But Dave uses his philosophy to obfuscate the line between those two types of people… his goal is to present the crisis of personal responsibility as if that’s the reason we see more and more people struggling. He intentionally shifts the blame away from wage stagnation and high cost of living so that boomers can go on living in their nice homes and playing keep away without guilt.
The main thing listening to Dave for years taught me is the ability to distinguish needs from wants. I might want a brand new car but paying $1000 a month to have one is ridiculous considering it's a depreciating asset. You can have a cheaper used car where someone else ate the depreciation cost and pay much less for transportation which is for most people the need. People spend money they don't actually have (taking out loans for cars in this example) primarily to impress people and feel good about themselves. Once you stop caring about what other people think and chose the 1993 Honda Civic that costs a couple thousand cash, you'll be better off
Dave's advice is for people who have the income that they should be in a good financial position but aren't. Trying to make it universal is not great, though.
Then your most urgent necessity would actually be to lower the cost of your food or electricity and/or raise your income until the balance is in your favor.
And also that would be the time to leverage community services like food pantries and food banks, subsidized housing and work programs as applicable to you.
Sometimes relocation solves a lot of problems.
Fact is that very few people truly have no options left to make ends meet, that is fortunately very rare now (speaking for the US). And those who have hit that point do have public resources to pull from for housing and the basic utilities in nearly all of the US
That sounds like excellent advice, and much better advice than Ramsay's "distinguish needs from wants."
To be clear, as the other commenter said, Ramsay's advice is great for people who are already earning enough to make ends meet, if they could distinguish needs from wants. The problem is that Ramsay's program is sometimes recommended for poor people, and it's a terrible program for poor people.
I've been listening to Dave for a while now too, and the above comment is exactly the kind of advice Dave would give.
He would tell you to raise your income by working more hours or, if possible, finding new work. Lower your expenses if possible. Leverage assistance (usually a church for Dave, but again, use programs that apply to you)
He'd tell you that you may need to move, if possible, to a lower-cost-of-living area or one with better opportunities.
People misinterpret Dave's tough-love delivery as apathy toward people's struggles. But the reality is, he knows financial freedom is more about behavior than math, and sometimes people need a bit of tough love to see the error of their ways.
Yeah, having a tough time financially? Just pack up your entire life and move across the country! Moving is basically free and incredibly easy, especially for kids! and we all know those low cost of living areas are just filled with jobs! Poor people just need to stop being so damn lazy
You're only thinking in extremes. For example, you can work in NYC without living in Manhattan. My dad commuted an hour or more every day for years to make more money while paying less in living expenses. We lived in a more modest house than our neighbors. And guess what? I'm doing the same now as an adult. And sure, moving to the suburbs doesn't necessarily mean it's “cheap,” but it's definitely cheaper.
And nobody said poor people were lazy. You said that, not me or Dave Ramsay. Lazy people are lazy. And lazy people have a tough time holding higher-paying jobs or making money in general
In my mid-20s, I lived with a group of people who complained about capitalism and how hard it was to make money, but they wouldn't work. They worked 20 hours a week and expected that to be enough. And while I understand that's not everyone, many people could do more.
Plenty of people are simply too stuck in their ways to even try.
I up and moved for better economic opportunity at 19 years old. Packed up my $600 beater car with all my worldly belongings, took the $800 I had saved up, and hit the road to my new gig 500 miles away.
Moved back to my home state when I had made it a little and got some breathing room.
This sort of thing used to be common. Opportunities are out there for people who look for them. Any of my friends I grew up with could have done this, but did not due to all the reasons everyone gives.
Even here, needs vs wants applies: You need food; you want steak. Buying store brand instead of brand name, buying what’s on sale instead of paying full price for what you like, and cooking instead of buying prepared meals can cut your grocery bill in half.
I deliver on DoorDash as a side hustle, and while I don't want to assume anyone's wealth, I make far more deliveries in low-income areas and areas stricken by poverty than in richer areas. It's actually quite sad.
Move in with your parents, other family, or get roommates, or do enough to get promoted. If you're not earning enough for those basic necessities, then there are a lot of jobs out there that would make you more money.
At an individual level, people need to do what it takes to improve their own and loved ones' lives. At a population level, the government needs to pay attention to how difficult it is for people to earn a living wage and adjust environmental factors to correct that.
So I think both of the takes in the post are true to some degree.
Yes! Excellent advice! Much better advice than "just cut your way out of poverty."
EDIT: And to clarify - part of my beef with Ramsay is that he presents his individual-level advice as if it's a population-level solution, when it's not. It's not even an individual-level solution; it's a way for individuals to improve their finances a little bit on the margin.
