Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad

[darkrose50]

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:


That's not how statistics works, though.

Sure it is. If a population is predisposed to wealth, then gaining information about wealth from that population would be a good place to look.

I would certainly not rule this source out as an important and easily accessible source. I have had at least 4-5 teachers who have taught me about money.

[Chen]

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.

Very few teachers go into teacher because of how nice the pension is. And that's where the majority of their net worth is coming from. So them being millionaires has very little to do with their own decision making process with respect to money. So why would I trust them for money advice (unless it was "go somewhere where you get a good pension")?

[darkrose50]

Very few teachers go into teacher because of how nice the pension is. And that's where the majority of their net worth is coming from. So them being millionaires has very little to do with their own decision making process. So why would I trust them for money advice (unless it was "go somewhere where you get a good pension")?

Look up millionaire lists by profession and oogle how often teacher is way up there. Not police-officer, mail-person, or fire-person . . . teacher. Now ask why that is.

I have fuzzy numbers on this. Teachers tend to be from upper-middle-class and upper-class backgrounds. ~46% of them attribute there wealth from inheritance. A recent survey concluded that $20,000 was a life-changing inheritance. I am betting that if this question was raised as "Have you inherited $20,000 or more?" that more than 46% of teachers would say yes.

So perhaps ~1/2 of those teachers make it via pensions, and perhaps ~1/2 make it via inheritance.

Inherited money often comes with inherited family talks about how to make and manage money . . . and that is good stuff to tap into!

[Peelee]

Sure it is. If a population is predisposed to wealth, then gaining information about wealth from that population would be a good place to look.

I would certainly not rule this source out as an important and easily accessible source. I have had at least 4-5 teachers who have taught me about money.

Cool. If you grew up in downtown Detroit, would you still have had 4-5 teachers who taught you about money? How many of those teachers would be millionaires, or predisposed to wealth? You're assuming equal distribution when you have absolutely zero reason to. Richer teachers are likely going to live in richer areas, and will likely have richer students, who (according to your own argument) will not need advice on money because they'll already have it from their own family.

Think of it this way: the odds of getting attacked by a shark is 1 in 11.5 million. Do you think the person who lives on the beach and swims in the ocean every day has the same odds as the person who lives in Milwaukee and never takes a vacation?

Look up millionaire lists by profession and oogle how often teacher is way up there. Not police-officer, mail-person, or fire-person . . . teacher. Now ask why that is.

Because half of them don't need to work whatsoever and the wealthy who work for fun tend to not go into the post office or police departments?

[Chen]

So perhaps ~1/2 of those teachers make it via pensions, and perhaps ~1/2 make it via inheritance.

Inherited money often comes with inherited family talks about how to make and manage money . . . and that is good stuff to tap into!

But neither pensions nor inheritance have a causal relationship with being good at managing money.

The statement you're making is too broad for no reason. Some teachers are definitely good at managing money. Others are not. You're not going to be in a random situation where you have to ask someone about managing money when you know nothing else about them except whether or not they are a teacher.

Consider: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

1/7 white families in the US are millionaires (very similar to your 1/6 teachers statistic). Would you generalize that to say you could therefore ask any white person about money management?

[darkrose50]

Cool. If you grew up in downtown Detroit, would you still have had 4-5 teachers who taught you about money? How many of those teachers would be millionaires, or predisposed to wealth? You're assuming equal distribution when you have absolutely zero reason to. Richer teachers are likely going to live in richer areas, and will likely have richer students, who (according to your own argument) will not need advice on money because they'll already have it from their own family.

Think of it this way: the odds of getting attacked by a shark is 1 in 11.5 million. Do you think the person who lives on the beach and swims in the ocean every day has the same odds as the person who lives in Milwaukee and never takes a vacation?

Apparently the median income of the Detroit is $26,249. That is crazy low compared to the poor area my wife works in. An I mean poor make you cry because a little girl can't afford an apple poor. My wife works in a poor area where the median income is ~$44,000. She works with some well-off folks, and with some folks from well-off families. All the same she works with people who are not well-off nor are good with money.

[Xyril]

1/7 white families in the US are millionaires (very similar to your 1/6 teachers statistic). Would you generalize that to say you could therefore ask any white person about money management?

