-
Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad:
Robert Kiyosaki is the top selling author about personal finance . . . ever. His works are full of wish fulfillment, and promises to teach you secret magic that will make you wealthily . . . well he knows it, and tells you that it is a thing, but no specifics. The specifics will cost you $500, and then $35,000. Even after 20-years of this magic scam artist wizardry we did not see a sharp uptick in independently wealthy folks running amuck, or know anyone that used his $35,000 wizarding course to become independently wealthy.
Dilemma: My brother-in-law bases his financial world-view mainly based on this guys works, and I need to find a nice way to break the news to him that Robert Kiyosaki is a scam artist . . . nicely.
[1] Robert Kiyosaki's books have truths in them
[2] Robert Kiyosaki's systems are scams
For example:
[3] Robert Kiyosaki says that 401(k)’s are “sucked dry” by “wall street” who “have no money in the game” . . . no offices, no payroll . . . they should work for free (but not Robert Kiyosaki)
[4] Robert Kiyosaki has a $500 seminar, that upsells to a $35,000 real-estate course
[5] Basically take your money out of your 401(k), and give it Robert Kiyosaki . . . because magic . . . you know a scam
I watched some YouTube videos and he was involved with at least two other scam artists:
[6] One started talking about how stocks go up, and go down . . . he started his history lesson with the 1990’s . . . big red flag
[7] This other guy (same as 6) said that he can teach people how to make money not only when the market goes up, but when it goes down
[8] This other guy (same as 6) said that stocks are at an all-time high AND CANNOT GO HIGHER
[9] So basically sell your 401(k) and give your money to this this other guy (same as 6) who will teach you to make money when the market goes down . . . because the market can only go down from here
[10] No proof of Robert Kiyosaki's success . . . non-con-artist success that is
[11] Also $200 for a board game about how to be financially competent? From a billionaire? Who wants to teach people how to spend money well? Red flag!
[12] The law says X, so you can’t make people do Y . . . laws can change, and we have examples of these laws that he says are impossible in other countries
[13] Gold and silver are “Gods money”. . . . the dollar will collapse . . . . and stocks will be worthless somehow . . . please . . . what we place value in is largely dependent on faith in the currency (gold also has value because we say so) . . . folks with shares in Volkswagen after Germany collapsed . . . still have stocks worth real money from a real company . . . the value did not vanish
[14] He seems to not mention compound interest . . . this is like the #1 thing in my book (I don't have a real book)
[15] Robert Kiyosaki seems to say "401(k)s take too much money for nothing . . . none of them are good . . . none of them provide a good service because they charge you money . . . this is bad . . . I will provide a good service . . . for money." Basically a scam artist paradox.
[16] This guy has been selling his books for 20-years . . . I will bet you a large sum of dice that there was not a sharp uptick in people who are independently wealthy based on this guys works (note the things that he mentions that are true like money makes money, and people can learn money skills . . . these are universal truths)
[17] We do not know anyone who based on his scam became wealthy . . . now note that his books have some truths in them . . . like money makes money and making money is a learned skill . . . so, you know people who were not convinced of this before reading the book, may be convinced of this after reading the book
This guy is a scam artist
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Is he a rich scam artist or a poor scam artist?
(not talking about presidents) :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
He's not likely to take well to being told something he holds in regard is a scam, and will likely shut down before listening to any of your points.
Perhaps redirection might work better? You could try turning him on to listening to some of Dave Ramsey's (free) financial advice instead? Through that, the scamminess of RDPD will dawn on him organically.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crow
He's not likely to take well to being told something he holds in regard is a scam, and will likely shut down before listening to any of your points.
Perhaps redirection might work better? You could try turning him on to listening to some of Dave Ramsey's (free) financial advice instead? Through that, the scamminess of RDPD will dawn on him organically.
You could prevent the shutdown of communication through asking questions - instead of giving him the answers.
Add Crow's redirection - again via a question "Oh, have you heard about D.Ramsey? What are the differences between the two?" and he might check it.
I know it's hard to keep the communication open sometimes - especially when you KNOW it's a scam - but asking questions instead of stating the truth you know may get you further.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Ask them why anyone with the knowledge to get filthy stinking rich would want to help you and to help you for basically free? Ask them why, if they have this sure fire way, aren't they using it instead of making lots of money off selling books and giving tours talking about how they have a system to get rich quick?
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Razade
Ask them why anyone with the knowledge to get filthy stinking rich would want to help you and to help you for basically free? Ask them why, if they have this sure fire way, aren't they using it instead of making lots of money off selling books and giving tours talking about how they have a system to get rich quick?
This is far and away the best answer.
darkrose, ask him to think of other rich people, and what they are currently doing. Because no matter who he picks, what they're doing will be "the same thing that got them rich." Warren Buffet isn't teaching business classes, Bill Gates isn't holding computer and software workshops, Steve Jobs never wrote a book on marketing, Jeff Bezos isn't telling people to start up online businesses with efficient distribution models.
You know what every single one of them did when they got rich (or significantly richer)? They kept doing exactly what made them rich. Buffet continued investing, Gates kept working on Microsoft, Bezos kept working on Amazon, Jobs kept hyping up Apple.
Kiyosaki is no different. He's rich, and he's still doing exactly what got him rich - writing a book on how to get rich. If he got rich from something else, he would still be doing that thing. That's the linchpin here. Hammer that in. Rich people keep doing what got them rich, and he's spending his whole life hyping up that book and holding seminars, because that's how he got rich to begin with. Actually following the advice didn't get him rich, or he would still be doing that.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Following his advice will actually get you arrested, which is another reason why he isn't doing it. A lot of his advice involves numerous felonies I can't even begin to expound on here not just because of the rules but how long it'd take to explain them.
But ya know. It's not your job to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced either. When they lose their money just remind them you tried to save them and they refused.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad:
[11] Also $200 for a board game about how to be financially competent? From a billionaire? Who wants to teach people how to spend money well? Red flag!
This guy is a scam artist
I've played a computer version of that game (no I did not pay for it). It annoyed the hell out of me every single time even as I beat it. I've got a degree in economics so I *know* when I say that the rules of the game, the content, is specifically stacked to conform to his view and specifically stacked against anything else.
