4 ms·

How does owning rental properties invalidate his message of "avoid rampant, unnecessary consumerism"? Certainly, not everyone can derive their retirement income

by beambot 11y ago

How does owning rental properties invalidate his message of "avoid rampant, unnecessary consumerism"? Certainly, not everyone can derive their retirement income from rentals (the numbers don't work out). But lucky for you: There are other forms of investment. BTW: I currently rent. It's the financially prudent thing to do in my situation, and I certainly don't begrudge my landlords for it -- they're the ones locked into an illiquid, overvalued asset.

branchless 11y ago
Because rampant consumerism isn't the issue. Most families are responsible with their money. Their greatest expense? Rent/mortgage which is pushed up by: 1. bankers issuing insane amounts of debt that out-pace wages 2. speculators borrowing from said banks to "invest" in pushing up living costs for families (ie people like MMM) The media loves to portray people as feckless idiots but the real problem is economic rent extraction by people who are adding zero value to society. That is the rentier - they generate no wealth merely appropriate it.
- kamaal 11y ago
  >>Because rampant consumerism isn't the issue. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but rampant consumerism actually is the issue. >>Most families are responsible with their money. No, in fact their spending decision don't even remotely reflect any sense of responsibility. >>Their greatest expense? If you think, smaller delta spending doesn't matter. Alas, I'm sorry that's the whole point behind indulging into consumerism without even realizing you are. >>Rent/mortgage which is pushed up by Demands. >>bankers issuing insane amounts of debt that out-pace wages You always have the option to move to the city outskirts, where houses are affordable. It will take more effort to commute and all, but cheap has to count for something. And you could save money to borrow less. >>real problem is economic rent extraction by people who are adding zero value to society. Houses don't get build out of fairies dropping suitcases full of money outside people's houses. They earn it, work for it. And make investments. You are all welcome to invest and grow. But just because you don't want to, it doesn't make others greedy and evil.
  - branchless 11y ago
    Housing money is not earned. It's made out of nothing by banks and then used to put a claim against a significant portion of a person's salary. As lending standards get looser prices go up. Land speculators and money men capture all productivity growth.
    - kamaal 11y ago
      I'm not sure what you are talking about. Price of a house is not some thing banks get to decide, at least not directly. They only get they to decide the amount of interest they should collect to stay profitable after lending you money that you borrow to purchase a house. Price of a house apart from the raw materials depends on various thing like supply-demand factors. But that is the case with any investment. If you are having problems with investments in general where people can get rich by starting small but growing non-linear with time, then you are literally ruled out to ever be rich.
Avshalom 11y ago
If you work at say Target 40 hours a week, squeak in the occasional overtime and work on every holiday you take home about 12-15k a year after taxes that's about half of what MMM gets from rent. MMM hasn't come within ten grand of frugality in his life. It doesn't strictly invalidate his message but it's a grain of salt that should not be forgotten.
- branchless 11y ago
  Yes you get it. And guess what? When they put the minimum wage up the rentiers will all put the rent up. All productivity gains are captured by the landlord in a system of land enclosure. Land value tax now. Do away with income tax and let people keep the value they add.
- beambot 11y ago
  I get that he earns a lot from rent. But I still don't understand the animosity. Would you be equally up in arms if he just invested in municipal bonds -- the bonds that pay for your parks, roads, fire stations, police upgrades, and schools? There are reasonable tax-free bond funds (eg. PMF) that pay >6% annually. I've read most of his posts. He harps on things like biking instead of buying a new car. Or "why spend $150/mo on a cellphone bill when you can use Google Fi for half that?" Using that latter example, that's a difference of $900/yr -- or 8% of your Target family's net annual income; enough to make a downpayment after just a few years. To be honest: It seems like y'all are taking away the wrong message. The problems you see are legit, but directing your animosity at a guy providing free, online insights and advise seems misguided. YMMV.
  - Avshalom 11y ago
    The animosity isn't specifically at MMM. People who think "have you tried spending less" is insight, thats what who we hate. Believe me poor people are way ahead of you on the spending less money idea.
    - hugh4 11y ago
      That advice isn't aimed at people who are genuinely poor, it's aimed at middle class whiners who earn middle-class money and still complain that they "can't get ahead" and "will never be able to retire". MMM has never claimed to be frugal -- indeed, he likes to talk about the "extravagance" of his $25K pa spend for a family of four.