I used to try that growing up, but I guess the white people couldn't hear me inside their invisible boxes.

Sure it is. If a population is predisposed to wealth, then gaining information about wealth from that population would be a good place to look.

To reiterate Pelee, no, it's not how statistics work. Also, you're moving the goalposts slightly. Earlier, you were talking about how to learn to manage your money and achieve wealth. Now you're talking about "gaining information about wealth." That slight distinction makes all the difference when it comes to correlation and causation. If a population is predisposed to being wealthy, then they are a good group to talk to about what it's like to be wealthy because, statistically speaking, you have to ask fewer people before you find a wealthy person who can speak from personal experience. Causation doesn't matter.

However, the whole discussion isn't predicated on learning what it's like to be rich, it's about learning how to best manage your own money and achieve wealth. In that respect, causation absolutely matters. If you notice that blacksmiths are mostly very wealthy by early adulthood, regardless of how humble their family background, and you have reason to believe that blacksmithing is the direct cause of their accumulation of wealth, then blacksmiths might be a great source of information on making and growing your money. However, if you notice that goblins are suddenly wealthy because they all looted a big city, and a few generations later, their descendants are fabulously wealthy because none of their ancestors blatantly squandered their family wealth, maybe their above average mean and median assets don't necessarily come with great financial acumen.

Now ask why that is.

I have fuzzy numbers on this. Teachers tend to be from upper-middle-class and upper-class backgrounds. ~46% of them attribute there wealth from inheritance. A recent survey concluded that $20,000 was a life-changing inheritance. I am betting that if this question was raised as "Have you inherited $20,000 or more?" that more than 46% of teachers would say yes.

Your phrasing could be a bit more clear. This isn't 46% of teachers. This is 46% of the teachers on whatever list of wealthy people you cite.

So perhaps ~1/2 of those teachers make it via pensions, and perhaps ~1/2 make it via inheritance.

So by your own optimistic numbers, if 1/6 of teachers are "millionaires" and about half of them earn it by inheritance, that means that 1/12 of teachers are millionaires via inherited with. This inheritance may have come with lessons in financial literacy, or maybe not, so at most about 1/12 of teachers have that knowledge to share, and most likely significantly less do. At this point, maybe Chen's idea of asking random white people for financial advice is looking a bit better than asking teachers.

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.

I'm sorry, I haven't been keeping track well enough, but who exactly is this directed at? I don't think anyone here is trying to keep people poor, nor is anyone arguing that public teachers aren't pretty great people or pretty great resources in general. The only issue I see is that you draw some very strong conclusions based on factual assertions that some people think are inaccurate, and reasoning that some people feel might be flawed or overstated.

[AMFV]

On the teachers argument. The thing is that the skills that make you good at teaching and good at dealing with students are not the skills that are going to make you a savvy and quality investor. Furthermore teachers don't really generally have control over their pension funds and thus require less investment knowledge than the average person who might have an IRA or other type of retirement under their personal control. You might have a teacher who IS good at money, but it's not needed, you don't need that skill to be a good teacher and improving that skill isn't going to make you a better teacher. The only thing most teachers (in a grade school or high school level) would need to know is compound interest, and only if they're math teachers. So that's a really small amount of financial knowledge.

Let me put it this way. In my line of work, learning about a new Microsoft Office product would be absolutely worthless for me professionally, I might do it, but it would be my freetime, the same as a teacher who learns about money management would have to be choosing to use their own personal time to do so.

When I was in college I had a math teacher who once a month would go to Rivers and gamble, he'd lose a couple of hundred bucks. Now he knew the odds, he knew that the money was spent as soon as he walked through the door (unless he won, which did happen from time to time), inarguably he was using his money less efficiently (if making the most money possible is your goal) than had he invested it. But he chose not to, despite having the knowledge to do so. That's the thing, what is most likely more than anything else to determine your financial state is your choices. When I was fourteen I wanted to become a lawyer, I had good grades, and was good at speaking, good at research. Later on, in my life, I chose to go a different path, and I make less money, substantially than I would have was I a lawyer, I'm not unhappy with that, but it's factually true, my choices have made me less money (although debateably happier, I'm fairly sure I'd have been happy doing any profession I chose though).