As always there's kernels of truth in there. It's a bad idea to buy a yacht when you are a janitor e.g.. Which makes it hard to debunk because those kernels will be squeezed hard by people not wanting to give up on the idea that wealth isn't something you might have to work for, or be lucky.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Dave Ramsey is interesting. I like him overall.
I like his idea about buying a car. Buy a beater, and buy/sell your way up.
I like his idea about trying your best to have your mortgage or rent be no more than 25% of your net income.
I disagree with his idea that debt should be paid off ASAP. I have a student loan that is at something like 2.75% that I was never in a hurry to pay off. I see a 30-year mortgage as a good thing as inflation will make it easier with time to pay back, an increased cash flow is good, and I can make more than 3.75% in the stock market.
I disagree with his notion that 401(k)s are just as good as pensions, or that 401(k)'s are better than pensions. A lot of folks are clueless about money. Pensions are good for just about everyone. 1/6 teachers are millionaires, and a large contributing factor to that are pensions. My dad has a pension, and does not trust or believe in investing. He would be in a world of hurt without that pension.
I disagree with his notion about unions, but that is political.
-----
I find Graham Stephan to be entertaining, and that his advice seems solid.
-----
I enjoy watching CHRIS CIOVACCO's weekly technical examination of the market [something like CCM financial on YouTube, ccmmarketmodel.com].
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
1/6 teachers are millionaires
You keep saying that even though it is incredibly misleading.
Spoiler: Quick and dirty average teacher salaries. Hoover, for the record, is one of the richer cities in the Greater Birmingham Area.
Show
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
a large contributing factor to that are pensions.
Brookings article on teacher pensions and why what you probably know about them is wrong.
And, from an article titled "14% of millionaires are teachers":
Quote:
In addition to pensions, educators, including college professors, earn “a fair amount,” when you factor in publishing, consulting, and summer jobs, says George Walper, Spectrem president and CEO.
“If they’re smart at investing, they can do pretty well,” he adds.
....Another factor: Some 46% of the educators attribute their wealth to inheritance. That could leave them free to pursue a career regardless of the pay.
So if you're born rich, work multiple jobs, or are good at investing. None of which require you to be a teacher, or are even helped by you being a teacher.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Teachers tend to be:
* women (who overall perform better than men in the stock market)
* from a certain social background (who tend to have more money)
* from the upper-middle or upper class (who tend to have money)
* from the upper-middle or upper class (who tend to have learned money skills / cultural capital)
* intelligent (always helps with money)
* educated (always helps with money)
* not expected to live a fancy life (saves money)
* retiring with a pension (with all the saving and investing thing covered)
As a population teachers as a whole are an excellent source of learning money skills. Now having them taught to students is another thing. I was taught about compound interest by my high school dean.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Teachers tend to be:
* women (who overall perform better than men in the stock market)
* from a certain social background (who tend to have more money)
* from the upper-middle or upper class (who tend to have money)
* from the upper-middle or upper class (who tend to have learned money skills / cultural capital)
* intelligent (always helps with money)
* educated (always helps with money)
* not expected to live a fancy life (saves money)
* retiring with a pension (with all the saving and investing thing covered)
As a population teachers as a whole are an excellent source of learning money skills. Now having them taught to students is another thing. I was taught about compound interest by my high school dean.
Bolding mine. And yes, I do agree that it's easy to be rich when you start out rich.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Bolding mine. And yes, I do agree that it's easy to be rich when you start out rich.
The son of a fisherman is likely going to outperform the son of a non-fisherman . . . and the son of a fisherman might have a grandfather or other relatives who are fishermen to ask for even more fishing advice.
Not only do the rich get money, but they get generational experience with money. Handling money is most definitely a set of skills. If you do not have money to handle, then you will not get experience handling money. It is a feedback loop that only helps to keep the rich rich, and the poor poor.
So asking teachers (as a group) about money may very well be a good source of advice.
-----
Okay so if the teacher ended his/her career making $100,000 per year, then the base pension rate would be (75%) so ~$75,000. Now we can take that $75,000 and see what it would be "worth" as a payout to an investment. If we figure bonds can get 4% per year . . . $75,000 / 0.04 = $1,875,000. So to live on an income of $75,000 per year one would need bonds valued at $1,875,000 with a 4% return rate.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
The son of a fisherman is likely going to outperform the son of a non-fisherman . . . and the son of a fisherman might have a grandfather or other relatives who are fishermen to ask for even more fishing advice.
Not only do the rich get money, but they get generational experience with money. Handling money is most definitely a set of skills. If you do not have money to handle, then you will not get experience handling money. It is a feedback loop that only helps to keep the rich rich, and the poor poor.
So asking teachers (as a group) about money may very well be a good source of advice.
You're ignoring the point, though. Saying "1/6 of teachers are millionaires" gives the impression that becoming a teacher is a viable path to being a millionaire, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence saying it's not; half of all millionaire teachers inherited their wealth and don't need to teach, others work multiple jobs not necessarily related to being a teacher (such as author or consultant, success at which also necessitates some amount of luck or, more likely, some amount of pre-existing connections), or are in households where both partners work (in which case being a teacher is no more vital than being literally any other profession that makes similar or greater amounts of money). Nothing about being a teacher gives any more likelihood to be a millionaire than any other comparable job.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
You are not required to be a teacher to be wealthy, but teachers would be a good source of information about money.
* Teachers seem to outperform other professions with pensions (part of this is certainly being from wealthy families)
* The ones that inherited money would have cultural capital (growing up around the managing money skillset)
* Teachers tend to be intelligent and educated (not a bad combination)
Teachers look like a great source of knowledge about money to me. Not the only source, but a good source. Robert Kiyosaki's basically says that they don't teach money skills. I was taught money skills by several of my teachers. <-- This was basically what I was trying to say.
----
I am not ignoring the point on purpose. Being intelligent and/or educated is a good path to becoming wealthy. As is tapping into cultural capital and/or personal experience. These seem to all be something truthful that he bases his sales pitch on.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
You are not required to be a teacher to be wealthy, but teachers would be a good source of information about money.
