Does the world of personal finance need more politics?
Earlier this week at The Washington Post, Helaine Olen wrote that the world of personal finance needs more politics.
Olen specifically calls out FinCon, the financial media conference I attended last week. I love FinCon. She doesn’t. She’s disappointed that so many members of our community emphasize personal action and responsibility instead of directing our efforts toward changing the systemic and societal issues that make it difficult for some people to succeed.
She writes:
Spending a few days at FinCon 2019 shows the limits of the nonpolitical approach to improving your financial life…Over and over again, the systemic problems facing Americans are simply accepted as a given and unfixable, and tossed back onto the individual for him or her to solve.
Rarely mentioned are the political system’s many contributions to common economic troubles.
Olen is concerned that there are larger societal and systemic issues that hold some people back and prevent them from achieving financial success. I agree.
I disagree, however, that FinCon is the place to address these issues. And I disagree that we, the financial media, should turn our attention from the personal to the political.
Personal finance is personal. It’s right there on the label.
Politics at FinCon
I don’t know how many times Olen has attended FinCon. I’ve attended every year so far (and have already registered for next year’s tenth installment). From my experience, she’s wrong that attendees accept systemic problems as “given and unfixable”. We don’t.
This year, I had a memorable conversation about privilege with Julien from rich & REGULAR. I spoke with several people in the FIRE community about how we can make the principles of financial independence more accessible to everyone, especially those with lower incomes. (We talk about this all of the time. So much, in fact, that I’m tired of the topic.) In past years, I’ve had extensive conversations about the challenges women face in mastering their money.
Here’s another example: In 2015, the Debt Free Guys attended their first FinCon. Kim and I (and several others) enjoyed hanging out with John and David at the hotel bar. They confided that they were afraid about coming out to their readers. “Do it,” our small group told them. They did. Four years later, they’re killing it, and LGBT financial blogs now have a powerful impact.
Financial bloggers talk about systemic and societal issues often. But we talk about these things amongst ourselves, one-on-one or in small groups, not in hundred-person breakout sessions or, worse, as a 2500-person body in the Hilton grand ballroom.
Why not? Because these conversations are nuanced. They’re sensitive. Nobody agrees on any of this stuff. Even two people who have very similar political viewpoints will disagree on solutions. (Case in point: The current Democratic debates.) Imagine what it’d be like trying to do this with hundreds of people from across the political spectrum. Tackling subjects like the “student loan crisis” is best done in small groups, not as a FinCon collective.
FinCon founder Philip Taylor says that past sessions at the event have explored Universal Basic Income, women and money, minorities and money, and more.
This year, there were sixteen attendee-organized sessions with political themes, including an “equity and justice” meetup. Plus, the National Endowment for Financial Education sponsored a community service project.
FinCon is not a political event and never has been. Too, nothing about personal finance is inherently political. Sure, some folks put a political spin on the material they present, but that’s an individual choice. And the political spin Dave Ramsey employs is different than, say, the spin Helaine Olen would use.
That’s the biggest reason I’m glad FinCon doesn’t include politically charged topics in its official schedule: We are a diverse group with diverse beliefs. Olen writes as if there are universally agreed-upon solutions to the systemic and societal barriers confronting Americans. There aren’t.
It’s this lack of agreement that causes so much friction in our current national discourse. What does she think would be accomplished by holding these sorts of political discussions at FinCon?
The Political and the Personal
In Olen’s article about FinCon, she argues that personal finance has failed. She believes the solution is to move from the personal to the political:
We are facing staggering levels of income and wealth inequality, while facing staggering costs for housing, health care, education and so on. If better personal finance could fix this one by one for more than 300 million Americans, we would know by now.
Here’s the thing, though. We do know by now that better personal finance can and does fix things one by one for Americans. I’m not sure why Olen believes that it can’t.
I’ve been writing about money for more than thirteen years now, and hundreds (thousands?) of readers have contacted me to tell me how they’ve turned their lives around after deciding to take charge of their finances.
- Government doesn’t help GRS readers get out of debt.
- Government doesn’t help GRS readers negotiate pay raises.
- Government doesn’t help GRS readers increase their saving rate.
No, GRS readers do these things themselves.