[darkrose50]

But neither pensions nor inheritance have a causal relationship with being good at managing money.

The statement you're making is too broad for no reason. Some teachers are definitely good at managing money. Others are not. You're not going to be in a random situation where you have to ask someone about managing money when you know nothing else about them except whether or not they are a teacher.

Consider: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

1/7 white families in the US are millionaires (very similar to your 1/6 teachers statistic). Would you generalize that to say you could therefore ask any white person about money management?

Here is my hypothesis: The new generation learns things from the from the last generation. Multigenerational wealth management is passed from one generation to the next. Seriously the rules are dirt simple. The bar for entry is kind-of-low.

[1] Live below your means: You need money to save and invest.
[2] Pay your bills in full: I try to pay them every payday. it is super important to pay credit cards in full.
[3] Save: This is more important than what you invest in, but you also need to invest your savings.
[4] Get a Roth IRA, and/or 401(k): . . . take all the matching 401(k) money that you can.
[5] Diversify: Invest in the S&P 500, or the total stock market, or a fund with your retirement year on it.
[6] Invest for the long term: don't touch it. When the stock market goes down, then buy more into the market.

I am fairly certain that I can instill those ideas into my kids.

[Keltest]

Here is my hypothesis: The new generation learns things from the from the last generation. Multigenerational wealth management is passed from one generation to the next. Seriously the rules are dirt simple. The bar for entry is kind-of-low.

[1] Live below your means: You need money to save and invest.
[2] Pay your bills in full: I try to pay them every payday. it is super important to pay credit cards in full.
[3] Save: This is more important than what you invest in, but you also need to invest your savings.
[4] Get a Roth IRA, and/or 401(k): . . . take all the matching 401(k) money that you can.
[5] Diversify: Invest in the S&P 500, or the total stock market, or a fund with your retirement year on it.
[6] Invest for the long term: don't touch it. When the stock market goes down, then buy more into the market.

I am fairly certain that I can instill those ideas into my kids.

I would suggest that there are a lot of college graduates out there with degrees gathering dust in a closet while they work two part time jobs to pay off their college loans who would disagree that what the older generations have to teach is automatically useful or worth listening to.

Seriously though, its great that you want your kids to be fiscally responsible, but I think youre failing to take into account that following step 1 could very well involve things like skipping meals, living off of nothing but chips and bottled water, and avoiding doctor/dentist visits because those all cost money.

Invested money may grow exponentially, but before you can start doing that, you need to be able to safely say that your initial investment is money you don't and wont need for decades, and frankly most poorer families simply cant afford to say that about $500-$1000

[Razade]

Here is my hypothesis: The new generation learns things from the from the last generation. Multigenerational wealth management is passed from one generation to the next.

What about kids in a generation who go on to teach their kids how not to save money? Or how about kids who didn't have parents or guardians to teach them how to save money but did it on their own? Where did that knowledge come from? It can't be from cultural osmosis, because tons of people can't save money. So how do the people who, independent of anyone else, are just good at saving money? In your view does knowledge require prior knowledge? Where did the knowledge to save money first come about? It can't have always been, money hasn't always existed.

Whence came fiscal responsibility. What generation taught it to the first generation to learn it?

[Peelee]

Here is my hypothesis: The new generation learns things from the from the last generation.

And that's the story of how no empire fell, ever.

[darkrose50]

. . . It's not how statistics work.

. . . However, the whole discussion isn't predicated on learning what it's like to be rich, it's about learning how to best manage your own money and achieve wealth. In that respect, causation absolutely matters. If you notice that blacksmiths are mostly very wealthy by early adulthood, regardless of how humble their family background, and you have reason to believe that blacksmithing is the direct cause of their accumulation of wealth, then blacksmiths might be a great source of information on making and growing your money. However, if you notice that goblins are suddenly wealthy because they all looted a big city, and a few generations later, their descendants are fabulously wealthy because none of their ancestors blatantly squandered their family wealth, maybe their above average mean and median assets don't necessarily come with great financial acumen.

Okay let me explain why this is how (one part) of statistics work.