No moreso than any other profession that requires a collegiate degree, based on the criteria you've outlined. And anecdotal evidence is objectively unreliable. For example, I can counter your "teachers taught me to handle money" with me "I know a lot of teachers and professors, including one who worked with a group of business professors who banded together, bought a successful, long-running restaurant, cheaped out on ingredients, raised prices, bankrupted the place within four months, and then asked for raises at the university because with their business knowledge they could be out running restaurants instead of teaching at the college so the college needs to make it worthwhile for them." It's meaningless because it says nothing about tendencies of teachers.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
These days, millionaires are ten a penny. There was a time (probably about the 1930s or 1940s) when millionaires were as rare as billionaires are now. I remember a joke about a guy who travelled to the future, and his investments had made him a millionaire while he slept, but the price of a cup of coffee was £6M.
Medical doctors make more than MPs here, and I'd argue that the medics are better value for money. Teachers make some money, but not as much as medical doctors.
If inflation takes off again, everybody will be millionaires while still being poor.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Since a million dollars is worth one house where I live, I'm firmly in the "millionaires don't matter" category. A million dollars annually vs. A million in savings over 30 years is a huge difference; the latter category includes people in jobs like custodians and maintenance workers.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
Since a million dollars is worth one house where I live, I'm firmly in the "millionaires don't matter" category. A million dollars annually vs. A million in savings over 30 years is a huge difference; the latter category includes people in jobs like custodians and maintenance workers.
"Millionaire" typically doesn't count the primary residence as part of counted assets, to be fair.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
"Millionaire" typically doesn't count the primary residence as part of counted assets, to be fair.
Is that different from billionaires?
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
"Millionaire" typically doesn't count the primary residence as part of counted assets, to be fair.
Yeah but talking about the equivalent to a single house in assets, even a moderately nice house, as a sign of wealth is a pretty low bar. Outside of a few places like Alaska teacher pay tends to be relative to local inflation, so there aren't places with piles of wealthy teachers.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
halfeye
Is that different from billionaires?
Yeah, in the sense that with billionaires it doesn't matter because the house'll barely move the needle.:smalltongue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
Yeah but talking about the equivalent to a single house in assets, even a moderately nice house, as a sign of wealth is a pretty low bar. Outside of a few places like Alaska teacher pay tends to be relative to local inflation, so there aren't places with piles of wealthy teachers.
Equivalent to a single house in a specific area. If you build a moderately nice house on the moon you don't devalue what a billionaire is because it's just worth a split-level in the Ocean of Storms.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Yeah, in the sense that with billionaires it doesn't matter because the house'll barely move the needle.:smalltongue:
Equivalent to a single house in a specific area. If you build a moderately nice house on the moon you don't devalue what a billionaire is because it's just worth a split-level in the Ocean of Storms.
Right, but 14% of teachers are millionaires. Since the coastal cities where houses cost the most are where salaries are highest (with some exceptions like Alaska and Wyoming) the millionaires are most likely in the same regions where it means the least.
Edit: Much of my family is school teachers, and several have assets of a million dollars or more. A lot of the value comes from holding onto things for a very long time, the magic of compound interest. Land here in Oregon is worth over 10x what it was in 1960, including crappy wastelands in the eastern part of the state.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
Right, but 14% of teachers are millionaires.
And about half of those are inherited wealth, and the rest are made up having multiple jobs (teacher/author/consultant), or in families where both partners work (and the average salaries of the partners are, I have to note, unreported). Unless you wish to claim 1/6 of teachers are in coastal cities (which, to be fair, they may be; I'm not familiar with the population density with that degree of specificity, but I'm banking on those other factors making up the vast majority of teacher "millionaires").
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
And about half of those are inherited wealth, and the rest are made up having multiple jobs (teacher/author/consultant), or in families where both partners work (and the average salaries of the partners are, I have no note unreported). Unless you wish to claim 1/6 of teachers are in coastal cities (which, to be fair, they may be; I'm not familiar with the population density with that degree of specificity, but I'm banking on those other factors making up the vast majority of teacher "millionaires").
Some basic math suggests 18% of US citizens reside in coastal cities, and NPR reports that many of the teachers in those cities cannot afford to live inside the cities they work in at all (looking at you San Fran.) Regardless there are maybe three states where being a teacher can be said to be a decent financial move; in Oregon they make 15% lower then private workers of similar attainment levels even after you factor in their pension programs.
But this really has moved off rails. I remember my brother reading the Rich Dad, Poor Dad book in highschool and telling my father he should have made more money.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Does teacher comprise university teachers? Because then you have physicians, attorneys, managers, architects, engineers...
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
A lot of the value comes from holding onto things for a very long time, the magic of compound interest.
Actually, that's the magic of a rising cost of living, not of compound interest :)
As to the OP, I was lent Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad poor Dad" over 15 years ago right after leaving my MSc and entering the world of business, and it was instrumental in convincing me to branch into real estate. Cap rates in my home area at the time were really good, I bought a fixer upper mixed use 4-story downtown building, refinanced it after fixing it up, rinse and repeat, and had a nice portfolio in my Eastern Canadian hometown just in time for everything to rise up as interest rates fell sharply. Then around 2010-2012 I build a second portfolio in the U.S. Sunbelt where cap rates were great, and that one went up as well. (I'm conservative in what I choose to acquire; I demand good cap rates, among other things.)
He's a typical guru, and a scam artist, but there are truths in what he's saying. (Note that I never paid a penny for his book). Ironically enough, I can almost say I'm that one person who got wealthy through (some of) his teachings - buy well-located real estate with good cap rates in areas you believe are about to rise in value/appeal, and don't be afraid of debt.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
And about half of those are inherited wealth, and the rest are made up having multiple jobs (teacher/author/consultant), or in families where both partners work (and the average salaries of the partners are, I have no note unreported). Unless you wish to claim 1/6 of teachers are in coastal cities (which, to be fair, they may be; I'm not familiar with the population density with that degree of specificity, but I'm banking on those other factors making up the vast majority of teacher "millionaires").
In fact, the cause of this correlation (if these numbers in fact suggest a noteworthy correlation, which other posters have brought in doubt) might be the opposite of what darkrose is suggesting. Quite a few of my best public school teachers were very well off, all of them because of inherited wealth, earnings during a first career, or marrying someone with a much higher paying job. I never really thought about it at the time, but now I realize that it's probably a very fulfilling job--particularly when you don't have to simultaneously worry about your finances--and if you don't have to work, but you're also not wealthy enough to turn philanthropy into your full time job, then being a public school teacher is a great way to do something meaningful and avoid wasting all that higher education.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
No moreso than any other profession that requires a collegiate degree, based on the criteria you've outlined. And anecdotal evidence is objectively unreliable. For example, I can counter your "teachers taught me to handle money" with me "I know a lot of teachers and professors, including one who worked with a group of business professors who banded together, bought a successful, long-running restaurant, cheaped out on ingredients, raised prices, bankrupted the place within four months, and then asked for raises at the university because with their business knowledge they could be out running restaurants instead of teaching at the college so the college needs to make it worthwhile for them." It's meaningless because it says nothing about tendencies of teachers.