Each year, I meet one-on-one with dozens of folks from the GRS community. Without fail, these people are taking action to master their money — and their lives. They’re not waiting for somebody else to solve their problems. They’re seeking solutions themselves. And while not every reader finds success, most do.
I believe strongly that the focus of my work is (and should remain) personal, not political. I don’t believe turning my attention to systemic and societal problems would solve anything for anyone. But by helping individual readers find ways to improve their lives, I can help many people.
If I were to write an article bemoaning the state of student loan debt in the United States, it wouldn’t solve anything. I’d just be adding to the noise. If we at FinCon were to hold a panel discussion on student loan debt, we wouldn’t solve anything. We’d just be adding to the noise. Frankly, it worries me that Olen believes we should be adding to the noise instead of offering readers tools and solutions that they can apply to their individual circumstances.
It’s not my job to change the system. It’s my job to give readers the tools they need to thrive within the world we’ve created. If Olen wants to fight the system instead of teaching readers to better their lives, that’s fine. She can do that. I genuinely wish her well. But I’m not sure why she thinks it’s necessary for everyone else to have the same goals that she does.
Here’s the thing, though. As the 1960s feminist movement made clear, the personal is political. That is, how we live our lives should be consistent with our political (and spiritual) beliefs. Even though I don’t discuss politics overtly here at Get Rich Slowly, I hope that my choices and actions for the site subtly reflect what I believe, in a way that leads by example rather than shouts from the rooftops. I hope that I’m “walking the walk”, not just “talking the talk”. That’s my goal, anyhow.
Here’s an analogy borrowed from my buddy Jim Wang of Wallet Hacks.
A doctor’s job is to maintain (and restore) the health of her patients. It is not a doctor’s job to battle insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry. She may have concerns about these aspects of the medical-industrial complex, and she may have a deep desire to see things change, but changing the system isn’t why she spent 15+ years in higher education. She did that so she can improve the lives of individual patients.
Likewise, my job is to improve the financial lives of individual readers. It is not my job to solve the student loan crisis, to fight high taxes, or to rail against our modern corpocracy. I may occasionally bitch and moan about how shitty our healthcare system is, and I may secretly wish our corporcracy would die a fiery death, but I generally try to steer clear of politics because my job is to help you build wealth. Period. The end.
Whose Side Are You On?
Another problem that Olen doesn’t mention is that there’s no unanimous agreement over how to address the problems with our socioeconomic system. There’s not even agreement that the things she views as problems are problems. (Conversely, I’m sure other folks would consider some things pressing issues that she’d dismiss as unimportant.)
Olen complains, for instance, that Americans face “staggering” costs for housing, health care, and education. But she doesn’t acknowledge that there’s no consensus on how to address these problems.
My conservative readers would suggest one possible course of action. My liberal readers would argue in favor of another. People like me, who are generally centrist, would prefer a third alternative. Which way is right? How can we possibly know? How would arguing about this at Get Rich Slowly (or any other money blog) possibly improve society?
It wouldn’t, and it won’t.
But Get Rich Slowly can make the world a better place by showing people how to pay off debt, start saving, and achieve financial freedom despite the societal and systemic structures that surround us. I can make things better by helping people become more resourceful, helping them develop the skills they need to build wealth. And then these people can teach others.
Over the years, I’ve received many messages from readers thanking me for keeping politics off this site. While I’m a human being and have my own opinions and beliefs, I do my best to keep the blog itself as neutral as possible. All readers are welcome: gay, straight, black, white, religious, atheist, libertarian, socialist, whatever. I don’t care.
This seems like a good time for a Taylor Swift GIF to express my stance:
Because GRS is a safe space, we’re able to have civil conversations about topics — taxes, divorce, Taylor Swift — that would provoke heated, nonsensical debate on other sites. Earlier today, I was reading an article about taxes from my local city’s newspaper. The comments were ridiculous. Like five-year-olds with larger vocabularies and less civility.
Here’s an actual example of what happens when an innocuous story — “local grocery store chain is closing” — is hijacked by political discussion. It’s ludicrous.
