Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad

[snowblizz]

I hate to interrupt you here guy but you are way off base, like yeah the doctor might have a nicer house but I bet you that the plumbers $70,000 dually truck is a lot more expensive than whatever the doctor is driving most likely.

You should probably look more at the numbers than the job titles in that example. I believe the point being made was if you earn 100k and spend 20k (net 80k) you might be better placed than someone who earns 300k but spends 250k of it (net 50k). That old adage "it's not how much you earn but how much you spend". Though there are limits to the applicability to the saying too.
Some people, say Michael Jackson because I remember the example, earned hundreds of millions but racked up close to a billion in debt too. Eventually having to turn over his (part) ownership of the Beatles catalogue (his biggest money-maker) to Sony music to clear his debts. Arguably someone making a net 50k a year could be considered better off than someone doing a negative net of tens of million each year. Though in practice I think most would consider the pop star a vastly richer person. However, if you are looking for solid financial advice you probably want to talk to the net 50k person.

A constant issue I have with many of these "get rich with real-estate" kinda of advice, and IIRC Kiyosaki's belong to that category, is that when everyone starts doing it it doesn't work (usually because the economy is building up a bubble)*. In Ireland before 2008-9 they had a massive boom in realestate. Lots of people got safe, foolproof real-estate investments, totally ignoring that when everyone has a second home, who is going to buy those third and fourth houses? And definitely not helped by the fact it wasn't legally possible to evict tenants...
In Stockholm around the same time it was almost a sport to buy apartments, renovate the kitchen with luxury furnishings and make a 10-15% or more gain. I never understood this, since everyone buying an aprtment surely should know the cost of installing an off-the-shelf 100k kitchen and not pay 200k for that? It worked for a while ofc, until the market got saturated because it was a no brainer will always work strategy...

Basically if everyone was following the advice you are peddling then it wouldn't work for anyone. Maybe it'd be possible to construct such a counter-example to what Kyosaki is expousing. I just don't think it'd be effective because usually whenever someone is taken in by such a con-artists they aren't receptive to changing their minds.


*I'm not just negging real-estate here, stocks have similar problems. Some 3 years ago or so there was a buyout offer off a company I had some shares in, they paid more than the listprice ofc, but what really got to me was how upbeat and great the proposed merger was being sold as. The problem inherent in this was that I wouldn't be a part of that since they'd be buying me (and all other investors) out. If the deal was so bloody good, why aren't I allowed to participate with a share in the future? Never seen a prospect so shooting themselves in the foot. With every line in it they wer effectively suggesting why I shouldn't be selling. Not that it mattered in the end there was a forced buy-out of the last shareholders. Got more than they were offering though.

[AMFV]

I spend most of my work week out with the lower end of the economic spectrum. Duallys aren't unheard of, but I see far more of them with white collar types who want to pretend to be macho. The actual tradesmen are driving either a F150 or Ram a few years old, or more lately crossovers. They don't go camping; they go to one or maybe two Vikings games a year. Hunting and fishing, yes, but that is not expensive by any means. Ditto softball and hardball leagues.

And then there's the drinking, where you're dead on. And also where I keep coming in.

The thing is you're confusing lower end of the economic spectrum with tradespeople. The kind of Trades people that we are talking about can't afford to go camping and often do, and hunting and often do, thing is, if you gave the people that you're spending time with the ones in the lower end of the scale the salary that we're discussing for that Plumber guy a lot of them would buy a really stupid truck. And it's not like I'm saying there's anything wrong with spending your money on something like a stupid truck, but it's kind of weird to me that people are trying to present plumbers And Trades people as being somehow Super Wise with their money when in my experience they are not especially wise with their money. I mean probably some of them are but I imagine they're probably some doctors who also are cheap and don't spend a lot of money


Edit: Snowblizz I'm fairly sure you have me confused for somebody else, I haven't actually given any advice in the threat at all, the only thing I've said is that the trades aren't for everybody which isn't really advise just kind of a counter to the kind of arguing that everybody has been having that the trades are for everybody, and then other than that I haven't really said anything that would constitute advice. Accept it a teacher may or may not be a good resource for financial advice the same way as most people may or may not be a good resource for financial advice

[Chen]

*I'm not just negging real-estate here, stocks have similar problems. Some 3 years ago or so there was a buyout offer off a company I had some shares in, they paid more than the listprice ofc, but what really got to me was how upbeat and great the proposed merger was being sold as. The problem inherent in this was that I wouldn't be a part of that since they'd be buying me (and all other investors) out. If the deal was so bloody good, why aren't I allowed to participate with a share in the future? Never seen a prospect so shooting themselves in the foot. With every line in it they wer effectively suggesting why I shouldn't be selling. Not that it mattered in the end there was a forced buy-out of the last shareholders. Got more than they were offering though.

