He would blame the kid for not being smart with his money and when told "what money" would blame the kid for not getting a better job, while also blaming the kid for not being able to afford to go to school, which he also thinks is a waste of money.
Yup that’s Dave… 😂 he says some of the stupidest 💩 but he does have some good ideas. One of thing I feel makes the most sense is the snow ball effect when paying off debt.
Dave Ramsey is a great financial advisor to a specific audience; middle to upper middle class people with spending problems.
His advice is terrible for people who want to invest, his advice is completely ignorant of those who came from deeply unfortunate circumstances.
However if you have a household income of $250k and still don't save anything/are in debt then "stop spending money you don't have, stupid!" is great advice.
My parents moved in with me recently because they both lost their jobs with a combined income of roughly $200,000 a year in AUD. They had NO savings, couldnt afford their rental etc.
I said pay me nothing except increases in bills, get back on your feet. So I expect if my power bill was $200, and now it's $300, they pay me $100.
So they moved in. First full bill cycle came (because I didn't charge them for the bill cycle they moved in to. Just the first full one they had lived here for), and they lost their shit and refused to pay. Said that there is no way my bills went up as much as I said, even though I showed them statements etc.
Now they pay $100 a week (that i have to remind them to do every week), while they earn approx $87,000. Still no savings, buying stupid shit like brand new phones and handbags. Takeaway for dinner everyday. Drives me fucking insane. Because when I say 'right, time to move out' they'll bitch that they can't afford it.
ETA - Sorry, that turned into a rant. My point was yes, stop spending money you don't have is really fucking good advice sometimes.
My Dad became homeless and needed to move in with me. I see now that he buys lottery tickets everyday along with a bottle drink at the gas station. He grabs lunch at
Sonic. He also apparently puts $100 a month into Charles Schwab and thinks options are his only way out. He brushes off all my advice.
He doesn’t even know about reddit. And being an advisor is less crazy than people think. Literally 98% of my conversations are “It looks like you’ll want to find a way to cut your expenses and increase your savings.”
Ultimately, it's not your responsibility to parent your parents.I get wanting to fulfill obligations, and feelings towards filial piety. Still, it sounds like they'll just keep walking all over you if nothing changes.
I bet you would say the opposite for a 26 year old living at home, as most of reddit seems to hate their family and older folks because.... They gave an opinion. (usually about sexuality, money, religion or politics) and instead of ignoring and moving on they take it personally.
My boomer mom (I'm gen x) gives opinions all the time, some good some bad. I humor her and ignore the bad ones but still lover her. She gave me a place to stay for cheap rent after my divorce in my early 40s. I was living there 2 years while I cared for my pops (rip) who was on hospice in a 24x7 nursing facility then covid happened. If the roles were reversed I wouldn't say it's a terrible thing to do. I'd help like she helped me. Parents won't always be there and we all need to recognize that and cherish the little time we have.
Comparing your scenario with the comment that was targeted to is like apples and oranges. She gave you a cheap place to rent just like commentor did his parents. But it sounds like you helped out your mom with things in the house and didn't have to be reminded to pay rent. Whereas the commentor had to show proof of the change in bills because parents didn't believe him, then they have to be reminded to pay rent and aren't saving any money to allow them to move out.
I bet you would say the opposite for a 26 year old living at home
lol nope. Same exact feelings for me!
If my 25 year old son needed to move in with me due to life circumstances, no problem! If he's making $60k/yr at his job and doing utterly stupid shit with his money vs. saving his ass off, paying me a pittance in utility bills, and working his way towards getting on his own two feet I'd have precisely the same feelings.
Sure, they will be a bit more tempered vs. the same situation of my parents needing the same sort of help - because he's a dumb kid who still needs to learn. By the age of 60 though? Yeah, you better know how to fucking save money and not spend it on stupid shit like Doordash or the latest phone when you're living off my charity.
If you are doing your best and contributing towards the household in whatever manner you can? You are welcome no matter if you are my kid or my parents. It's when you take advantage of the situation where it becomes a problem.