Cultural capital is growing up around a skillset or idea. If 1/6 teachers are millionaires, and 46% of them inherited it, then teachers would be an excellent source of cultural capital surrounding wealth.
For instance I teach my kids that investing is a no-brainer. I go on-and-on about it. They roll their heads, roll their eyes and say "dad . . . we know". My sister's kids are raised that there are winners and losers in investing . . . as if investing were a zero-sum-game. The S&P 500 is not a zero-sum-game.
Not investing is a fools choice. Compound interest is so f---ing powerful that to deny its existence is a fools choice. Passing up free money without work or effort is certainly a fools choice.
When I was 16 my grandmother gave me $1,000 after she sold her house and moved in with her sister. I wanted to invest that money, but my mom told me that investing was a good way to loose money and forbade it. I instead went on a trip to Europe. That $1,000 would be worth ~$94,000 today if invested in the S&P 500. NO WORK ON MY PART . . . NO EFFORT ON MY PART . . . NONE! Cultural capital in money is a thing that could earn or loose you a bunch of money. My kids are going have that ~$94,000 equivalent, if I can help it happen.
Seriously money without work and without effort is a really cool thing. How people do not know this or believe this is beyond my understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Razade
Big shock as well that Darkrose posted a study he thought agreed with him when it didn't and not only didn't agree with him strenuously, outright states in its conclusion that the role of IQ is the opposite of what he wants to push.
This is evidence. Now we can look for more. But this is still evidence, and it is interesting. To dismiss it out of hand does not further your understanding of the topic.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lio45
As to the OP, I was lent Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad poor Dad" over 15 years ago right after leaving my MSc and entering the world of business, and it was instrumental in convincing me to branch into real estate. Cap rates in my home area at the time were really good, I bought a fixer upper mixed use 4-story downtown building, refinanced it after fixing it up, rinse and repeat, and had a nice portfolio in my Eastern Canadian hometown just in time for everything to rise up as interest rates fell sharply. Then around 2010-2012 I build a second portfolio in the U.S. Sunbelt where cap rates were great, and that one went up as well. (I'm conservative in what I choose to acquire; I demand good cap rates, among other things.)
Was there anything from his book that contributed to this success, other than getting you into real estate? I ask because the basic mantra of 'property is a good investment' has been a relatively constant drumbeat from economic gurus ever since the second World War, so I'm wondering if there was any Kiyosaki-specific advice that was life-changing.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willie the Duck
Was there anything from his book that contributed to this success, other than getting you into real estate? I ask because the basic mantra of 'property is a good investment' has been a relatively constant drumbeat from economic gurus ever since the second World War, so I'm wondering if there was any Kiyosaki-specific advice that was life-changing.
Oh he says things that are 100% true! All good con-artists need to do that.
His central premise is to go find people who know about money and learn from them. The thing is that he then says "I know about money, pay me, and I'll school ya!" This is something that we don't see billionaires doing.
-----
I find it amazing that basically his book title reads: Learn carpentry from a carpenter, don't learn carpentry from a non-carpenter.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Cultural capital is growing up around a skillset or idea. If 1/6 teachers are millionaires, and 46% of them inherited it, then teachers would be an excellent source of cultural capital surrounding wealth.
There's an old joke, you've probably heard it before: what do you call the person who graduated at the bottom of their class in medical school? "Doctor."
You're conflating a whole lot about generational money, ability to hold on to money, investing, and teaching. Not to mention that tactics that work for rich people may not work for poor people.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Oh he says things that are 100% true! All good con-artists need to do that.
His central premise is to go find people who know about money and learn from them. The thing is that he then says "I know about money, pay me, and I'll school ya!" This is something that we don't see billionaires doing.
-----
I find it amazing that basically his book title reads: Learn carpentry from a carpenter, don't learn carpentry from a non-carpenter.
Ben Franklin once said it took him a decade to save his first hundred pounds, five years the second, and a year the third. There is also the "you have to spend money to make money" phrase. Poor people lack any investment capital at all, middle class and upper class individuals aren't going to have great advice for them.
If you really want good financial advice to make it out of poverty you go to migrant families that accomplished it. The ones who open franchises staffed by their cousins and work 15 hour days.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
Ben Franklin once said it took him a decade to save his first hundred pounds, five years the second, and a year the third. There is also the "you have to spend money to make money" phrase. Poor people lack any investment capital at all, middle class and upper class individuals aren't going to have great advice for them.
If you really want good financial advice to make it out of poverty you go to migrant families that accomplished it. The ones who open franchises staffed by their cousins and work 15 hour days.
Nail on the head. A rich person loves debt because even though they have the money to pay it off, they can invest that money at a higher rate than the interest on the debt. A poor person hates debt because they don't have the money to pay it off so the interest rate means they owe more money they don't have.
Saving money works differently depending on how much you have.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
Ben Franklin once said it took him a decade to save his first hundred pounds, five years the second, and a year the third. There is also the "you have to spend money to make money" phrase. Poor people lack any investment capital at all, middle class and upper class individuals aren't going to have great advice for them.
If you really want good financial advice to make it out of poverty you go to migrant families that accomplished it. The ones who open franchises staffed by their cousins and work 15 hour days.
Money wins on so many fronts. Money can buy the thing. Money can buy the thing in bulk. Money can buy the thing when you do not need it now, but will need it later. Poor people pay more for stuff then rich people.
If something like toilet paper or laundry soap goes on sale, then those with money can stock up. Those without money are trapped always having to pay the non-sale price, or the one-use price. If you have no money and you bought soap last week for full-price, then you likely don't have extra money to buy extra future soap because it is on-sale.
Buying in bulk is a thing. Target sometimes has the buy a case of toilet paper and get a $5 gift card deal. If my wife would let me my basement would be full of on-sale toilet paper, and laundry soap (the ones that we WILL use). Why not buy enough to last until the next sale?