Not really a merger if one company is buying all the shares of another. Thats a takeover (which is why you want all the shares in that company).

Presumably the new company then offered shares to whomever they wanted to have any ownership in the company. How were they shooting themselves in the foot?

[snowblizz]

Edit: Snowblizz I'm fairly sure you have me confused for somebody else, I haven't actually given any advice in the threat at all, the only thing I've said is that the trades aren't for everybody which isn't really advise just kind of a counter to the kind of arguing that everybody has been having that the trades are for everybody, and then other than that I haven't really said anything that would constitute advice. Accept it a teacher may or may not be a good resource for financial advice the same way as most people may or may not be a good resource for financial advice

No I'm specifically referring to the tradesperson/doctor thing. The point earlier was about relative spending your income not about tradespeople or doctors per se. The professions and whether they buy trucks, BMWs or hunt/go to opera is irrelevant (you can swap the out to any profession really). The larger points was a higher income can lead to more expensive habits. I felt the discussion on what a plumber might spend money on was beside the point.

Not really a merger if one company is buying all the shares of another. Thats a takeover (which is why you want all the shares in that company).

Presumably the new company then offered shares to whomever they wanted to have any ownership in the company. How were they shooting themselves in the foot?

There's the word I couldn't think of.
Well they need my shares, and many others' to be able to do a take-over. If you want my shares then maybe don't try and sell me on how better everything will be when I no longer can enjoy those benefits? An offer that would have made more sense in the context of positive the prospect made the deal out would have been an offer that gave me shares after the take-over. The two possible options boiled down to:

*Sell to us so we can be more successfull and you won't get anything of that.

*Become part of this new better company.

The second one would have been more likely to entice me. As is, it took them a year of arbitration they had to pay for to get my shares. I obviously wasn't the only hold out.
Had they not gotten 90% to trigger a forced buyout they'd be in massive pickle. By no means a guarantee. I've seen that one happen too. That time some minor owners with large enough share to push over the required limit managed to leverage the deal quite heavily.

[darkrose50]

If you don't know then how do you expect us to?

I am not sure at all what goal post was moved, but here are some of the arguments:

Hypothesis: Teachers can be a source of information on investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are intelligent
Hypothesis: Intelligence is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are educated
Hypothesis: Education is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers tend to come from the upper-middle-class and are highly likely to have this cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance . . . and that is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are *a* source to be specifically targeted for information on investing (due to likelihood of possessing cultural capital, and the ease of access)

And then there are others . . ..

Hypothesis: Multigenerational wealth is a feedback loop, and is both a cause and an effect.
Hypothesis: The source of the wealth a person has is important if you want to be able to replicate it.
Hypothesis: Free money via compound interest is a great way to invest your way to more money.
Hypothesis: Saving is more important than what you invest in (but you need to invest, and diversify).
Hypothesis: Do not dismiss what people flag as a paradox, or a correlation, and look at it anyhow.
Hypothesis: Do not just look for one source or person for investing knowledge.
Hypothesis: Save and invest in the S&P 500, for 10-30 years.
Hypothesis: Do not sell when the market goes down, buy more if possible when the market goes down.

I bet there were a lot more points that I said than the ones listed above.

Honestly it confuses me to no end that I can say something like "I am hungry, ergo I ate lunch", and then later if I said "It was lunchtime, ergo I ate lunch", then even later said "I had a coupon, ergo I ate lunch" someone would come along and say that I was lying because my story changed, as if one cannot have multiple reasons for doing something like eating lunch. Judge Judy did/does this all the time, it drove/drives me nuts.

