Also, a comment on the intro to that Globe and Mail article:

“Dragged by her husband to meetings with their financial adviser, the retired tax collector says she “usually slouched in a very comfortable chair and zoned out.”

This, to me, has little to do with being a woman and a lot more to do with willfully ignoring your finances. One shouldn’t be surprised to be surprised when they retire if they never take an interest in it before the retire. It may be that women, in general, have less interest in financial matters, I don’t know, but regardless that seems like a poor excuse.

a) Real demographic differences, like the “longer life, less retirement money” that was mentioned. Not sure there are enough differences today to merit *a whole book* the way “Our Bodies, Ourselves” had to be written, for example; but these days there’s a book for everything.

b) Marketing. That’s what the cover is for–to target a specific population. By April’s summary, this is a repackaging of the usual fundamentals, but it comes in a “female-friendly” Eat-Pray-Love-style wrapper. A marketing gimmick? Sure, but whatever gets people to consider good financial habits, I say.

Re: Kiyosaki. As I recall, his book had some good ideas at the beginning, but then it ends up being all about flipping houses in Phoenix and attending his seminars (and we know how the Phoenix real estate market ended up…). Didn’t make as much of an impact on me and my wife as Dave Ramsey– that was the real eye-opener.

When I tell them they should save and invest for “financial independence” so they can do more of what they want to do later in life, that makes a lot of sense to them (“Of course we will! Why wouldn’t we?”).

Why is there a need for books of this type specifically addressed to either gender? Indeed why is there a gender segregated personal finance market at all?

This has always baffled me. Out of curiousity I’ve actually read some chapters from a few by authors I shall not name, and other than the anecdotes being selected for a different audience, all the advice in them was equally applicable to me and last time I checked I had wedding tackle and a Y chromosome.

I have in fact even been called, in disgust, “overwhelmingly male”. No idea what that means but the point is, I think this whole thing is like coloring plastic razors pink, printing the word “Lady” on the package and marking the price up 10 cents.

I’m sure this book’s great and so are many others but ask yourselves, if this approach is needed and valid, why you never see any Men’s personal finance books.

Sounds like a good entry-level personal finance title to me, and IMO a book directed to setting yourself up for a financially successful life has the correct focus, vs a book directed to “retirement issues” faced by women. If you set yourself up thoughtfully, retirement problems are just a heckuva lot less likely to arise.

What I would like to see, that seems to be missing in most PF books, is a discussion of the key correlation between good physical health and a secure financial life.

Thank you again for highlighting these differences. You’re welcome to follow our discussions on money at http://www.WomensSavingClub.com

The mindset shift is about making a long term lifestyle change and determining what is most important in life. These are the factors that have helped me turn things around.

The Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s national newspapers did a series awhile ago about women in retirement, which I found it very useful for understanding some of the main issues and dilemmas women face (and not just Canadian-specific info): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/women-and-retirement/

I’m not going to get this phrased right, so I apologize in advance, but it was my understanding that social security was a benefit given to individuals, not family units.

So each individual earns their social security benefits by their work history over the course of their lives. Individuals also have the option to get a benefit of 1/2 of their spouses benefit if that results in a higher benefit for themselves. When their spouse dies, that amount is jumped up to 100% of their spouses benefit.

So yes, when a husband dies, the wife “loses” 1/3 of the family’s social security income. That’s one way of looking at it. The other way to look at it is that she is still allowed to “take” 2/3 of the family’s social security income whether she paid in the taxes to receive it herself or not.

If the husband dies first, he also “loses” 1/3 of the family’s social security income.

This was specifically written into the rules to protect stay at home parents (wives) whose husbands were the primary earners for the families.

It could easily be interpreted for the reader to go out and buy things they can’t afford, which is dangerous, but I interpreted it differently.

I’ve noticed that the months my husband and I have the most fun and stop worrying about money (going on mini-vacations, day trips, dates, out with friends, etc) are also the months that we spend the least. I’m not sure what the correlation is yet… maybe we’re more satisfied with life, so we don’t feel the need to spend as much in the day-to-day? All I know is that since we’ve started living more freely, my spending has gone down significantly (and I’m getting a tan!)

Also, I would argue that 15% for retirement is not enough.

@Kelley, women in general face myriad challenges. We are typically paid less, are less likely to negotiate for better starting salaries and raises (totalling $1 million over a work life), work in lower-paying fields. Many women take time off to raise children, and/or work part time. Women are more likely to be single parents, and that comes with both costs and limited income in some cases. All of this results in less in retirement savings and social security incomes. When we retire, we have less money AND we typically live longer.

For those of us who are married, we lose part of our income if our husbands die before we do… we get a portion of social security income, and ditto for a pension if your spouse is lucky to have a pension. (If you spouse has a 401k, you do get to keep those funds. One good think about the switch from defined benefit plans ie pensions to defined contribution plans ie the 401k).

While I appreciate that the point is about choice, that isn’t what the quote taken from the text really said to me. I cringe when I hear “I can afford it” because that is exactly what every sales rep will get you to tell yourself as they smooth talk you into signing up for the monthly payments.

Besides, simply making more money or sacrificing something else to “afford” it isn’t necessarily the wisest decision if it isn’t something of real value to you to begin with. Nothing in the article implied that the book spent much time on really getting to your focus so you can make these choices.

Seriously though, thank you. Nice review.

But then, she looks like she just came from the farmers market, and I LOVE the farmers market, so that’s probably my own bias.

“The secret to getting beyond scarcity is to start beyond it. Feel a sense of abundance right now by living your life as though you were already finically free. Saying ‘I can’t afford it’ closes your mind but asking ‘How can I afford it?’ opens it up. Make the choice to be rich every day. Stop looking at the world through eyes of scarcity. Instead, open your mind to the riches all around you!” – Extract from Wealth 2.0

J.D.’s note: Eugene, this quote is precisely why people (including me) don’t like Kiyosaki. He’s saying to spend beyond your means because doing so will lead you to make more money. That’s absurd. Trust me: I’ve done this, and spending doesn’t lead to earning. Spending leads to debt. “Choosing” to be rich doesn’t make you rich; good financial habits lead to wealth — and that includes living within your means.