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Money wins on so many fronts. Money can buy the thing. Money can buy the thing in bulk.
Bulk, unsurprisingly, is bulky. Space costs money. I buy in bulk a ton. I have a Sam's Club and Costco card. I have a fridge/freezer and separate freezer in the garage in addition to the fridge/freezer in the kitchen. I can store a lot of food. The garage is also amazingly spacious, as well as the garage in the second house that came with my house. I can store a lot of stuff in general.
My friends who had a ~900 sq ft house with no garage? They can't store jack. Buying in bulk doesn't exist for them because they have nowhere to put it.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Bulk, unsurprisingly, is bulky. Space costs money. I buy in bulk a ton. I have a Sam's Club and Costco card. I have a fridge/freezer and separate freezer in the garage in addition to the fridge/freezer in the kitchen. I can store a lot of food. The garage is also amazingly spacious, as well as the garage in the second house that came with my house. I can store a lot of stuff in general.
My friends who had a ~900 sq ft house with no garage? They can't store jack. Buying in bulk doesn't exist for them because they have nowhere to put it.
We have a small 1950's brick house that has ~1150 square feet, but with an equal basement. We have an attic that is not used for storage, a basement that is used for storage, and a 2.5 car garage that has some storage in it. The neighborhood is old, and the houses are small by todays standards. The high-school is very highly rated. A 3000 square-foot house might cost you $500,000 to $600,000 and a house my size might cost you $230,000. Essentially in order to have a bigger house an older house would need to be torn down, had a fire, or otherwise be majorly renovated.
My wife wants a new house with one more bedroom, one more bathroom, and one more room to use as a dining room. The house also must be on 1/2 of the town so that the kids can stay in the same school with their friends, and in the same area as the high school.
We almost bought a house with a three car garage with a second floor. That would have been neat. However the house itself was about 80% to 90% of what we wanted, and she decided that she wanted to wait for a better one to come along (I am okay with her picking the house). I was somewhat relieved as the house had a staircase to the second floor that was quite narrow, the basement stare landing required you to duck, the upstairs rooms were angled, and every damned fool wall was a window or closet. I swear to god every damned fool wall seemed like it was a window, or a closet. I had mild concerns that I would not be able to have furniture, or center a TV on any wall. The yard was also quite small.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
When I was 16 my grandmother gave me $1,000 after she sold her house and moved in with her sister. I wanted to invest that money, but my mom told me that investing was a good way to loose money and forbade it. I instead went on a trip to Europe. That $1,000 would be worth ~$94,000 today if invested in the S&P 500. NO WORK ON MY PART . . . NO EFFORT ON MY PART . . . NONE! Cultural capital in money is a thing that could earn or loose you a bunch of money. My kids are going have that ~$94,000 equivalent, if I can help it happen.
Seriously money without work and without effort is a really cool thing. How people do not know this or believe this is beyond my understanding.
Much like you say about Mr. Kiyosaki, many of the things you say are true, but the whole narrative you're putting together seems flawed to me.
Cultural capital is certainly important. However, your thesis that teachers are naturally more inclined to have that particular cultural capital isn't actually supported by any obvious inferences from any facts you have claimed, and if your conclusion logically follows from your factual assertions through a somewhat more complicated path, you haven't actually done anything to articulate how you got there.
Your mom wasn't wrong about investing. Many, many people lose their shirts because they know enough to understand that investing is generally good, but they don't know anything beyond that. Was 16 year old you sophisticated enough know what index funds were, how to distribute risk, etc, or would you have put all your money into Circuit City and Radio Shack because electronics were the future? Was her position the best one? Obviously, it would have been better if she was aware of the dangers and had the knowledge and confidence to teach you how to avoid unacceptable risks and obvious swindles, but I can hardly fault her for trying to protect you within the scope of her ability.
Then of course there is the matter of values, not to mention the time value of money. You certainly want to prepare for the future--in my case, probably overprepare in terms of saving enough to retire and to handle increasingly expensive and unlikely contingencies--but at some point, the marginal benefit to having that extra money in the future isn't worth the experiences you're sacrificing in the present. If that $94,000 dollars would have meant life-saving or life-changing medical treatment, or staying off the streets once social security runs out, then clearly the trip to Europe seems frivolous. If it means the difference between retiring to a beachfront condo and retiring to a condo with beach access, then I would argue that maybe a trip to Europe in your youth, or playing around with starting your own small business, taking a few courses at the community college, or buying an old car to fix up with your friends, or a number of also possible experiences may have had a bigger impact on your life, one that could also reverberate and compound itself (albeit far less predictably than a mutual fund) throughout the course of your life. Maybe that was one of the values that your mother was trying to impart.
My parents are a lot like how you wished your parents were: They taught me a lot about financial literacy, deferring gratification, preparing for the future, etc. That's why I went to a very pricey school and then went into a very lucrative job in a field that I found challenging and honestly incredibly fun on the day-to-day level, but not fulfilling on the long term. In a few years of working and living much more frugally than most of my friends and coworkers, I easily paid off all my debts and set up the core investments that will most likely afford me a very comfortable retirement, plus some padding for the unexpected. For that, I am very grateful to my parents. However, these weren't the only values they passed down to me. So when I decided that I wanted to leave my career and go back to school in order to (most likely) get paid less to do something more fulfilling, they supported my choice 100%. For that, I am even more grateful.
More relevantly to your original topic, maybe the kind of person who would pay for years of higher education and then forgo more materially rewarding jobs in the private sector in order to teach children whose parents weren't willing or weren't able to pay for private schooling is also the kind of person whose values don't necessarily focus on optimizing investments either.
I would also argue that the nature of public teacher compensation actually works against the sort of financial literacy you're promoting: Anyone with compensation that's heavily balanced towards a company-managed pension fund likely has far less excess direct income to invest as they please and little to no control over how their pension fund is invested. If you barely have any many left after necessities and a large portion of your retirement is taken care of automatically, then it's far less incentive to devote the time and effort necessary to develop a lot of financial sophistication. On the other hand, if you work somewhere that doesn't offer a pension, but instead offers 401k or similar matching plans (where you can control your investment) or simply pays you enough that you have substantial disposable income to save and invest, then the same amount of time devoted to financial literacy can yield much larger gains.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Sometimes I express an idea or opinion with the assumption that it is self-evident (or it underlying points are self evident). This is a flaw of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xyril
Cultural capital is certainly important. However, your thesis that teachers are naturally more inclined to have that particular cultural capital isn't actually supported by any obvious inferences from any facts you have claimed, and if your conclusion logically follows from your factual assertions through a somewhat more complicated path, you haven't actually done anything to articulate how you got there.