Please note that I do not think like most people, not better, just different.

My method of procedure generation involves:
[1] Asking questions from those who are likely to have the answers. This includes those who have experience, worked on the subject, who have succeeded or failed on some part of the subject at hand.
[2] Comparing and contrasting the various ideas.
[3] Building and rebuilding a procedural model.

Using this starting point it most definitely makes sense to gather information from those who have a high predisposition to be (a) wealthy, (b) have experience with multigenerational wealth [cultural capital in wealth management], (c) are intelligent, (d) are educated, and (e) are experienced at communicating ideas.

Teachers would be a good source as a whole to learn about money and investment (money management).

Also, you're moving the goalposts slightly. Earlier, you were talking about how to learn to manage your money and achieve wealth. Now you're talking about "gaining information about wealth." That slight distinction makes all the difference when it comes to correlation and causation. If a population is predisposed to being wealthy, then they are a good group to talk to about what it's like to be wealthy because, statistically speaking, you have to ask fewer people before you find a wealthy person who can speak from personal experience. Causation doesn't matter.

The goalpost was to point out that teachers are a likely source of good information about money. I would not dismiss multigenerational cultural capital from the upper-middle-class and the upper-class as a good source of investing information (probability). I would logically conclude that one needs money to invest, and that the wealthy (as a population) have money and experience investing [as a whole, as a population].

The knowledge for investing could be from one conversation:

* From my wife’s grandfather I learned that during the depression investing in consumer staples with high dividends worked for him. I think it worked for me during the great recession.

* From my high-school dean I learned about compound interest, and how it could make you wealthy.

Your phrasing could be a bit more clear. This isn't 46% of teachers. This is 46% of the teachers on whatever list of wealthy people you cite.

So by your own optimistic numbers, if 1/6 of teachers are "millionaires" and about half of them earn it by inheritance, that means that 1/12 of teachers are millionaires via inherited with. This inheritance may have come with lessons in financial literacy, or maybe not, so at most about 1/12 of teachers have that knowledge to share, and most likely significantly less do. At this point, maybe Chen's idea of asking random white people for financial advice is looking a bit better than asking teachers.

We know that teachers are disproportionately (a) from the upper-middle-class, and the upper-class, and (b) the profession is high on lists of professions that end up millionaires. We also know that (c) cultural capital is a thing. Cultural capital is not a guaranteed thing, but it is a thing. Ergo (d) if searching out cultural capital about wealth, then teachers as a whole would be a good source of information, and not a bad source of information as postulated by the author of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”.

We identified a goal: Learn about wealth
We identified a goal: Tap into cultural capital surrounding wealth
We identified a population that is highly likely to have this cultural capital: Teachers
. . . that is exactly how probability works.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And that's the story of how no empire fell, ever.

Indeed. As a counterpoint, even a brief perusal of the biographies of children of Roman Emperors who grew up when their dads where in office and eventually ascended to the purple themselves will tell you rich kids don't ever seem to learn how to manage money. Being born to wealth seems, if anything, to make you appreciate money less, and thus mismanage it more. I understand Americans have a concept of "trust fund baby" along similar lines?

Grey Wolf

[Razade]

And that's the story of how no empire fell, ever.

Not to mention all the lost knowledge we've got. How do we make Greek Fire? Who knows. Roman concrete? Nope. But I'm really glad I learned how to save a buck from my dad. You know. The useful stuff.

[Peelee]

Okay let me explain why this is how (one part) of statistics work.

You didn't explain anything about statistics there, and are still missing why it's not how statistics work. You're not separating mathematics from reality. If I live in Arab, Alabama, the odds of a teacher being a millionaire (or even will be a millionaire in the future) are significantly lower than if I was on the upper east side in Manhattan. Saying "one in six' does not mean that in any given group of six, one will be a millionaire; it means the entire population it's one in six. You're assuming even distribution when it's almost certainly very heavily grouped.

the profession is high on lists of professions that end up millionaires.

It is not, since a great deal of them start out as millionaires. What's happened here is that you're very subtly rephrasing things to slant in favor of your conclusion. You may not be realizing you're doing it, but you are.