-----

. . . a lot of them would buy a really stupid truck.

They made a documentary about giving a homeless man a $100,000. He bought a ~$60,000 truck, and said "you would think that $100,000 would last forever", or something like that.

A lot (most?) of the folks that are homeless have mental health issues, and likely do not have or care about money skills (enough, as they likely have bigger issues to deal with), so I am not at all surprised at the results.

-----

I would like to see a documentary about someone giving like ten hard-working lower-class families each a house, and how it would change there lives. More precisely competently or mostly removing housing as a cost, and granting them equity . . . not here is a house you can't afford the taxes on, or something like that.

. . . trades are for everybody

I really think that just about everyone should save and invest in at least an index fund like a S&P 500 index fund, and leave it alone for 10-30 years (as in don't sell it, but add savings to it over time). This is the basic premise, but there would be more parameters (retirement vehicles like a 401(k) or Roth IRA being good to save on taxes, preparing for retirement 10-years before by shifting 5-10 years of money around to bonds/cash, and I am sure some other things). Compound interest is a frightfully powerful thing. Basically you make money via doing nothing, and that is peachy keen.

-----

Now I am no stock guru, but the stock market has been going sideways for an awful long time. In the past when this going sideways occurred it went straight up at some point with the trend being the longer that the market has historically gone sideways the more sharply the market went up. We just might see that again at some point. I would consider this a risk/reward calculation folks should make by looking at historical charts, and thinking about if this is the time in history where this trend would stop. It seems likely (based on history) to me that at some point we will see a sharp uptick, but no one can tell when that uptick might occur. This possibility is mouthwatering.

[Willie the Duck]

Now I am no stock guru, but the stock market has been going sideways for an awful long time. In the past when this going sideways occurred it went straight up at some point with the trend being the longer that the market has historically gone sideways the more sharply the market went up. We just might see that again at some point. I would consider this a risk/reward calculation folks should make by looking at historical charts, and thinking about if this is the time in history where this trend would stop. It seems likely (based on history) to me that at some point we will see a sharp uptick, but no one can tell when that uptick might occur. This possibility is mouthwatering.

If we're going strictly by a 'history is an indicator' model, yesterday's bond inversion suggests a sharp uptick is not something to expect in the near (2 year) future. I certainly wouldn't be moving my safe money into high-risk ventures.

[Tvtyrant]

It is also important to realize that economics is the dire alpha werewolf of statistical background noise. No one is good at predicting its behavior in the long run.

[darkrose50]

If we're going strictly by a 'history is an indicator' model, yesterday's bond inversion suggests a sharp uptick is not something to expect in the near (2 year) future. I certainly wouldn't be moving my safe money into high-risk ventures.

Depending on my choices in one of my two 401(k)'s I tend to just buy the S&P 500 or some other index fund either (a) for the long-haul, and/or (b) for the political goals of who holds power. So usually I end up investing for ~8-year allotments. I could just be lucky so far.

I was attempting to suggest that folks should think about upping ones investment into the market (I like dollar cost averaging). I am thinking that within 10-years we just might have that skyrocketing market. We might be in one now, even if it does go down for 2-years, I would like to get ready for it.

The longest recovery in the last ~120-years was ~25-years long. So, you know, we will likely be above where we are now at some-point, at least likely the market would be up within the next 25-years.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...art-2017-03-23

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sidewaystrend.asp

Depending on situations in 2020, infrastructure seems like it might be some low-hanging fruit. Everyone wants to be responsible for this economic boom. Everyone sees it, and everyone is putting it off. When some-group can take all of the credit for it, there will likely be lots of money to be made.

I am no expert, but I bet that perhaps within 5-years to 9-years or 13-years we will have an expansion phase. One group seems to be good for consolidation that lags for a while and one group seems to be good for expansion that lags for a while. The setup seems to work overall. The consolidation phase seems to be great to invest in at a steady price (perhaps a higher pace), and the expansion seems to be great for the market going higher. They are both great, and seem to work well together. I look forward to both seemingly more-or-less predictable phases (or probable phases).