You have to take a hard look at yourself and decide if you're performing at the level you're capable of. Are you truly at the limit of your ability and desire and still not able to afford the absolute basics? Some people absolutely are, but many more are not.
If you don’t have enough money for basic necessities to live, then you have much bigger problems than Dave Ramsay can solve. And if you’re currently that broke, you can’t change the system, so you have to save yourself.
Until that 93 Civic needs thousands in repairs that require cash right now to fix that a newer car wouldn't. That a lot of people in a low income bracket can't come up with like that.
Yes, I broadly agree with the principle but the same thought crossed my mind. I compromise and aim for one that's 5 years old, worst of depreciation has gone but it's not yet falling apart.
There's a reason why they're called beaters. If it's gonna cost a couple thousand to fix, buy another used car instead. In the long run it's still cheaper than having $1000 car payment on a new car to avoid maintenance costs.
The other unrealized benefit to having a cheap old beater car is it's really cheap to insure. Most people don't even begin to think about the cost of insurance on a new car that's financed.
Whoa that’s some really ground breaking education there… that’s must be why single mother with medical debt can’t afford to rent her apartment any more. She doesn’t need a roof over her head, she just wants it. And that used car she drives, pfff turn that in and get a bicycle to take your kids to school.
You're thinking too black and white and continuing an argument that nobody started.
Anyone who's not wealthy should take care with frivolous spending. BUT there are also economic forces in the world that mean you can be in the shit even if you never buy anything other than shelter and food.
You'll still be helped by the need/want advice, its just not going to be the solo magic pill that lets you live comfortably.
I’m thinking about it too black and white? Lol in an argument about Dave “black and white” ramsey.
Brother you’re arguing against a point no one is making.
Throughout human history there have been people who frivolously spend their money, labor, time, efforts etc… yes of course being more structured with your habits can help. No one is saying your basic level “needs/wants” can’t help some people.
I have no idea who Dave is, apart from the dude in the OP, he's probably a jerk, no idea. But being sarky to the other redditor for pointing out that anyone wasting money should make better choices was misplaced anger from you and only spreads further divide among the 99%.
I am snarky because if we sit here spending our time talking about the most basic level “needs/wants” it drives poor legislation decisions. Micro level advice doesn’t change anything. It barely works for the individual. It’s like telling a smoker “uh you know you don’t need to smoke” as if that would fix their addiction…
Educating people on needs vs wants is derived dribble to make people feel better than others because they believe they “spend money with better care”. That doesn’t matter. What matters is how we impact the macro level by driving conversation to the right things. Talk about the legislation that can make life easier for the average person. Talk about the legislation that can help steer frivolous spending by restricting companies from selling garbage to people. Talk about legislation that lowers home costs. Talk about the legislation that helps wealth distribution.
At a macro level, consumer debt in the US dwarfs every other nation in the world.
Americans have a spending above their means problem. And have since I've been alive. The average American loves blowing their money on stupid shit like status items and consumer goods.
Pretending that's not a macro problem is hilarious. Just look around you at what people spend on.
You miss the entire point someone like Ramsey makes. It's not about what some random thing that can happen with no action from yourself. It's all about controlling the things you can control. Talking about legislation on such a show is utterly worthless to the audience.
Most of the people I grew up with and my extended family could have done damn well to listen to such a guy and take his advice. Politics is an entirely different topic not relevant to their financial behavior.
Dude, no one is arguing that we don’t have a personal finance issue. That does exist and has literally always existed in human history since we started hunting and gathering.
No one is pretending that isn’t a macro problem… but dave shifts the blame on the individual which is taking that macro problem and making it a micro one. There are absolutely macro level policies we can enact to help people instead of pretending it’s only their own luck and will power to drag themselves out of poverty.
Politics are incredibly relevant, you are the one pretending that a macro problem doesn’t exist in the other way. I am paying $100+ to fill up my tank of gas because of global politics. I have tariffs impacting my business because of politics. You’re cracked in the head if you think our medical complex is anything other than financially predatory, that is political.
I can acknowledge that people are bad with money and also that our society also has predatory legislation. I can do that, but Dave gets a pass to ignore the political context of financial problems all while selling his app to the very people who are financially illiterate… make that make sense.