[darkrose50]

I find the concept of multigenerational wealth to be fascinating. Learning about money management is part of multigenerational wealth.

[Razade]

I find the concept of multigenerational wealth to be fascinating. Learning about money management is part of multigenerational wealth.

It's really cool you have interests and it's neat that you find multi-generational wealth to be one of those things. Hobbies and things we enjoy studying make life more fulfilling and enjoyable, to be sure. Your interest in the concept however doesn't really do much for defending your claims. I really like baking bread but if I came in to a thread and said that the best bread is made out of cottage cheese and rye and when asked why I feel that way go off on a tangent about how rye flour gave everyone ergot poisoning people are going to start wondering if I'm really interested in engaging with the discussion. When people start bringing figures and statistics that run counter to my recipe, explaining the science behind why my cottage cheese and rye bread wouldn't work it leads further credence to that fact.

To be honest, your belief that one of the best ways to become a millionaire is to become a teacher is comparable to your brother in law's belief that Robert Kiyosaki is a money guru. You've both been convinced by bad math and worse arguments and you both are committed to the belief regardless of counter information.

[darkrose50]

You didn't explain anything about statistics there, and are still missing why it's not how statistics work. You're not separating mathematics from reality. If I live in Arab, Alabama, the odds of a teacher being a millionaire (or even will be a millionaire in the future) are significantly lower than if I was on the upper east side in Manhattan. Saying "one in six' does not mean that in any given group of six, one will be a millionaire; it means the entire population it's one in six. You're assuming even distribution when it's almost certainly very heavily grouped.

This is the whole "people have 10-fingers and 10-toes" idea. You can be a person with less or more than 10-digits. But as a population we have 10-digits. It would be correct to say that humans have 10-fingers and 10-toes. People would know that you are not calling a war veteran who lost an arm a non-person.

Sub-populations do not disprove the population average. One cannot disprove a data-set by citing one data-point.

It is not, since a great deal of them start out as millionaires. What's happened here is that you're very subtly rephrasing things to slant in favor of your conclusion. You may not be realizing you're doing it, but you are.

If I wanted to gain information on wealth and investing, then I would certainly not [u]specifically rule out teachers as teaching anti-wealth theories. In fact I would gravitate towards them.[/b]

There are very often more than one contributing factor to a reason. It confuses me to no end as to why folks would stop at one. Teachers should not be your only source of information, but are most definitely an excellent source that is easy one to access.

[1] Smart.
[2] Educated.
[3] Tend to be from the upper-middle-class and upper-class.
[4a] The upper-middle-class and upper-class tend to have money. [4b] Investing is a skill (often a simple one) and [4c] practicing a skill requires money. [4d] Skills and ideas are often multigenerational.
[5] Tend to be millionaires.

[Peelee]

This is the whole "people have 10-fingers and 10-toes" idea. You can be a person with less or more than 10-digits. But as a population we have 10-digits. It would be correct to say that humans have 10-fingers and 10-toes. People would know that you are not calling a war veteran who lost an arm a non-person.

Sub-populations do not disprove the population average. One cannot disprove a data-set by citing one data-point.

No, this is more "the average person has 1.5 children" idea. You are not separating math from reality. Statistics do not work the way you're presenting, as multiple people have tried to tell you and demonstrate to you.

If one person says you're a duck, ignore them. If two people say you're a duck, start to think about it. If three people say you're a duck, check for feathers.

If I wanted to gain information on wealth and investing, then I would certainly not [u]specifically rule out teachers as teaching anti-wealth theories. [/b]

Literally nobody in this thread is making that claim, though.

[darkrose50]

It's really cool you have interests and it's neat that you find multi-generational wealth to be one of those things. Hobbies and things we enjoy studying make life more fulfilling and enjoyable, to be sure. Your interest in the concept however doesn't really do much for defending your claims. I really like baking bread but if I came in to a thread and said that the best bread is made out of cottage cheese and rye and when asked why I feel that way go off on a tangent about how rye flour gave everyone ergot poisoning people are going to start wondering if I'm really interested in engaging with the discussion. When people start bringing figures and statistics that run counter to my recipe, explaining the science behind why my cottage cheese and rye bread wouldn't work it leads further credence to that fact.