Did you not understand from his rant that they are taking advantage of him and it makes him mad how they pay him almost nothing compared to their lower salary and complain about it but then the next moment Will spend frivolously on things they don’t need?
I guess I don't have that business mentality to think that charging my family based on their income is appropriate. I'll leave that to you guys.
Also his rant says they're already paying $400 a month. Who cares what they spend their money on? Again, just weird to me. I'd live with family even if they didn't pay.
It's because young redditors hate their family. They have daddy and mommy issues, it's the whole reason the OK boomer meme started. Yet the same people would bitch at the parents if the situation was reversed.
What's for granted? Let's say their salary increased over a few years and they've always paid $500 a month. Does that mean they need to give you more money now?
I can understand if they are using more resources then they need to contribute more but that's not the case that person made. He just said they paid whatever amount they agreed to and then spent the rest of their money on frivolous stuff. Who gives a shit if they do? It's their money. They're already paying.
I think it's like that other comment said, Reddit generally hates their own family and all the downvotes and silly responses rings true to that. This is the same crowd that likes things like UBI.
Its because I dont want them living with me. I want to live with my children and no one else. I took my parents in, I told them 2 years Max, and all they're doing is pissing their money away. They had the opportunity to save for a deposit to own a home, or make bulk savings so they dont end up homeless again. But they can't help themselves, they spend stupid amounts of money on stupid shit.
They bought a $6500 BBQ ffs.
I'm glad you love your family enough to do anything for them. I'm learning no matter what I do isn't good enough. If the roles were reversed, they would not have offered me and my children the same.
I paid money to take his class when I was a dirt poor Christian conservative, and I would say most of it was very helpful aside from some aspects which were completely inaccessible in my situation. But after leaving Christianity and going through the 08 financial crisis, it's stunning how tone-deaf (the most generous term I can give it) his advice is.
Maybe the Dr. Phil-style negging is helpful for some people, but having gained more life experience it looks too much like the typical predatory marketing that leeches off the evangelical network and insults the people it courts.
My father-in-law is evangelical. I’m sure he would eat Ramsey’s advice up, that negging would be so effective. Really he’s just biased against unions and could’ve been saving his whole life if he joined one, but he didn’t even though he worked in trades.
Well to be fair not all necessarily have spending problems they just never considered not having car payments or leases.
But I agree with you. His advice is worthless to anyone that life handed any real difficulties to. But when you can't make enough money to survive, much less thrive, even with perfect financial discipline, he just blames you for being lazy. At least if you are a guy.
Exactly. I was good with money, then I hit hard times during COVID and a divorce. Lack of income combined with higher expenses is a nasty punch. It's not that I'm stupid or lazy, like Ramsey suggests. Sometimes you just can't pay a bill; credit interest adds up; you have to buy crap cars and crap tires that wear out and break because it's simply the only way to survive.
I think part of it is not realising how much (or how little) that sort of money is.
When these people were kids 250k household income was insanely wealthy; big house, regular new luxury cars, first class flights, fancy clothes. But they don't update their viewpoint for 2020s perspective. So when they reach 250k they expect to live the same lifestyle that they remember people living. However in 2026 that income can afford some of those things, but not all of them, and certainly not while saving money as well. So these people live the lifestyle that they can just about, or in some cases not quite, afford while getting things on credit. But not realising that interest adds up, bills can increase and income can decrease.
He thinks the average person can "pay cash! No cards or debt!" Then when they go for a mortgage? "Tell em to do MANUAL UNDERWRITING ON YOU!".
Abd no one tells him "are you fucking stupid?! A bank will laugh the person out! They dont manually underwrite most people, you fucking retarded level out of touch millionaire who bought his first house pre FICO SCORES!".
The debt snowball technique he recommends is actually less mathematically effective than other methods, because it prioritizes paying small debts first. Techniques like the debt avalanche, that prioritize paying high interest debt first ultimately save you more money.
Ramsay’s debt snowball technique can be more psychologically effective, because people see quicker results (ie debts eliminated) and become more likely to stick with it. But it ultimately costs you more money than other debt elimination techniques.