by beambot 11y ago

branchless 11y ago

Because rampant consumerism isn't the issue. Most families are responsible with their money. Their greatest expense? Rent/mortgage which is pushed up by: 1. bankers issuing insane amounts of debt that out-pace wages 2. speculators borrowing from said banks to "invest" in pushing up living costs for families (ie people like MMM) The media loves to portray people as feckless idiots but the real problem is economic rent extraction by people who are adding zero value to society. That is the rentier - they generate no wealth merely appropriate it.

kamaal 11y ago
>>Because rampant consumerism isn't the issue. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but rampant consumerism actually is the issue. >>Most families are responsible with their money. No, in fact their spending decision don't even remotely reflect any sense of responsibility. >>Their greatest expense? If you think, smaller delta spending doesn't matter. Alas, I'm sorry that's the whole point behind indulging into consumerism without even realizing you are. >>Rent/mortgage which is pushed up by Demands. >>bankers issuing insane amounts of debt that out-pace wages You always have the option to move to the city outskirts, where houses are affordable. It will take more effort to commute and all, but cheap has to count for something. And you could save money to borrow less. >>real problem is economic rent extraction by people who are adding zero value to society. Houses don't get build out of fairies dropping suitcases full of money outside people's houses. They earn it, work for it. And make investments. You are all welcome to invest and grow. But just because you don't want to, it doesn't make others greedy and evil.
- branchless 11y ago
  Housing money is not earned. It's made out of nothing by banks and then used to put a claim against a significant portion of a person's salary. As lending standards get looser prices go up. Land speculators and money men capture all productivity growth.
  - kamaal 11y ago
    I'm not sure what you are talking about. Price of a house is not some thing banks get to decide, at least not directly. They only get they to decide the amount of interest they should collect to stay profitable after lending you money that you borrow to purchase a house. Price of a house apart from the raw materials depends on various thing like supply-demand factors. But that is the case with any investment. If you are having problems with investments in general where people can get rich by starting small but growing non-linear with time, then you are literally ruled out to ever be rich.

Avshalom 11y ago

If you work at say Target 40 hours a week, squeak in the occasional overtime and work on every holiday you take home about 12-15k a year after taxes that's about half of what MMM gets from rent. MMM hasn't come within ten grand of frugality in his life. It doesn't strictly invalidate his message but it's a grain of salt that should not be forgotten.

branchless 11y ago
Yes you get it. And guess what? When they put the minimum wage up the rentiers will all put the rent up. All productivity gains are captured by the landlord in a system of land enclosure. Land value tax now. Do away with income tax and let people keep the value they add.
beambot 11y ago
I get that he earns a lot from rent. But I still don't understand the animosity. Would you be equally up in arms if he just invested in municipal bonds -- the bonds that pay for your parks, roads, fire stations, police upgrades, and schools? There are reasonable tax-free bond funds (eg. PMF) that pay >6% annually. I've read most of his posts. He harps on things like biking instead of buying a new car. Or "why spend $150/mo on a cellphone bill when you can use Google Fi for half that?" Using that latter example, that's a difference of $900/yr -- or 8% of your Target family's net annual income; enough to make a downpayment after just a few years. To be honest: It seems like y'all are taking away the wrong message. The problems you see are legit, but directing your animosity at a guy providing free, online insights and advise seems misguided. YMMV.
- Avshalom 11y ago
  The animosity isn't specifically at MMM. People who think "have you tried spending less" is insight, thats what who we hate. Believe me poor people are way ahead of you on the spending less money idea.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    That advice isn't aimed at people who are genuinely poor, it's aimed at middle class whiners who earn middle-class money and still complain that they "can't get ahead" and "will never be able to retire". MMM has never claimed to be frugal -- indeed, he likes to talk about the "extravagance" of his $25K pa spend for a family of four.