Robert Kiyosaki claims that teachers teach the wrong economic skills. I assert that they are likely to be a good source of economic skills. The assumption being that teachers are predisposed to be (a) wealthy, (b) educated, (c) intelligent, and (d) skilled in explanation.
Inheriting wealth often comes with the cultural capital on how to manage that wealth. I would not assume that these people would be without money management skills. I would assume the opposite. Talking to them should bring light to their skill levels (via comparing and contrasting ideas and advice from multiple other sources). This appears to be a rich source of information gathering that is relatively easy to access for students. We all likely know many teachers.
I will reply to more later. It is time to go home from work.
Apparent paradoxes can be an either / or . . . even a both, embrace them. Some teachers could be an excellent source of information, and some teachers could be a horrible source of information. As a group this one is easy to access, and happens to have individuals highly likely to be from upper-middle-class or upper-class backgrounds with multi-generational wealth.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Inheriting wealth often comes with the cultural capital on how to manage that wealth.
I disagree that this logically follows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
I would not assume that these people would be without money management skills. I would assume the opposite.
I wouldn't. In fact, I would assume those people would employ money management people who know how to manage said money.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
"Cultural capital is the accumulation of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that one can tap into to demonstrate one's cultural competence, and thus one's social status or standing in society."
Certainly you are not arguing that cultural capital is not a thing.
You need money to have money management skills. People with money and money management skills have children. Having experience and grown up with money would bring understanding of money along with it. This is a major contributing factor as to why there is a stark multigenerational wealth divide in America. Just money alone is not the whole story.
I know for certain that I have money skills that I was brought up with. I can buy and sell things for profit rather consistently. I learned this from my father. This was just part of my upbringing. My father needed money to buy things to sell. Without my father having extra money I would not have learned how to make money buying and selling things. I have made trips to Disneyland profits rather consistently buying Kickstarter board games and selling them. Nothing to live on, but plenty to afford wiggle-room to splurge, and invest in buying more stock. An equal man from a different background would not be able to do the same, or would need more time to learn what to do and what not to do (perhaps being soured to the idea by having a loss that cultural capital would have prevented this other man into giving up on the idea entirely).
Even employing money management people would bring cultural capital on how to manage money. If I hired the best, then I would likely learn a thing or two. Heck the notion of asking an expert for advice could be that cultural capital.
Case in point . . . people who come into a lot of money without money skills tend to do quite poorly. Lottery winners, professional sports players, entertainers from poor backgrounds without money skills often do poorly with their money. Never having money, they simply do not know what to do with it.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
"Cultural capital is the accumulation of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that one can tap into to demonstrate one's cultural competence, and thus one's social status or standing in society."
Certainly you are not arguing that cultural capital is not a thing.
You're right, that's literally not what is being argued.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willie the Duck
You're right, that's literally not what is being argued.
Is item of contention that over teachers being a good source of this cultural capital . . . in either quality or the probability of possessing cultural capital surrounding wealth?
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
People with money and money management skills have children. Having experience and grown up with money would bring understanding of money along with it.
Skills are not gained by osmosis, and even when taught, different people's proficiency in any given skill are different. How many NBA players have children who also played professional basketball? They were all brought up in households where the parent was a top athlete in basketball, with the knowledge and skills of how to get in and compete at that level. By your logic, professional sports should be dominated by dynasties, but it's actually uncommon.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willie the Duck
You're right, that's literally not what is being argued.
I'm honestly unsure what is being argued. It feels like a correlation not causation issue: "rich people like to go into teaching" being used to argue that "going into teaching makes you rich".
ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Bulk, unsurprisingly, is bulky.
My BA teacher at Uni kept using this simple fact to stress how important was to strive for "0-inventory" (aka "just-in-time") business models. Warehouses are surprisingly expensive... until you realise they cannot possibly be anything other than money sinks (i.e. they cannot produce revenue, so long as they are warehouses and not, say, manufacturing facilities), at which point they become unsurprisingly expensive.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Skills are not gained by osmosis, and even when taught, different people's proficiency in any given skill are different. How many NBA players have children who also played professional basketball? They were all brought up in households where the parent was a top athlete in basketball, with the knowledge and skills of how to get in and compete at that level. By your logic, professional sports should be dominated by dynasties, but it's actually uncommon.
It is not osmosis, it is life experience. Children observe and soak up surrounding information and behaviors. They learn what money is and how their parents feel about money, how they use money, their relationship with money, and if money is something to be feared or embraced. It is not a guaranteed thing to take after your parents or understand things that they understand, but being exposed to things helps . . . it helps a lot. It is just a common thing that occurs.
One raised believing X tradition, can reject the X tradition, and join a Y tradition . . . but most do not. The son of a carpenter could be a horrible carpenter. The son of a carpenter who grew up around carpeting, and became a carpenter would have an advantage.
My wife and I are not athletes. When I hear sportsball talk I hear "We needed to sportsball more, the other sportsball team sportsballed better than we sportsballed, and that is why they won at sportsball. Next time our offensive sportsball players will need to do better against their defensive sportsball players by looking for the sportsball moves and reacting to them in time to win at sportsball."
My older daughter takes to athletics like a duck to water. Now if I was also an athlete, then that would most definitely be beneficial. She would have a wealth of information about what to do, and what not to do. It would definitely would benefit her to be able to tap into this knowledge bank. She will be at a disadvantage against an equally athletic daughter of athletes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
I'm honestly unsure what is being argued. It feels like a correlation not causation issue: "rich people like to go into teaching" being used to argue that "going into teaching makes you rich".
I think that they are both true. Wealth and IQ and education are correlated. Teachers have wealth and IQ and education. Some is because they come from families with wealth and IQ and education. Some is because they simply have higher IQs and education than other professions with pensions . . . and that IQ and education helps do smart educated things with money and that brings wealth.
Would you say that a teacher or a policeman would have a higher education and IQ?
Would you say that a teacher or a firefighter would have a higher education and IQ?
Would you say that a teacher or a postal worker would have a higher education and IQ?