[lio45]

I am not sure at all what goal post was moved, but here are some of the arguments:

Hypothesis: Teachers can be a source of information on investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are intelligent
Hypothesis: Intelligence is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are educated
Hypothesis: Education is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers tend to come from the upper-middle-class and are highly likely to have this cultural capital surrounding wealth accumulation and maintenance . . . and that is useful in investing
Hypothesis: Teachers are *a* source to be specifically targeted for information on investing (due to likelihood of possessing cultural capital, and the ease of access)

And the counter-argument is that all of this is so marginal, it's dwarfed by the error bars.

Select a person at random, and you've got about ~49% chance that their advice will be slightly better than a random teacher's, and ~51% chance that their advice will be slightly poorer than a random teacher's.

[darkrose50]

And the counter-argument is that all of this is so marginal, it's dwarfed by the error bars.

Select a person at random, and you've got about ~49% chance that their advice will be slightly better than a random teacher's, and ~51% chance that their advice will be slightly poorer than a random teacher's.

Would you just ask anyone about fishing, or would you first ask the son of a fisherman? Grabbing anyone off of the street is not nearly as probable in providing the information that you seek as grabbing the son of a fisherman would be (the fisherman is not available to you).

Investing is not gambling. Investing is not random. Investing is not common sense that everyone has. Investing is both a learned behavior, and also a learned skill. Everyone does not have the behavior, the same skill, or the same training in investing. You need money to invest in order to have experience investing.

Multigenerational wealth is not just money. It is also the training that the money gives. It is also the experience surrounding how money is managed. The kids of investors learn stuff about investing, honest to god.

If your goal were to locate potential multigenerational cultural capital surrounding wealth.

I would not start by asking at random. You would want to narrow down the population.

I would not start by talking to those in the lower quintiles about investing. It is much less probable to get at the cultural capital surrounding investing that you are look for.

I would certainly start by looking for those born into the higher quintiles where the wealth resides. This also happens to be where the teaching population tends to comes from.

Below is a study about investing by quintile:

"The majority of lower socioeconomic status (SES) households do not have any stock investments, which is detrimental to wealth accumulation. Here, we examine one potential driver of this puzzling fact, namely, that SES may influence the process by which people learn from information in financial markets. In an experimental setting we find that low SES participants, relative to medium or high SES ones, form more pessimistic beliefs about the distribution of stock investment outcomes and are less likely to invest in stocks. The pessimism bias in assessing risky assets induced by low SES is robust to several ways of measuring one’s socioeconomic standing and it replicates out of sample. These results suggest that SES shapes in predictable ways people’s beliefs about financial assets, which in turn may induce large differences across households in their propensity to participate in financial markets." https://www.nber.org/papers/w21214

The child of someone born in an upper quintile is not as probable to know about wealth than someone born in the lower quintile. Unfortunately this is not how things work.

[Keltest]

If I wanted to know about fishing, I would ask somebody defined by their experience with fishing, ie a fisherman, not somebody who is in proximity to fishing such as his son.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Especially given how little interaction there is between generations. Sitting in the same room playing with your smart phones doesn't do anything.

[darkrose50]

If I wanted to know about fishing, I would ask somebody defined by their experience with fishing, ie a fisherman, not somebody who is in proximity to fishing such as his son.

Of course you would. This is not that argument. This (last post) specifically is in relation to the notion that anyone has just about the same probability of understanding wealth. That notion is not born out in any data.

Also these (the upper quintiles where teachers tend to come from) are often the very same people that know about wealth. Wealth has a multigenerational feedback effect. It is not simply the money, but is often also the learned behaviors and skills surrounding what to do with the money. Now this does not have a guarantee of success, but has a much larger success rate than not having any cultural capital surrounding wealth at all. The rich have a high tendency to stay rich from generation to generation, and cultural capitol surrounding wealth is one of the reasons.

What do you think the rate of wealthy people inheriting and keeping there wealth would be compared to those who won the lottery? I would put my money on those that inherited the wealth.

[lio45]

If I wanted to know about fishing, I would ask somebody defined by their experience with fishing, ie a fisherman, not somebody who is in proximity to fishing such as his son.