To be honest, your belief that one of the best ways to become a millionaire is to become a teacher is comparable to your brother in law's belief that Robert Kiyosaki is a money guru. You've both been convinced by bad math and worse arguments and you both are committed to the belief regardless of counter information.

Wait, what? That is a separate argument. It is related, but separate.

Are saying that Robert Kiyosaki was correct in that teachers are a horrible source of learning about money and investing? I am arguing that they are indeed a good source for information on wealth and investing for a variety of reasons.

[Keltest]

This is the whole "people have 10-fingers and 10-toes" idea. You can be a person with less or more than 10-digits. But as a population we have 10-digits. It would be correct to say that humans have 10-fingers and 10-toes. People would know that you are not calling a war veteran who lost an arm a non-person.

Sub-populations do not disprove the population average. One cannot disprove a data-set by citing one data-point.



If I wanted to gain information on wealth and investing, then I would certainly not [u]specifically rule out teachers as teaching anti-wealth theories. In fact I would gravitate towards them.[/b]

There are very often more than one contributing factor to a reason. It confuses me to no end as to why folks would stop at one. Teachers should not be your only source of information, but are most definitely an excellent source that is easy one to access.

[1] Smart.
[2] Educated.
[3] Tend to be from the upper-middle-class and upper-class.
[4a] The upper-middle-class and upper-class tend to have money. [4b] Investing is a skill (often a simple one) and [4c] practicing a skill requires money. [4d] Skills and ideas are often multigenerational.
[5] Tend to be millionaires.

I think youre missing the point here. That there is a substantial subset of teachers who are wealthy does not mean that their being a teacher has anything to do with them being wealthy, and asking any given teacher how to become wealthy is unlikely to yield useful information, including from the wealthy ones. Those who aren't millionaires are obviously not in a position to advise you, and those who are usually became so through a combination of factors that are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate, such as being born wealthy already.

Heck, my mom is a teacher, and while our family is close to qualifying as millionaires if you count all of our combined assets like the house, there are also three of us holding jobs at the moment. "Marry somebody who is already rich" may technically make you wealthy, but its not going to give you any good money management knowledge.

[snowblizz]

Indeed. As a counterpoint, even a brief perusal of the biographies of children of Roman Emperors who grew up when their dads where in office and eventually ascended to the purple themselves will tell you rich kids don't ever seem to learn how to manage money. Being born to wealth seems, if anything, to make you appreciate money less, and thus mismanage it more. I understand Americans have a concept of "trust fund baby" along similar lines?

Grey Wolf

There's a saying around these parts: "The first generation creates companies (ie wealth), the second maintains them, the third generation destroys them". AFAICT quite the truism. The logic behind is the 1st generations builds it, the 2nd are present for the initial struggle and can maintain the same course, the 3rd only knows "wealth" and has little actual contact with the business. I would in their defence maybe add some of the blame could be placed on 2nd gen who are less innovative and thus the company tends to fall behind the times as they try to maintain what was. I'm not saying this a hard and fast rule. But it seems to broadly speaking apply to many companies and typical wealth acquisition scenarios.
Anecdotally speaking a local shipping family the parents (2nd generation) talked about how humble their life was growing up. The third generation who I went to school with were spoiled brats completely incapable of taking a set-back. Or doing anything worthwhile. It remains to be seen if they will dismantle the companies they'll inherit (they are now starting to take over). Though a lto of money can compensate a lot, say hiring other people to run things and investing part of the wealth in easily manageable assets like real-estate.

Also my mom is a teacher and totally rubbish with money. So that claim makes me laugh every time I read it.

[Razade]

Literally nobody in this thread is making that claim, though.

I'd make a claim that hits close to it. Teachers aren't inherently a better source of money saving information than non-teachers.

Wait, what? That is a separate argument. It is related, but separate.

I don't think I made an argument there? I made an observation about how you've comported yourself in this thread.

Are saying that Robert Kiyosaki was correct in that teachers are a horrible source of learning about money and investing? I am arguing that they are indeed a good source for information on wealth and investing for a variety of reasons.

Nope. I didn't say anything remotely close to that.