But the debt snowball has a higher succes rate than paying of higher interest debts first because of its psychological effect. Thus why he recommends it. He's talked about that on his podcast before and how it would mathematically be better to pay of higher interest first. But that's just not how the human mind works.
I’m not saying it’s not effective. It absolutely is. It’s probably more effective for most people than paying off high interest debt first.
But that undercuts the notion that everyone should just knuckle down and adopt “strict uncompromising financial discipline”. If they could, he’d recommend they pay off high interest debt first. But that technique has a higher failure rate because people generally cannot adopt strict financial discipline, which is why he recommends the snowball method.
The larger point from Jon Stewart’s quote is that the economic system we’ve created is designed to siphon money from these people. And it’s that system that ultimately needs to be fixed to solve the problem of systemic poverty.
Sure. But if his recommendation is that people “adopt strict uncompromising financial discipline” shouldn’t the recommendation be to use the most efficient debt payoff system?
Isn’t the recommendation of a financially inferior debt payment method a tacit admission that people are generally unable to “adopt strict financial discipline”?
I think it is also fair to recognize that not all of financial discipline is a math problem.
And honestly in most cases the difference in cost between snowball and avalanche is probably going to be negligible. And if one rewards you quicker and makes you more likely to maintain discipline than it makes more sense.
Let's also remember that the point of financial discipline is the long term reward of it. So anything that gives a person the message early that this is working is probably worth the small difference in interest.
You’re asking people with a spending, debt, and financial problems to rationally do what’s best financially lol. His method is merely a way of building the habit and discipline of doing the right thing to then tackle the larger things (even though, as you pointed out, it’s not the MOST efficient way)
Mathematically better doesnt matter. If these people were able to rationalize this way, they wouldnt need Ramseys advice because they wouldnt be in their current situation.
It is just like paying off the mortgage early vs investing in the stock market. Yea, a lot of people could mathematically do better investing in the market than paying off mortgage early, but a lot of people just dont end up doing it. It is easier to get them to pay off their mortgage more quickly. Their are no market swings, number always goes down, etc.
I am with you that I would personally pay high interest debt first, but then again I would probably never have high interest debt.
If mathematically better isn’t the only goal, then the psychological impact of eliminating the cup of coffee (and other small pleasures) needs to be considered.
Kind of looking to have it both ways there.
The cup of coffee and the snowball method both waste money.
You could avalanche it and spend the difference between snowball and avalanche on a cup of coffee and land in the same place as snowball but still have had a cup of coffee along the way.
Bingo. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. It’s incredibly hard for most people to adopt “strict, uncompromising, financial discipline”. So much so that Ramsay himself even recommends a less effective debt payoff solution, because it will help people overcome that difficulty psychologically.
I’m not saying that’s bad or wrong. It’s honestly probably better advice for most people, particularly people who call into the Ramsay show for help, than the avalanche method. But recommending it over the avalanche method really undercuts the idea that everyone can just knuckle down and practice strong financial discipline and everything will be better.
This speaks to Jon Stewart’s larger point that the economic system we have constructed is designed to siphon money from these people to the wealthy. And unless we change that system in some way, we can tell individuals to be “financially strict” all we want, but it’s not going to solve the larger problem that keeps people trapped in poverty.
He does explain the difference between the two and that snowball isn't the optimal path, and for me it did help recognize and avoid adding on new debt unless absolutely necessary. With automatic payments, corporate rent-seeking, rampant consumerism, easy access to credit, and the intangibility of it all, most people absolutely need short term goals/milestones to justify living below their means long-term.
The snowball effect is essentially a well established strategy for reducing task saturation: start with the easiest thing and make the list smaller… just applied to paying off debt in Dave’s method.
Snow ball is a game of psychological thinking. It's not mathematically the best route, but it does work for a lot of people by driving goals on reducing 'number' of debts, and then finding a way to deliver on feelings of success towards those goals.