Teachers likely have more education and more IQ than others in the pension world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
ETA:
My BA teacher at Uni kept using this simple fact to stress how important was to strive for "0-inventory" business models. Warehouses are surprisingly expensive... until you realise they cannot possibly be anything other than money sinks (i.e. they cannot produce revenue, so long as they are warehouses and not, say, manufacturing facilities), at which point they become unsurprisingly expensive.
That's funny NPR (Marketplace?) wont shut up about that company making gobbs of money off of renting warehouse space.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Wealth and IQ and education are correlated.
No, they are not.
ETA: oh, and the logical implication that therefore, lack of wealth correlates to lower IQs is making my skin crawl, so you may want to revise your logic there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
That's funny NPR wont shut up about that company making gobbs of money off of renting warehouse space.
So you are admitting that the company is not in fact using warehouse space for warehousing. They are, in fact, a realtor company. They don't have warehouses at all. They have land, which they rent to companies who are not following my professor's advice, and thus sinking money into warehouses which is collected by "that company".
Grey Wolf
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
No, they are not.
ETA: oh, and the logical implication that therefore, lack of wealth correlates to lower IQs is making my skin crawl, so you may want to revise your logic there.
Seconded, and that's even ignoring that IQ tests is a largely discredited way to measure intelligence.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
No, they are not.
ETA: oh, and the logical implication that therefore, lack of wealth correlates to lower IQs is making my skin crawl, so you may want to revise your logic there.
They are, but they are not. There are other factors other than IQ. Discrimination being a primary source, and wealth being another.
If we have two individuals with an IQ of 140, then they both have the roundabout prerequisite IQ to become a doctor. Social discrimination and/or lack of wealth needed to go to school for 12-years are definitely things that would harm this goal.
Two equal men with an IQ of 140 interested in being a doctor could very commonly not result in the two of them becoming a doctor.
Doctors can make good money. The one that has the right social-economic background to make it to become a doctor will earn a good living. The one who did not have the right socio-economic background to make it to the finish line . . . still has a 140 IQ, and will likely do better than your average 100 IQ guy.
It makes me want to cry that we lost out on so many scientists and doctors due to discrimination, and misuse of resources. Seriously this boils my blood, and makes me wonder what all those geniuses could have accomplished if not for bigotry, and/or poor planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
So you are admitting that the company is not in fact using warehouse space for warehousing. They are, in fact, a realtor company. They don't have warehouses at all. They have land, which they rent to companies who are not following my professor's advice, and thus sinking money into warehouses which is collected by "that company".
I am not sure, likely they are pooling resources in order to save money. Like a bunch of bakers renting a kitchen as a co-op. They are likely are more like room-mates sharing expenses.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Seconded, and that's even ignoring that IQ tests is a largely discredited way to measure intelligence.
From my own experience, they are only good at measuring one thing: how well you do at thinking like the guy that designed them. And since said guy thinks himself intelligent, he brands you also intelligent if you think like him, on a sliding scale of how fast you are at thinking like him.
From there, it seems that anyone who thinks differently is labelled "savant" or "intuitive" or some other cop-out word to "explain" why someone can figure out, say, the mathematical structure of music even without mathematical knowledge but can't figure out which of the four vaguely-fitting, vaguely-not-fitting answer is the one the guy that designed the test thinks is the most appropriate.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
IQ is the in-vogue measure of intelligence. Pre 1960's-ish vocabulary was in-vogue. We can blame the US Army for IQ being the standard. We can blame computers for IQ being so highly in demand. Computer programmers do not need a huge vocabulary . . . they need huge problem-solving skills. No one is making a killing on their huge vocabulary, and most folks no longer care about a vast vocabulary . . . they care about the money IQ brings with computer stuff.
All the crazy wealthy folks seem to be high IQ nerdy computer guys . . . they did not get there by talking pretty . . . I am sure talking pretty helps, but you need the nerdy IQ as well.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
IQ is the in-vogue measure of intelligence.
If you admit that it's simply en vogue and doesn't have any actual worth, why are you propping it up as a worthwhile metric?
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
If you admit that it's simply en vogue and doesn't have any actual worth, why are you propping it up as a worthwhile metric?
It is en vogue (en, good to know) because computers are en vogue and money is en vogue and computers equal money.
Talking pretty will not make you near the money that IQ will now-a-days because of computers.
Talking pretty still equates to intelligence . . . just not the kind that is nearly as profitable as IQ. This could change, and likely will change, over time.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
It is en vogue (en, good to know) because computers are en vogue and money is en vogue and computers equal money.
Actually, both "in vogue" and "en vogue" are correct. The "e" version is just the original French term.
Anyway, computers and money are not "en vogue," they are both objectively useful tools used by virtually every metric. IQ tests are not.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
IQ is the in-vogue measure of intelligence. Pre 1960's-ish vocabulary was in-vogue. We can blame the US Army for IQ being the standard. We can blame computers for IQ being so highly in demand. Computer programmers do not need a huge vocabulary . . . they need huge problem-solving skills. No one is making a killing on their huge vocabulary, and most folks no longer care about a vast vocabulary . . . they care about the money IQ brings with computer stuff.
All the crazy wealthy folks seem to be high IQ nerdy computer guys . . . they did not get there by talking pretty . . . I am sure talking pretty helps, but you need the nerdy IQ as well.
This is actually a pretty good post to highlight the problem. There is a seed of an idea in here (multiple, actually). However, there isn't an actual A to B to C that brings it from premise to supporting points to conclusion. Ignoring whether all the points are accurate (plenty of non-US Army sources started using IQ tests in their hiring practices in the 1960s, and if they did so due to the army doing so, a supporting-evidence link would be useful), there are a number of steps that have not been actually laid out. The first is that IQ is a good measurement of something. Next that what it measures is problem solving skills. Next that computer programmers have this quality*. Also that the crazy wealth folks are computer guys**. And then that this IQ-measured problem solving ability is a quality that the rise of computers allowed the people who ended up being computer programmers to become the crazy wealthy people of the modern economy.
*I manage computer people. There is a lower boundary on smarts (which is not necessarily IQ), but there are plenty of middling minds in programming.