Besides, the GRS readership isn’t exclusively USian. We have many Canadian readers among us. (And my business partner is Canadian.) Lots of people in the U.K. read this site. I’ve had beer with readers in Turkey, Hungary, Ecuador, Germany, Switzerland, and France. (Well, in France we drank wine and in Switzerland we drank whisky. You get the idea.) If I were to shift my focus to politics, what good would that be for these folks?
About three years ago, Brad Barrett and Jonathan Mendonsa launched the Choose FI podcast. These two men have polar opposite political perspectives. But because they keep the politics out of their show and out of their friendship, they’ve achieved huge success. They’re focused on helping people, not on changing the system.
Breaking Bread
On the final morning of FinCon this year, I met Joshua Sheats for breakfast. Sheats is the whipsmart host of the Radical Personal Finance podcast. His mind works at a million miles per minute, and our conversations always make me think. Whenever we meet, I take notes. Even at breakfast.
Joshua and I share drastically different political and religious views. Yet every year at FinCon, we break bread together. We engage in a deep, respectful discussion about the world we live in. It’s one of my favorite parts of the conference.
We’re only able to do this, though, because we’re meeting each other as two individuals. While we disagree on certain fundamental issues, we share a passion for helping others get better with money, and we both believe strongly that ultimately it’s up to each individual to improve her own life.
“Are you and Kim married now?” Joshua asked this year, pointing to the ring on my finger.
“No,” I said. “But we’re committed to each other.”
“How does that work from a practical financial perspective?” he asked. “My world view is based on the Bible. I understand how Biblical marriage works. I don’t understand how a secular partnership like yours would work.” I explained how we manage our shared lives.
Joshua wasn’t challenging me. I didn’t feel threatened. We weren’t shouting at each other. We hold radically different viewpoints, but were able to engage in a civil discussion because we entered the conversation as two individuals with mutual respect.
In Olen’s world — in a world where FinCon and money blogs focus more on political issues — this kind of thing would be less likely to occur. Instead of engaging as complex indviduals, attendees would engage as adherents of one or another political movement. When this happens, people stop thinking of others as real human beings. We end up with the sort of political discourse that is already destroying our society. It’s as if Olen wants Finconners to give up their mutual admiration and respect in order to become a mirror of existing American culture. That seems insane to me.
We at FinCon come from myriad different backgrounds. The conference is racially diverse. It seems fairly gender balanced. (I don’t have precise stats.) There’s a large contingent of Christian bloggers. There are many atheists. There are Republicans. There are Democrats. In a way, it’s almost as if the conference itself is a microcosm of American society…but without the bickering. It’s wonderful.
I don’t think FinCon could be this tiny five-day utopia if politics were a prominent part of the discussion. If politics were a central focus, we’d risk shattering this fragile, precious thing, this sublime soup of mutual love and respect.
“I’m taking my son to the Museum of the Bible this morning,” Joshua said as we finished our breakfast on Sunday. “Do you want to join us?”
“I can’t,” I said. “I have another meeting.”
But I was deeply grateful that Joshua would ask me to accompany him, especially since he knows my political and religious beliefs. He wasn’t trying to proselytize. He was simply trying to engage and share. I’m honored he would want me to be with him.
These sorts of interactions are only possible, though, because FinCon doesn’t do politics. The moment that politics become a primary focus, I believe much of the FinCon magic will disappear.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, what bugs me most about Olen’s argument is this: By trying to convince readers that societal and systemic issues are too large and too powerful, she strips individuals of agency. She denies them the ability and power to change their own lives. She encourages a passive, reactive mindset instead of an active, proactive point of view.
This seems like a miserable worldview. It robs people of dignity and hope. It’s a tacit argument that “you can’t control your life; your life is controlled by larger forces”. I don’t believe that. I don’t want others to believe that.
The fundamental premise of this site is: Regardless the hand you’ve been dealt, it’s up to you to take action to improve your life. You can’t wait for somebody else to make things better for you.
![[Circle of Concern vs. Circle of Control]](https://www.getrichslowly.org/wp-content/uploads/circle-of-concern-vs-circle-of-control.webp "This graphic by James Clear shows the Mr. Money Mustache version of Stephen Covey's circles. Confused? I don't blame you!")
At the same time, I agree with Olen. There are problems with our current socio-economic system. And while we may not agree how to remedy these problems, talking about them is important.