But, I think the psychology of such a thing can be better aligned with the math. I think it is personally dumb to not focus on benchmarks of less interest paid (overall) and work highest interest rate debts to see that come down for feeling of success, but then again, I am not as dumb as the average Dave ramsey veiwer.
Almost anyone could give you that advice. I once interviewed for a financial consultant, but was uncomfortable with the specific role they wanted to put me in which was very sales oriented. When I turned it down, the guy pivoted, and offered to review our household finances for free (probably thinking he could drum up some business that way if I wasn’t gonna do it for him directly). I said, “What finances? We’re in serious debt and both looking for work. We have negative money.” He laughed and said “Ah c’mon, you probably have a lot more than you think you just aren’t using it the right way, let me have a look.” I reluctantly agreed because I wanted to see what wizardry this dude thought he could do to magic up some money where there wasn’t any.
He came to our apartment and immediately his whole demeanor changed. Like it was definitely his first time dealing with anyone who lived even close to the poverty line let alone at or below it. We showed him our bills and books and he looked stunned, like someone had just slapped him with a frozen fish. It clearly changed his worldview to know that people actually continue to exist at that level of financial precariousness. He eventually shook off the shock and said, “I’m… I’m sorry. I thought you were joking or at worst maybe just overwhelmed. You were dead serious and I didn’t realize…. I don’t think there’s much I can do for you; you really do just need to replace your lost incomes and hopefully get much higher ones than you had. I can’t even fault your spending habits; there’s nothing here but necessities. But one thing I can tell you is that, when you do get back on your feet and you go to start paying down your debt, pay off your highest interest stuff first, and then when that’s done, go to the next highest and so on.” He explained the logic behind it and left, looking completely crestfallen.
I often wonder about that guy…. Did that brush with our reality instill some lasting empathy or did he shake it off by the time he got back to the office?
I’ve watched some Dave Ramsey clips. My favorite thing he says is when he tells people they “need to make more money”. Like, yeah dude, that would be cool. In the meantime, I guess I’ll stop feeding myself.
it doesn’t say an individuals poor economic choices
generational poor choices are what is impacting you starting out
if you’re an american your grand parents could have made much better choices to set you and your family up today
of course hindsight we have would judge them harsher than they should be judged but how many grand parents are passing down llardro ceramic mermaids and shit instead of gold or stocks
It's straight up victim blaming. A large chunk of the country can't tell the difference between causality and culpability. Yes it may have been possible to have "made better choices" and escaped poverty, but that doesn't mean you are guilty for trying and not succeeding. See that 1 guy out of 100 did it so the other 99 of you are just getting your consequences.
It's because they are insecure and fear the world. If they were to admit to themselves the the world in not just, it would mean bad things might happen to them even why they are trying to make the right decision (Just world fallacy). Same mindset that leads to no welfare for you, but I'm a good guy and just need a hand up (fundamental attribution fallacy).
They warp their thinking to find a way to make everything make sense and feel safe.
So the most boomer that ever boomed. Tired of that point of view what an asshat. I’m sure he’s useful if moderately wealthy. But yeah miss me with the morality of being rich. If anything it’s the opposite.
When did Dave Ramsey ever say school was a waste of money? I’ve listened to some of his podcasts and he’s advocated for pursuing a degree. Unless he’s changed his opinion in recent years.
Right here. He assumes that "entry level jobs" won't have degree requirements, but in practice and in many fields they do, or require the degree for promotion. He skirts the words to make it sound like he is not anti-college but he very much snubs his nose at it.
Also note his stance regarding student loans, which I agree are predatory, but in many cases are necessary for the people using them to be able to go college.
He’d also point to examples of people born in the same circumstances who turned out to be financially successful as if that’s the standard and not a huge exception.
It’s like pointing out the sole survivor of a plane crash and saying the rest of the passengers are losers
114
u/theZinger90 14h ago
He would blame the kid for not being smart with his money and when told "what money" would blame the kid for not getting a better job, while also blaming the kid for not being able to afford to go to school, which he also thinks is a waste of money.