**If by crazy rich, you mean the people in the 90th-95th percentile slots, certainly. Most of the top 5% are not.
It is the failure to actually follow through on these arguments, DR, that make your arguments seem pretty nebulous. Add to that what others have said about treating IQ as a positive when you need it for your case, and acknowledging its' limitations when it isn't, or treating correlation and causation as the same thing when convenient, and... well, even if you have a point and it is correct, you just haven't done the heavy lifting of actually making that case.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Mostly IQ measures whether or not you can learn. An IQ under 70, basically means that it is a lot of trouble to teach you, and that it is likely not worth the time (according to the army). This is what we use in America to determine this for school at least.
IQ nerds like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and his ilk. Lesser IQ nerds as well, I guess.
This looks ligit: https://www.verywellmind.com/history...esting-2795581
I have some very smart friends. Some are wildly successful, and some live in the equivalent of living in their parents basements. My babysitter has an IQ of 167 or something super crazy nuts-o high, has 3-4 English degrees, and cannot hold down a job to save her life. I know a guy (a friend of a friend) who's job is to tell other engineers why their ideas suck . . . he makes bank.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
My BA teacher at Uni kept using this simple fact to stress how important was to strive for "0-inventory" (aka "just-in-time") business models. Warehouses are surprisingly expensive... until you realise they cannot possibly be anything other than money sinks (i.e. they cannot produce revenue, so long as they are warehouses and not, say, manufacturing facilities), at which point they become unsurprisingly expensive.
I agree with you in the case of a rented warehouse, but in many cases if you own it it can be a good business model due to the real estate component of it. My company has a sizable warehouse that we use to store various things (mostly surplus and leftovers from jobs), on commercially zoned downtown land next to a multifamily rental building we already owned, and while I would agree with you that paying anything to store that crapload of free stuff that may be useful someday or not would not be worth it (financially, I'd be better off getting rid of it even if it does have some value), doing it the way I'm doing it is perfectly justifiable and profitable.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xyril
Your mom wasn't wrong about investing. Many, many people lose their shirts because they know enough to understand that investing is generally good, but they don't know anything beyond that. Was 16 year old you sophisticated enough know what index funds were, how to distribute risk, etc, or would you have put all your money into Circuit City and Radio Shack because electronics were the future? Was her position the best one? Obviously, it would have been better if she was aware of the dangers and had the knowledge and confidence to teach you how to avoid unacceptable risks and obvious swindles, but I can hardly fault her for trying to protect you within the scope of her ability.
I have never lost more money than I have gained. Like never. With money I am in the “good enough” category.
Now I could have lost that $1,000 . . . but perhaps I could have done the average. I would like to think that I would have asked the dean at school who taught us about compound interest what to do. Basically he was more-or-less in charge of the school-districts investment money . . . apparently he did quite well with it.
Then again I was an idiot teenager . . ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xyril
Then of course there is the matter of values, not to mention the time value of money. You certainly want to prepare for the future--in my case, probably overprepare in terms of saving enough to retire and to handle increasingly expensive and unlikely contingencies--but at some point, the marginal benefit to having that extra money in the future isn't worth the experiences you're sacrificing in the present. If that $94,000 dollars would have meant life-saving or life-changing medical treatment, or staying off the streets once social security runs out, then clearly the trip to Europe seems frivolous. If it means the difference between retiring to a beachfront condo and retiring to a condo with beach access, then I would argue that maybe a trip to Europe in your youth, or playing around with starting your own small business, taking a few courses at the community college, or buying an old car to fix up with your friends, or a number of also possible experiences may have had a bigger impact on your life, one that could also reverberate and compound itself (albeit far less predictably than a mutual fund) throughout the course of your life. Maybe that was one of the values that your mother was trying to impart.
My parents taught me a lot. Investing in the stock market was not one of them. I somehow managed to average a return of 13.3% between 2004 and now-ish. I am actually quite shocked at how well I have done.
I do not think that I could measure up to my father, but I will try.
I do not think that I would ever be as good at cleaning or organizing as my mother . . . those professional organizers on TV are a pale impression of her level of skill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xyril
My parents are a lot like how you wished your parents were: They taught me a lot about financial literacy, deferring gratification, preparing for the future, etc. That's why I went to a very pricey school and then went into a very lucrative job in a field that I found challenging and honestly incredibly fun on the day-to-day level, but not fulfilling on the long term. In a few years of working and living much more frugally than most of my friends and coworkers, I easily paid off all my debts and set up the core investments that will most likely afford me a very comfortable retirement, plus some padding for the unexpected. For that, I am very grateful to my parents. However, these weren't the only values they passed down to me. So when I decided that I wanted to leave my career and go back to school in order to (most likely) get paid less to do something more fulfilling, they supported my choice 100%. For that, I am even more grateful.
More relevantly to your original topic, maybe the kind of person who would pay for years of higher education and then forgo more materially rewarding jobs in the private sector in order to teach children whose parents weren't willing or weren't able to pay for private schooling is also the kind of person whose values don't necessarily focus on optimizing investments either.
I would also argue that the nature of public teacher compensation actually works against the sort of financial literacy you're promoting: Anyone with compensation that's heavily balanced towards a company-managed pension fund likely has far less excess direct income to invest as they please and little to no control over how their pension fund is invested. If you barely have any many left after necessities and a large portion of your retirement is taken care of automatically, then it's far less incentive to devote the time and effort necessary to develop a lot of financial sophistication. On the other hand, if you work somewhere that doesn't offer a pension, but instead offers 401k or similar matching plans (where you can control your investment) or simply pays you enough that you have substantial disposable income to save and invest, then the same amount of time devoted to financial literacy can yield much larger gains.
Well here is my point. They are an easy source that is accessible. I do not think that they are a source of misinformation, or that they are a source to be ignored. Just the fact that 1/6 of them are millionaires means that they, as a population, would be a good source to learn about money from. I certainly did. This nut-job saying that one should not trust what teachers teach about money is full nutso-bananas tin-foil-hat keeping folks poor on purpose bull-crap crazy talk.
-
Re: Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
I have never lost more money than I have gained. Like never. With money I am in the “good enough” category.
Or "lucky enough" category. I'm happy for you, that's great, but your experiences are not necessarily typical and things beyond your control can easily turn things upside down at any time.
Oh, also:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkrose50
Well here is my point. They are an easy source that is accessible. I do not think that they are a source of misinformation, or that they are a source to be ignored. Just the fact that 1/6 of them are millionaires means that they, as a population, would be a good source to learn about money from.
That's not how statistics works, though.