But I don’t think FinCon is an appropriate venue. Nor is Get Rich Slowly.
I love the idea of a new event dedicated to this discussion, a conference where financial journalists discuss systemic issues and politics and how they relate to personal finance. If this were deliberately inclusive, intentionally designed to include all points of view and to foster respectful discussion, I think it could be awesome. I’d attend.
But it seems misguided to come to an existing event that works, one that’s valuable precisely because people can escape politics for a few days, and then complain that it ought to be more political.
Why politicize the non-political?
Whoa! While researching for this article, I found a short 2006 piece I published about the politics of personal finance. In it, I wrote: “Personal finance is non-political. It helps everyone when another person avoids debt, learns to save, and becomes financially independent.” I’m pleased to see my position has remained consistent all of these years!
Addendum
In the 24 hours since I published this piece, I’ve had some great conversations about the subject via email, on Facebook, on Twitter, by text, and here in the comments section at Get Rich Slowly. Many folks agree with me. Some don’t. That’s awesome!
My concern is that a few don’t understand my overall point, which makes me feel like I did a poor job of explaining myself — probably because I took 3000 words to do it. Let me try a shorter version.
Personal finance is personal. Yes, I agree that the personal is often political, but I don’t think it always is. And when there’s overlap between politics and money, I believe the two can (and often should) be addressed separately. To me, it’s like the following Venn diagram, which I have lovingly crafted for you:
If you want to write about the intersection of politics and personal finance, do it. If you want to have a conference about the intersection of politics and personal finance, do it. But don’t be cranky if and when others don’t.
What I object to is the idea that personal finance needs more politics (in general), and that FinCon needs more politics (specifically). I believe there’s already plenty of politics in personal finance.
Some of my favorite money blogs tackle both politics and personal finance at the same time. (Bitches Get Riches is a great example.) And there are already alternatives to FinCon for folks who want political discussion at the same time. (The amazing Stefanie O’Connell and Emma Pattee, for instance, put on the Statement Event every year.)
My mission is to help individuals get better with money regardless their political or religious affiliations. Others, including Helaine Olen, have a broader vision. They want to change our society and are less concerned with the success of discrete people.
There’s nothing wrong with either aim. There’s room for both sorts of crusaders in the world. But I feel it’s wrong to complain that somebody else — or some other conference — doesn’t share your aim or objectives, that they ought do to things the way you would do them.
Become A Money Boss And Join 15,000 Others
Subscribe to the GRS Insider (FREE) and we’ll give you a copy of the Money Boss Manifesto (also FREE)
There are 123 comments to "Does the world of personal finance need more politics?".
Wow, one of your best posts ever JD! I wish I could have written these words myself and I agree 110% with what you’ve written.
By trying to convince readers that societal and systemic issues are too large and too powerful, she strips individuals of agency. She denies them the ability and power to change their own lives. She encourages a passive, reactive mindset instead of an active, proactive point of view.
I think that’s called having the victim mindset, but saying stuff like that gets you shunned, bullied, and banned by certain people out there, including some in the personal finance community. Sad but true.
I’m astounded at how naive you are about politics and how it affects everyone’s bottom line financially.
We’re not free.
Politicians control our future and ALL our money.
Don’t believe me?
How many people were affected by Trump insisting that the Feds lower their interest rates?
Trump writes a tweet and the markets rise and fall just on his whims?
How does one build a financial future on a maniac who controls the world?
How many people lost thousand of dollars when they watched their CDs interest drop? et cetera, et cetera???
Do you know anything about what the potential Democratic candidates plan to do with YOUR money?
Elizabeth Warren plans on fleecing retirees of all their lifelong saved wealth: https://www.wsj.com/articles/warrens-assault-on-retiree-wealth-11568155283
Want to be truly financially savvy? Study the politicians and find the loopholes.
You think getting rich is the way towards wealth. Politicians are just waiting for you at the end to take away all your hard earned money.
Want to be rich? Make yourself poor and reap all the benefits these moronic politicians dole out to the poor people: free health care, free tuition, low interest rates, free mortgages and on and on and on.
Why earn $150,000 a year only to be taxed to death and live on $50,000.