Exactly. To slightly rephrase the same point as previously, in a world where there are actual resources readily available, such as "googling 'how to fish'", "getting then reading 'Fishing for Dummies'", and even "asking a fisherman", we can approximate "asking someone who happens to be related to a fisherman" as being, in comparison with the aforementioned options, pretty close to "asking a random person".

[darkrose50]

Exactly. To slightly rephrase the same point as previously, in a world where there are actual resources readily available, such as "googling 'how to fish'", "getting then reading 'Fishing for Dummies'", and even "asking a fisherman", we can approximate "asking someone who happens to be related to a fisherman" as being, in comparison with the aforementioned options, pretty close to "asking a random person".

So we no longer need schools, universities, or training?

We no longer need to talk to people with wisdom, we can just read there book? It's not the same thing.

Who would do better . . . an Olympic athlete with a coach, or one without?

Are there even Olympic athlete's without coaches?

Why do professional sports have coaches? They could just read a book, or look it up on the interwebs.

Why have bosses, or mentors, if we could just read a book and be done with it.

[Peelee]

So we no longer need schools, universities, or training?

Who would do better . . . an Olympic athlete with a coach, or one without?

Are there even Olympic athlete's without coaches?

Why do professional sports have coaches, they could just read a book, or look it up on the interwebs.

You're moving the goalposts again. Unless "talk to a teacher because proximity" really means "take dedicated classes and devote substantial chunks of your life to learning and training on investing, which the teacher will provide apparently free of charge. "

[lio45]

So we no longer need schools, universities, or training?

You don't seem to understand my point here, which is not entirely unrelated to Robert Kiyosaki's. Schools aren't there to train kids to become wealthy beyond comfortable living levels. In fact its goal is partly opposed to that objective... the idea of school is to produce contributing, happy members of society. And since being rich is defined by how you measure up to others (i.e. if you don't have any more than the same level of wealth as average, then you aren't "rich"), if school focused on telling schoolchildren that the real goal of life is to become rich and that the rest is secondary and sucks, it would be a problem, because only a small subset of the population can ever "be rich".

[darkrose50]

You're moving the goalposts again. Unless "talk to a teacher because proximity" really means "take dedicated classes and devote substantial chunks of your life to learning and training on investing, which the teacher will provide apparently free of charge. "

I am not.

I am not giving advice on how to be an economist. That is what you go to school for. Not just read a book about it either.

We are shooting for "a conversation worth money" . . . not an education on a profession.

You most certainly do not need to go to school for that. Although you might find a teacher at your school who has some pointers, as he or she is likely to be from a family with money. In fact if you were looking for pointers teachers would be a good place to look. Not a bad place like the author this thread says.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yeah. Most teachers don't know beans about anything except the subject they teach, and they aren't great there either due to the general lack of a subject degree in addition to the education degree (i.e., teachers are taught how to teach, not what to teach). And I still haven't seen a source on teachers coming from the wealth class (heh).

[Peelee]

I am not.

I am not giving advice on how to be an economist.

Then comparing reading advice on the internet to being able to compete in the Olympics without a couch is such a colossal stretch that I can't even come up with a good analogy for it.

[lio45]

I am not.

I am not giving advice on how to be an economist. That is what you go to school for. Not just read a book about it either.

We are shooting for "a conversation worth money" . . . not an education on a profession.

You most certainly do not need to go to school for that. Although you might find a teacher at your school who has some pointers, as he or she is likely to be from a family with money. In fact if you were looking for pointers teachers would be a good place to look. Not a bad place like the author this thread says.

Your goalposts were "having a casual outside-hours, non-professional conversation with a teacher". That's totally comparable (and inferior, IMO) to googling investment advice or reading a basic investment advice book.

[darkrose50]

Yeah. Most teachers don't know beans about anything except the subject they teach, and they aren't great there either due to the general lack of a subject degree in addition to the education degree (i.e., teachers are taught how to teach, not what to teach). And I still haven't seen a source on teachers coming from the wealth class (heh).

Is your argument that cultural capital is not a thing? You never learned any wisdom from you grandparents or parents?

Is your argument that cultural capitol surrounding wealth not a thing? Is holding onto and growing wealth is not a skill then?

Is it your argument that money alone causes the wealthy to be wealthy? If so why do the wealthy hold onto their wealth to a much higher degree than lottery winners?