[darkrose50]

The topic is that the author of this book said that teachers do not teach how to become wealthy. I say the opposite is true.

One can say that Americans tend to have 1.8 children per family (or whatever).

So if I was looking to learn more about a culture that has 1.8 children per family, then I would study Americans. I would likely start with Americans, as I am in America (easy to access), and they have a probability to have the source material that I could gather. Now I need to take a look at the median, the mode, and the mean. I need to look at the distribution, and to see if there are clusters. I would look at other sources, but I would not rule this one out.

If someone came around and told me not to look at a population that tended to have 1.8 children per family . . . when that was the subject I was looking into . . . then I likely would not listen to that person.

So:
[1] I would not rule out gaining information on wealth from teachers, because that would be stupid.
[2] I would in-fact rate them as easily accessible, and more likely to have cultural capital surrounding the topic. Because I want the information, and ruling out this higher-than-average source would be foolish.

[Peelee]

The topic is that the author of this book said that teachers do not teach how to become wealthy.

The topic started out as that and has evolved to other, related topics.

I say the opposite is true.

I say that conflating it into a pure dichotomy is a remarkably poor idea and Razade is correct; teachers aren't inherently a better source of money saving information than non-teachers.

[snowblizz]

The topic is that the author of this book said that teachers do not teach how to become wealthy. I say the opposite is true.

Teachers teach what the curriculum says. I don't know what the american one is but here "money skills" is not in it. Teachers aren't supposed to teach what is not in the curriculum either. That is probably a fireable offence come to think of it.

So yes, I would think that is most likely entirely true. Teachers do not teach how to become wealthy. Also, I would argue that is not something you really can teach, it's a bit too esoteric a thing to be generalist about. Ultimately that's what we are complaining Kyosaki is all about isn't it? He is claiming he can teach you how to become wealthy by buying his bogus books and seminars. For a lot of people anything the teachers would have to add would be exactly as (un)helpful.

[halfeye]

The thing about teaching someone to become wealthy is that not everyone can be rich. Weath is an inherently divisive thing, 50% of people are richer than average, 50% are poorer, there is no way to change that at all. Society can have an increased or decreased difference between the rich and the poor, but there will always be a difference.

[Razade]

The topic is that the author of this book said that teachers do not teach how to become wealthy. I say the opposite is true.

There's a way to solve this. Prove it. Provide evidence to the claim.

Not that you can because it's not a Black or White. It's not a "Teachers are a good way to learn money handling skills" versus "Teachers aren't etc etc". People may or may not be and it's independent on their job. Some jobs may be better at it but there are plenty of teachers who are bad with money as there are basketball players who aren't. You can't make it into a binary issue and no amount of statistics you spit out, no amount of assertions, no number of times you basically state the same thing over and over and go on about how this is an interest of yours is going to square that circle.

You've become convinced, boy this old thing again, for a bad reason. You've started this thread to try and convince someone to stop believing something that they believe because of a bad reason. You are doing the same thing they're doing just on the opposite side of the coin. You're using some truths (that Mr. Kiyoshi is a scam artist) to push non-true things that you believe. Just like your brother in law is using some true things (Mr. Kiyosaki isn't 100% wrong on everything he says) to push his scams around. This is a teaching moment in how we argue effectively which is the base of what you wanted.

You need to provide evidence that supports your claim and anecdotal evidence and statistics aren't robust enough to make a claim valid. You need more. Because statistics can be misleading and anecdote is based on faulty perceptions.

One can say that Americans tend to have 1.8 children per family (or whatever).

So if I was looking to learn more about a culture that has 1.8 children per family, then I would study Americans. I would likely start with Americans, as I am in America (easy to access), and they have a probability to have the source material that I could gather. Now I need to take a look at the median, the mode, and the mean. I need to look at the distribution, and to see if there are clusters. I would look at other sources, but I would not rule this one out.

How do you have a .8th of a child? Where does the other .2 go? Do the .2's congregate until they become a .8? Do the .2's all shake out to a head, torso and arms, legs and feet? Or are there .8 worth's of babies out there that are all hands? Or worse, all heads? Or even worse! All butts! Where do you put the diaper on a baby that's .8th butts?