Better to earn $50,000 and pay zero and keep it all. And work less.
That’s the secret. And that’s the ticket to true wealth.
If you have nothing, they can’t take nothing away.
I’m glad you chimed in today, Herman. Recently, I went back to re-read all of your past comments. I’m not sure that Get Rich Slowly is the right blog for you. You’re welcome to continue reading, obviously, but if you do, you’re going to have to accept that I don’t share your view of the world.
We are free. Sure, we’re subject to larger societal forces. But we’re like boats on a river. Even when the current is strong and there are hazards ahead — rocks, snags, whatever — each of us pilots our own craft. Within the confines of this river, we have the power to steer our own course.
And if you think “make yourself poor and reap all the benefits these moronic politicians dole out” is an effective strategy, one that people really want to employ, well…I don’t know what to say. That seems naive to me.
I think there are important parts of personal finance that are affected by politics. Ignoring them puts you at risk of being blind sided, but there is little you can do about it – politics does not enable any one. Herman’s example of tax code changes is great. If you are saving money in a 401k, and warren changes the tax code – your personal finance strategy and progress were instantaneously changed completely. obama floated the idea of capping 401k accounts. While I agree personal finance should be apolitical, ignoring politics will be a disservice to your readers.
mb,
I agree with your viewpoint on you certainly MUST be aware of what’s going on politically. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “lala la la” is a recipe for failure.
Politics certainly DOES affect personal finance.
I’ve always had the stance of what reality is than what I believe the world should be.
Personal finance bloggers, by very nature, are empowering others to understand how finance works. But more importantly to take action and not waiting for someday, showhow the government will save you from your lot in life.
Let’s not forget that the ones paying taxes are necessary for things we take for granted. If no one paid taxes, I’d imagine chaos would ensue. Sometimes political stances aren’t the answer. I appreciate the inclusivity of FinCon without wading through US politics… when there’s tons of folks from other countries as well.
Amen! Also, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we discuss tools and strategies to support one’s journey to FI AND political issues that impact the community?
I haven’t heard one good answer for this…
I read the first half of Herman’s post and thought, “yup, man’s making good points.” I skipped the second half and wondered why you were inviting him to, well, you know. And then I went back and finished his post.
I must ask Herman what planet he lives on. I make over $120,000 at a W2 job. Fed taxes are like $15k, state another $5k, and “payroll tax deduction” is $9k.
Boss matches 10% of my salary with the 401k, I dump another 10% in. My math isn’t quite jiving with Herman’s math, and math is what I do for a living. I’m pretty sure Herman’s math isn’t his reality, because I’ll certainly take the extra income, shove a few $ in uncle sam’s pocket, and enjoy the rest of it. As my income increases, I’ve been shoving more in my pocket too.
J.D. Duly noted. I won’t comment anymore. I apologize.
As more and more socialistic programs take hold in America, it really stunts a person’s drive and ambition to achieve great success. Politics unfortunately, is becoming everything lately. My grandfather used to have a saying, based on his own experience: when you try to raise your head above the water, there’d be a bunch of people just aching to take you down and cut you to size. After a while, you don’t try anymore. That’s socialism.
Again, my apologies if I hadn’t expressed myself properly.
Herman, you’re welcome to read AND comment. But if you’re going to comment, be nice. Remember that everyone here is a fellow human being, not some abstract digital avatar on the internet. True story: We still have one of your comments unpublished in moderation as an example to show people at blogging conferences, etc.
Treat this forum like a friend’s living room and you’re welcome to join the conversation. If that’s too difficult, I think there are better sites for you.
“Why earn $150,000 a year only to be taxed to death and live on $50,000.
Better to earn $50,000 and pay zero and keep it all. And work less.
That’s the secret. And that’s the ticket to true wealth.
If you have nothing, they can’t take nothing away.”
Wealth – “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg
And along came Herman the Worm… (It’s a song I’m referencing)
Seriously though, comments like these are the exact reason people don’t like to talk about politics. There’s no conversation wanted here about different values – just attacking and name calling.
Herman sounds awfully negative. And wrong – if you spend less than you earn and invest the difference you can build significant wealth over a lifetime. Having a minimalist mindset, being conscious about where you’re money is going can help, as can learning more about investing.