Your goalposts were "having a casual outside-hours, non-professional conversation with a teacher". That's totally comparable (and inferior, IMO) to googling investment advice or reading a basic investment advice book.

My goalpost was to point out that teachers are a good source for learning about money skills. Teachers are the exact opposite of a bad source for money skills.

Have you never had a good conversation with a teacher about some idea that holds wisdom? That experience is somehow the same as Google?

Then comparing reading advice on the internet to being able to compete in the Olympics without a couch is such a colossal stretch that I can't even come up with a good analogy for it.

Fair enough. Let us change that to high school sports. Or music. Or chess. Or math. Or science. There are coaches and teachers there for more than one reason, and one reason is that they work . . . it works to teach things.

[lio45]

Then comparing reading advice on the internet to being able to compete in the Olympics without a couch is such a colossal stretch that I can't even come up with a good analogy for it.

Ironically, his analogy has some merit (but runs against his argument)...

Who would do better . . . an Olympic athlete with a coach, or one without?

In fact, Usain Bolt without a coach would do much better than a random person who has casual after-hours access to one of his acquaintances who's a professional coach in an unrelated discipline to track & field.

In other words, there are so many factors that come into play for investing that the opinion a random teacher may give you is, approximately, worthless (i.e. worth about as much as anyone's opinion, on average) in the grand scheme of things.

[darkrose50]

Ironically, his analogy has some merit (but runs against his argument)...


In fact, Usain Bolt without a coach would do much better than a random person who has casual after-hours access to one of his acquaintances who's a professional coach in an unrelated discipline to track & fiel.

One data-point does not tell the whole story. We are looking at all the data-points and probabilities of a desired outcome.

Rolling 2d6 has the probability of rolling a total of 7. I saw someone roll a 2 last night, ergo the probability of rolling a 7 is not true? <-- Making a point.

In other words, there are so many factors that come into play for investing that the opinion a random teacher may give you is, approximately, worthless (i.e. worth about as much as anyone's opinion, on average) in the grand scheme of things.

How can this be so?

So population X has:
[1] multigenerational wealth as a thing (this is no secret)
[2] proven to be able to hold onto multigenerational wealth to a high degree (this is no secret)
[3] learned the skills and behaviors surrounding wealth (this should be no secret)
[4] teachers that tend to be from this population X (this is no secret)
[5] asking a teacher = just as good of a probability as asking anyone? That is nonsense.

What part of this chain of probability am I not properly communicating?

So a teachers are extremely likely to be from the top ~40% wealthy families.
* Why would they be a bad choice? They would not be, they would be a good choice.
* Why would they have the same probability to know about wealth than randomly asking 100% of the population? Because looking at 40% of the population would save time, as opposed to looking at 100% of the population.

[lio45]

Fair enough. Let us change that to high school sports. Or music. Or chess. Or math. Or science. There are coaches and teachers there for more than one reason, and one reason is that they wrok.

And since Robert Kiyosaki markets himself as a coach... your argument has just gone full circle. :P

[darkrose50]

And since Robert Kiyosaki markets himself as a coach... your argument has just gone full circle. :P

Yes teachers are important. But a conman taking the role of a teacher/coach expressly to con you out of money is something to be fearful of.

[Peelee]

One data-point does not tell the whole story. We are looking at all the data-points and probabilities of a desired outcome.

Rolling 2d6 has the probability of rolling a total of 7. I saw someone roll a 2 last night, ergo the probability of rolling a 7 is not true? <-- Making a point.



How can this be so?

So population X has:
[1] multigenerational wealth as a thing (this is no secret)
[2] proven to be able to hold onto multigenerational wealth to a high degree (this is no secret)
[3] learned the skills and behaviors surrounding wealth (this should be no secret)
[4] teachers that tend to be from this population X (this is no secret)
[5] asking teacher = just as good of a probability as asking a field-worker? That is nonsense.

What part of this chain of probability am I not properly communicating?

So a teachers are extremely likely to be from the top ~40% wealthy families.
* Why would they be a bad choice? They would not be, they would be a good choice.
* Why would they have the same probability to know about wealth than randomly asking 100% of the population? Because looking in 40% of the population would save time, as opposed to looking in 100% of the population.

