Personal finance experts don’t get wealthy by following their own advice

That's exactly the kind of things I've seen CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapies) do miracles in short periods of time. It requires some dedication but I've never thought it would work so well on my friends and relatives.

most financial “experts” made the bulk of their fortune by selling their advice. not actually earning wealth first then giving advice. like meet kevin or graham Stephan.

> Is he really 'working for Apple', when he's the CEO? It'd be fairer to say he has Apple working for him.

Apple's employees are managed by him, but both him and the other employees are working for the apple's shareholders.

I mean I've read this comment about 3-4 times now and I get that you start with "No" in regards to my original comment... but I was super weirded out on the overall direction. I'm talking about median wages and you immediately jump into talking about "mansions"...? As-if the majority of folks today having troubles finding an affordable place are looking for "mansions".........?

> Instead, I think that buying massive mansions (as per how people in the 50s may think of it), could be part of the problem.

You draw this comparison of what people in the 50's would think of our world today when in all reality the cost of everything has skyrocketed since the 50's. The dual-earner expectation is a new thing since then, the post-WW2 credit boom happened, the expectations of higher education to enter careers is different, housing markets are night and day, etc... Anyone who's looking at this modern world through the lens of the 50's ideals must realize that this is an incredibly skewed/distorted way to think about today. Or at least I would hope they realize this.

> And other factors, cell phone, cable, internet, tablet, laptop, gaming system, monthly fees can run hundreds in some households, with hardware costs amortized, even a thousand per month for a family!

> How'd they get those toys?

Much of that isn't a toy in this day in age... I would argue that cell phone and internet are utilities NOT toys. I would argue that a laptop/tablet/phone is a requirement to stay relevant in even entry level positions... and sure - I can understand not subsidizing TV and video games as they're pure entertainment. But, I would very much argue that folks who are worried about improving conditions for wage earners are not advocating for everyone to get a free Xbox and 42" LCD.

> But I agree, then isn't now.

I'm at odds with this too - when you spend so much time drawing comparisons between the 50's and today I am left to wonder, "where does this person draw the line of 'then' and 'now'? Do they believe in 50's ideals being exercised today? And if so, which ones?"

All of these comparisons you've drawn make me feel like I'm suppose to feel guilt for having purchased things with credit as well... admittedly things like TV's, etc. I've never paid "2-3x" for something as I've never fell for that trap... but I have purchased expensive things like computers and used my credit to spread that hurt out over a year...

And... oh god... if I get a house how do I live with myself knowing it's a mansion or not...? I guess I should stay within the arbitrary > I wonder what they'd say [...]

My grandparents and parents are not involved in my finances. They're all dead now, but they lived a life so very different than mine that I really don't care what they'd say... my answer to that is "So what?"

> More than anything, credit is the big problem.

Credit/debt is the basis of any capitalistic society - it's literally in the blueprints. If you truly believe this I would argue you have a fundamental issue with capitalism as well.

Also, hard disagree which is why I asked you the original question. Wage stagnation and commodification of everything we need to live is the "more than anything" problem.

I do not disagree that credit is a problem. But it is not the "more than anything" problem. Actual livable wages for everyone willing to work is the "more than anything" problem.

The challenge with any writing for a general audience is that unlike actual advice, which is tailored to the person receiving it, it just goes out into the aether for anyone to see so will be inapplicable for at least some people.

Sure, some mass-market dude with a radio show (I don't know anything Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman beyond their wikipedia pages) is going to have advice that "technically" doesn't make sense or that doesn't apply to some people. A very large number of people are deeply in consumer debt, have secured vehicle debt for more expensive cars than they should really have, and may well have taken the advice to get the biggest mortgage they could for a house in a place that requires that they maintain the whole shebang or go bust.

Telling those people "cut up your credit cards" and "if you don't have the cash, don't buy it" is actually good advice. The "snowball" thing that Ramsey is into is innumerate but may be just the thing for someone struggling to see their way through all their debts. I would no more tell someone with serious struggles with consumer debt that clever use of credit cards could increase their income overall than suggest a killer wine pairing to a recovering alcoholic.

I also don't think that it's a very fair categorisation of Sethi. He's never made any secret of the fact that these days most of his wealth has come from his writing and despite the name of his book, the advice he gives is more "I will teach you to be a financially prudent member of the upper middle class (if you are a well paid professional)" they just couldn't get that on the cover.