motivation?New poster here, though a longtime reader and learner at these forums. This is a bit off-topic, but what surprises me more than the Frugalwoods' income is their seemingly endless font of TIME. Like, how does Mr. Frugalwoods work full-time (albeit from home), supposedly do at least some childcare, AND accomplish all the homesteading stuff he does??? Mrs. Frugalwoods is pretty upfront that she doesn't participate in most of that physical labor.
There are still 72 hours in the week after subtracting 40 hours of work and 8 hours a day to sleep.
My dad rebuilt the kitchen and the bathrooms in my childhood home growing up. This was in between working a high stress, white collar job that required a lot of travel. I really envy that sort of work ethic.
Good point. Maybe I should really be wondering about his seemingly endless font of ENERGY?
It really is insane what you can accomplish using all your free time for productive ends. Though most people I know technically use about 60hours a week for their job and commute, which reduces the time for other productive purposes.
They have a top 1% household income. No one can define that as anything but upper class. High earning doctors are considered upper-class, and they earn as much as a doctor would. I'm not begrudging their money or luck, good for them, but don't lie to yourself and others. They're not middle class, they're not average.
They're not average? Really? Someone who can (have the option to) retire in their early 30s isn't average? That is a shocking revelation! What's happened to this country when the average person can't retire in their 30s? Everything's going to shit.
They're not average? Really? Someone who can (have the option to) retire in their early 30s isn't average? That is a shocking revelation! What's happened to this country when the average person can't retire in their 30s? Everything's going to shit.
Really makes you wonder why the call themselves average all the time, huh?
They're not average? Really? Someone who can (have the option to) retire in their early 30s isn't average? That is a shocking revelation! What's happened to this country when the average person can't retire in their 30s? Everything's going to shit.
Really makes you wonder why the call themselves average all the time, huh?
Really makes you wonder why the call themselves average all the time, huh?
Do they? In what context? Any examples?
My husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
While it’s true that Nate and I are average people, and we’ve never won the lottery or had investment banker salaries or been the beneficiaries of inheritances or trust funds, I’m keenly aware that we are also extraordinarily privileged.
Really makes you wonder why the call themselves average all the time, huh?
Do they? In what context? Any examples?
Lots of personal finance and FIRE bloggers do this. But FW seemed to be doing it a lot in the new book media blitz that this thread was originally about.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/08/how-to-retire-early-frugal-spending (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/08/how-to-retire-early-frugal-spending)QuoteMy husband, Nate, and I are not exceptional people. We’re not rich or famous or geniuses or even particularly good-looking (although we have our moments). We’re just some average, middle-class kids from the midwest who decided we wanted something more out of life than what our consumer culture sells us.
While it’s true that Nate and I are average people, and we’ve never won the lottery or had investment banker salaries or been the beneficiaries of inheritances or trust funds, I’m keenly aware that we are also extraordinarily privileged.
These are silly things for exceptional people to say. And they get called out on it in the comments section of The Guardian. A common response from our community is to paint those calling them out as bitter and jealous losers. I think that's regrettable.
So they describe their upbringing as average? And that can't be true because they have a lot of money now? lol
And then you took this one sentence from this one introductory article (that is not even written by Liz) and declared it proof they call themselves average "all the time"? How would any of us ever come to the conclusion that those "calling them out" are "bitter and jealous losers"? We must all be totally off base on that one.
So until relatively recently (last few yrs) their income was low.
I'm very confident that they were netting (that's to say, after taxes) at least six figures in the year of the blogs inception. It's not explicitly stated, but there are plenty of numbers to massage.
So they describe their upbringing as average? And that can't be true because they have a lot of money now? lol
And then you took this one sentence from this one introductory article (that is not even written by Liz) and declared it proof they call themselves average "all the time"? How would any of us ever come to the conclusion that those "calling them out" are "bitter and jealous losers"? We must all be totally off base on that one.
They called themselves average many different ways in the quote I posted. They used the actual word "average" twice. One that can charitably be ascribed to their upbringing. The second use was literally calling themselves "average people".
And she absolutely did write it, so I'm really not sure where that came from.
Really though, you're tipping your hand. You asked me for an example only so you could point and laugh if I didn't have one, or you could flatly dismiss it when I did have one. You're not interested in a substantive discussion here.
I've tipped my hand by asking you to provide examples for your unfounded accusations? I've tipped my hand by not letting you take things out of context? lol
Your shit slinging really knows no bounds. Have you no shame, sir?
I'm very confident that they were netting (that's to say, after taxes) at least six figures in the year of the blogs inception. It's not explicitly stated, but there are plenty of numbers to massage.
The blog, as far as I know, was formed relatively recently -- as in less than 5 years ago. In one of her first posts, she describes how low their incomes were working for the peace corps and some very low paying non profit to get experience. Meh, who cares? Seriously, it's not important.
The blog encompasses their entire history as public figures, making it far and away the most relevant time frame to discuss here.
But if you're really so "meh" and uninterested in this topic, why is your default response to circle the wagons with a specious defense ("low incomes until recently")? A truly uninterested person would just not engage on this topic.
The blog encompasses their entire history as public figures, making it far and away the most relevant time frame to discuss here.
Okay, I'll agree with that. My original point is that from what we know, their incomes went up relatively recently. Less than 5 years is not a long time. They achieved FI very fast through a combination of frugality and good incomes. Sounds kinda like a pretty good percentage of our community. I think it's awesome, and I think many of the community would also find it awesome and even relate as much of us have very high incomes and just need to tweak our spending. MMM has even mentioned many times that much of his blog is directed at the higher income earners.But if you're really so "meh" and uninterested in this topic, why is your default response to circle the wagons with a specious defense ("low incomes until recently")? A truly uninterested person would just not engage on this topic.
As far as the Frugalwoods go, I don't care what they do. What I do care about is when envious people try to put others down. I find that counterproductive and hence point it out.
They are phonies. They claim they never had an investment banker's income. I think they mean they never earned income as an investment banker, but their salary is similar to one.
I've tipped my hand by asking you to provide examples for your unfounded accusations? I've tipped my hand by not letting you take things out of context? lol
Your shit slinging really knows no bounds. Have you no shame, sir?
You were wrong about something and aggressively doubled down on wrongness as a back door justification to call people (myself included), bitter and jealous losers.
I'm affording you an abundance of politeness right now.
The only thing I was "wrong" about was continuing to engage with you and your negativity. It's blatantly obvious to everyone that you're bitter and jealous. I don't have any need to call you that. Your posts exude it.
They are phonies. They claim they never had an investment banker's income. I think they mean they never earned income as an investment banker, but their salary is similar to one.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/investment-banker-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm (https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/investment-banker-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm)
They're right! They make more than investment bankers.
2/3 of voters said, Guilty.
I guess a question I do have is: Is Nate culpable here at all? I mean, Liz wrote the book and the blog, right? Wasn't this just her misrepresentation?
They are phonies. They claim they never had an investment banker's income. I think they mean they never earned income as an investment banker, but their salary is similar to one.