OK, since other avenues don't seem to be working, let's try something new: let's assume, for the moment, that you are absolutely 100% correct.

You know what adult group talks to teachers the most? Other teachers. So, if what you claim is true, other teachers be learning how to invest and save money at a significantly greater rate than others, which would lead them to have a greater ratio of wealthy to non-wealthy, which would feed right back into itself and create an an effective "teacher class" that would be the wealthy elite in America, if not the world.

We can thus assume, since this has not happened and is not in the process of happening, that you have at least one, if not several, critically incorrect assertions.

[darkrose50]

OK, since other avenues don't seem to be working, let's try something new: let's assume, for the moment, that you are absolutely 100% correct.

You know what adult group talks to teachers the most? Other teachers. So, if what you claim is true, other teachers be learning how to invest and save money at a significantly greater rate than others, which would lead them to have a greater ratio of wealthy to non-wealthy, which would feed right back into itself and create an an effective "teacher class" that would be the wealthy elite in America, if not the world.

We can thus assume, since this has not happened and is not in the process of happening, that you have at least one, if not several, critically incorrect assertions.

We see that teacher is listed on the professions that end up to be wealthy lists quite a lot.

The only time I hear people talk about money is when they do not have any, usually on pay-day. I don't really hear folks go on about how they made money on this or that. I do not think that most people talk about money at work. The last time I attempted it was with a co-worker that was once a banker. He assumed that I was talking about cryptocurrencies when I mentioned investing. We chatted a little, and then he simply disbelieved the returns I was getting, and the conversation stopped.

I am sure my wife talks to her close friends about money, but not to her co-workers. She does not want to talk about investing much at all with our kids. If we showed them the portfolio she thinks it would ruin them or that they would embarrass us by telling other people our business. I am thinking about just telling them the % change of the accounts every so often. It is a fine line to walk.

I try to tell them about how to save, and invest. I try to use examples.

I try to point out that I do not have all the bells and whistles as my friend X (all the movies, board games, comics, toys, music concerts and so on), and that my friend X (or Y or Z) is always having money problems. I have a simple and relatively cheap hobby (table-top RPGs, and maybe a handful of video games a year). I save, I invest, and as a result when the car breaks we can afford to fix it, whereas my friend needs to borrow money. All those things he has could have been a fixed car and then some.

----

Also the children of the wealthy tend to stay wealthy to a high degree. It is a thing. Wealth often is also grandparents to grandchildren . . . even with a buffer lower SEC job (or a lower paying job) in the middle . . . wealth is very sticky.

[Willie the Duck]

Is your argument that cultural capital is not a thing? You never learned any wisdom from you grandparents or parents?

Is your argument that cultural capitol surrounding wealth not a thing? Is holding onto and growing wealth is not a skill then?

Is it your argument that money alone causes the wealthy to be wealthy? If so why do the wealthy hold onto their wealth to a much higher degree than lottery winners?

None of those things are remotely what they were arguing. Why do you think it was.

My goalpost was to point out that teachers are a good source for learning about money skills. Teachers are the exact opposite of a bad source for money skills.

Those two things are not the same goal line. The later is (as has been repeatedly pointed out) so noncontroversial that no one is arguing against it. The former is a supposition that could be proven, but has not been.

[darkrose50]

None of those things are remotely what they were arguing. Why do you think it was.

Those two things are not the same goal line. The later is (as has been repeatedly pointed out) so noncontroversial that no one is arguing against it. The former is a supposition that could be proven, but has not been.

It is proven that teachers tend to come from high SEC families.

It is proven that kids from high SEC families tend to end up in the same quintile as there parents.

It is proven that teachers tend to be a profession that holds a lot of wealth. Look up lists/studies of professions/occupations likely to be a millionaire.

It is proven that other professions with pensions do not end up on these lists.

So basically it is proven that teachers tend to start from money and end with money.

-----

What is not proven is why teachers would be wildly different than others who come from their SEC. Why would that notion fit the last point above?

Would they be singled out by the parents and family and not be taught cultural capital surrounding wealth?

What seems to me to be the point of contention is the notion that learning money skills from ones parents and family is a contributing factor.