Razade is correct; teachers aren't inherently a better source of money saving information than non-teachers.

That's twice in a thread. That's not a good sign for anyone. Kronk, pull the lever.

[darkrose50]

I'd make a claim that hits close to it. Teachers aren't inherently a better source of money saving information than non-teachers.

That is a good place to start.

In general, those with an education have a higher IQ
In general, teachers have a higher IQ
In general, the higher level that a teacher teaches at, the higher IQ
In general, people with higher IQs make more money
In general, more money means more investing
In general, more investing means more practice
In general, more practice equals more skill
In general, more skill investing equals more return on the investment (heck even the average, or the average of the S&P 500 is GREAT)
In general, teachers are a good source of information, better than average
In general, teachers are easy to access

-----

Interesting the higher your IQ, the more likely that you invest in stocks. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-sign-...ing-in-stocks/

-----

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2002-hauser.pdf

Figure 12. Wisconsin Men's Henmon-Nelson IQ Distributions for 1992-94 Occupation Groups with 30 Cases or More

1. Janitors and sextons
2. Precision machine operatives
3. Machine operatives, misc and ns
4. Operatives, other
5. Truck drivers
6. Metalworking crafts
7. Carpenters
8. Freight and materials handlers
9. Transportation equip. oper. (except truck)
10. Checkers and inspectors
11. Craftsmen, construction (exc. carpenters)
12. Assembler
13. Crafts, other
14. Plumbers
15. Mechanics, heavy equip.
16. Farm laborers (paid)
17. Mechanics, auto
18. Mechanics, other
19. Foremen
20. Electricians and related occs
21. Clerical, supervisory
22. Protective service workers (exc. police)
23. Service workers (exc. prot. and cleaning)
24. Clerical, other
25. Farmers, owners and managers
26. Policemen and detectives
27. Sales, other
28. Draftsmen and surveyors
29. Service managers
30. Managers, nec - salaried
31. Buyers and purchasing agents
32. Sales representative, manufacturing
33. Clerical, accounts-related
34. Engineering-related occs
35. Sales, services (not FIRE)
36. Kindergarten/elementary teachers
37. Education occs, other
38. Sales managers
39. Administrative occs
40. Managers, nec - self-employed
41. Public administration managers
42. Creative occs
43. Social workers and clergy
44. Accounting occs
45. High school teachers
46. Finance, insurance, real estate occs
47. Sales, FIRE
48. Miscellaneous engineers
49. Computer occs
50. Materials and design engineers
51. Natural science - physical, life, and math
52. Social scientists
53. Legal occs
54. Electrical engineers
55. College professors
56. Medical occs - MD or equiv.

The results of 36/56, 37/56, 45/56, and 55/56 are not too shabby. Two-thirds up the occupation ladder at the minimum ranking of the teaching professions is not-bad.

Now if only I can find a study on investment rates of return based on occupation/profession and/or IQ.

Teachers teach what the curriculum says. I don't know what the american one is but here "money skills" is not in it. Teachers aren't supposed to teach what is not in the curriculum either. That is probably a fireable offence come to think of it.

So yes, I would think that is most likely entirely true. Teachers do not teach how to become wealthy. Also, I would argue that is not something you really can teach, it's a bit too esoteric a thing to be generalist about. Ultimately that's what we are complaining Kyosaki is all about isn't it? He is claiming he can teach you how to become wealthy by buying his bogus books and seminars. For a lot of people anything the teachers would have to add would be exactly as (un)helpful.

Who would get fired for talking about compound interest and investing?

The thing about teaching someone to become wealthy is that not everyone can be rich. Wealth is an inherently divisive thing, 50% of people are richer than average, 50% are poorer, there is no way to change that at all. Society can have an increased or decreased difference between the rich and the poor, but there will always be a difference.

True. However we can effect how we fall in the wealth distribution. Really it is not complicated. Most people could do it.

[1] Live below your means
[2] Pay your credit card bills off in full
[3] Save early and often (start early, save some for emergencies, and some to invest for the long-term)
[4] Invest in the total stock market, or the S&P 500
[5] Use retirement things like a Roth IRA or a 401(k) [take all the free money]
[6] Don't mess with the investments