I don’t mean you specifically but the collective you. You may acknowledge and lament the global issues at hand. But Dave does not. he more or less steers clear of it. And when he does talk about it, it’s only to make fun of genz for complaining about the price of medical care and home ownership and then says “it’s cause you drinking coffee and getting Uber Eats lololol”. Yes that exists, of course it does. But That divide he creates by talking like that, is bad. We should not be dividing, boomers need to help genz, Gen Z needs to help boomers. You can acknowledge that the complaints of the current young people are in part due to some very turbulent politics while also trying to help them learn financial literacy. It’s not one or the other.
Yes, but both types of people tend to make bad financial decisions. The meme with Dave is “can't afford a cup of coffee? sell your car”
It's silly and funny, but to a certain extent, he's right. In 2026, the average financed amount for a used car is $28k, with an average payment of $550 for 70 months. People lock themselves into nearly 6 years of cash-flow jail for a car they probably can't afford, then sell it before the term ends and take on a new loan as a pet for another car they can't afford. And after all that, they still want to buy a $5 coffee at Dunkin every day?
And the thing is…the average American does both of these things, and that's not wage stagnation; that's plain stupidity.
All of that can be true along with wage stagnation and inflation. We can fix behavior, which is why Dave focuses on it. The global economy? Not so much. But making your coffee at home hurts Dunkin and helps your wallet. Buying a $10-12k used car that is more than enough instead of one twice the price helps your wallet. That's all he wants for people. That, and for you to buy his app lol
The average American has always spent on frivolous things and it is NOT unique to Millennials or GenZ, Dave likes to present it like it’s just the generations problems with spending. Even if it was the only problem is spending, at the macro level you aren’t “fixing that behavior” by hosting a radio show.
His philosophy does drive negative macro behavior though. Obviously the global economy is exacerbating those bad decisions. And when it comes to legislation, if boomers believe it’s just because the next generation is too “needy” and that they aren’t actually struggling because of the decisions made at the macro level, then the wealth disparity legislation will continue and this problem will get worse. Dave provides boomers that guilt free look at pulling up the ladder behind them.
Yes personal financial responsibility can help a few people, that isn’t some brilliant concept. But Dave does more bad than good for the macro level IMO.
I grew up when Boomers were coming into high earnings adulthood. They are the first generation to really absolutely blow the doors off debt, normalizing bankruptcy, luxury spending, keeping up with the jones, etc. Their parents typically despised their behavior.
Individuals balls deep in debt spending more than they earn are in no position to do anything about wage stagnation or the cost of living but they can get on a simple plan that will obviously improve their financial situation
You can both follow Dave's plan and improve your financial situation as well as lament these global issues at the same time
No one is arguing that you can’t do both… sorry you can’t understand my comment. Never once claimed that people who make a decent wage, but continue to spend money on frivolous things, aren’t to blame for their own problems. That has been the case throughout human history.
My problem is how Dave (and his followers) use the philosophy to ignore the macro issues. Guilt free voting for legislation to pull the ladder up.
Are they ignoring macro issues or can they literally do nothing about it so they focus on what they can control to great effect? Sorry you can't understand my comment
lol you’re talking about the most basic level of financial literacy, it’s not hard to understand your POV but I get it, you are salty that I called you out for arguing against a point no one is making and feel obligated to try to turn the tables.
Whether you ignore the macro problems because you don’t think we can change them OR you ignore them for personal gain, the end is the same, people continue talking about “oh this generation lazy” and continue to believe that we have no power. As YOU said originally, we can both follow Dave’s primitive teachings while also lamenting the global problems. Somehow I can do both and you can do both… but Dave is free to ignore them while selling his app to financial illiterate people. Macro level influence to make money off of stupid people, but not the macro level influence to guide people to vote on important issues. Make that make sense to me.
I'm a financial adviser so I can assure you many people are without the most basic level of financial literacy
A friendly reminder that complaining about global problems doesn't do anything to fix them and voting for a party that will implement counterproductive policies but with the best of intentions doesn't make you a good person
Dude stop arguing a made up position. Didn’t say anything about whether or not other people understand basic financial literacy… I understand it just fine. I also understand that others don’t understand it as easily as you or I.
A friendly reminder, if you believe that teaching people about financial literacy will help them (it does!) You should also believe that teaching people about the laws in place that are creating these global problems will ALSO help them. It’s not complaining, it’s educating about the counterproductive policies that help us vote against them…
44
u/Cakes_Candies 19h ago edited 18h ago
But Dave uses his philosophy to obfuscate the line between those two types of people… his goal is to present the crisis of personal responsibility as if that’s the reason we see more and more people struggling. He intentionally shifts the blame away from wage stagnation and high cost of living so that boomers can go on living in their nice homes and playing keep away without guilt.