Thanks for your insight! I’m so tired of these people injecting politics into every aspect of our lives like it is their own personal religion. The victim mindset is so strong in our society these days. People have forgotten that they have power to change their own lives, even in small chunks. Sure, not everyone will be FI. I doubt I will ever get there, but not because someone else is stopping me. The Declaration enumerates the Pursuit of Happiness as a right. Not that we actually get it, and i believe that most people are pursuing happiness however they define it. Those who profess that we live in an oppressive, rigged society are living in a utopian worldview that doesn’t account for human behavior. I believe that we have the freest society possible, given the population. Yes we should help and enable others, but no one agrees on the optimal way to help everyone, and i am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who wish to force everyone to bow to their worldview – whatever that is.
Where’s Thumbs up emoticon? 🙂
Yes, we definitely need a thumbs up emoticon for Pete A’s comment here!
A very thoughtful post JD. I agree with you. It sounds like both FinCon and Get Rich Slowly were intentionally created to be non-political. The dynamics would change if either of them started addressing political issues and how they affect finance.
I hear your arguments on why your blog doesn’t tackle some of these issues, and they’re valid reasons, but overall I have to disagree with you J.D.
I think you’re oversimplifying her position and purposefully injecting the vitriol of modern political discourse into the conversation to argue that it would be harmful to the dialogue in the personal finance community. I think what Olen was arguing was that as leaders and sources of tremendous knowledge in the personal finance community we should be looking for systemic solutions that will help millions of people in addition to taking personal responsibility.
Like Olen, I too live in NYC, and having access to universal pre-k is saving me $25,000 in child care costs this year alone. There are policies that make financial sense and benefit large segments of society that this community can be a leader on, and frankly it doesn’t require that anyone wear their party label on their sleeve or name call.
If you believe in UBI, then advocate for it. If you believe in universal healthcare advocate for it. If you believe in free college/student loan forgiveness then advocate for it. If you oppose those issues then stand up against them. But burying our heads in the sand and pretending that big ticket issues like these couldn’t significantly allows millions of Americans to climb out of debt and save for retirement is just disingenuous and an abdication of duty to the mission to help people achieve financial independence.
That’s my $.02.
Fair enough, Hambone. (Although, I sincerely hope that I did not inject any vitriol into this conversation. I deliberately tried to steer clear of that and had several people proof this post before publication in an attempt to head off this specific problem.)
I expect that many people will disagree with me, and that’s fine. I also think it’s great that some folks produce material that blends politics and personal finance. What I don’t like is the idea that Fincon itself needs to take on these issues, that they need to be discussed in our sessions.
I 1000% agree with Hambone.
I think the personal finance/FIRE blog community is really doing its readership a disservice by NOT talking to them honestly about how politics (or more accurately policy and policy changes) could help or hinder their path to financial security/retirement/FIRE. For instance, Elizabeth Warren just announced a plan that would expand Social Security benefits (increasing benefits for all recipients by $200 a month) while also extending the longevity of Social Security via increasing taxes solely on high earners (re-starting SS taxation on wages over $250k) and imposing SS taxes on investment income for individuals who earn over $250k/couples earning over $400k: (https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20860672/elizabeth-warrens-social-security-expansion).
Now, I know my position on this policy (it’s a great step to improve the lives of millions of lower/middle income seniors, extend the viability of Social Security, reduce income inequality, and does so without raising taxes on the middle/working class). And I have no idea what your position is on this policy is. But don’t you feel like your readers would be served with knowing how this policy would impact them? Or whether it would even impact them either negatively (I’m sure there are some, but I imagine many of your readers don’t make more than $250k/$400k) or positively (yay $200 per month increase in Social Security and making the whole thing viable longer!)?
Or, more importantly from the GRS position — is this policy likely to improve my/the readers’ chances of reaching FIRE or hinder it, and thus should my readers support or reject this policy?
Now, not all policies/questions will have a clear answer on that, and maybe you just want to lay out how a policy would work/what its impact would be/whether you believe it might make FIRE easier or not. But to focus solely on personal finance without informing readers about how their support for policies/politicians at the ballot box might impact that journey seems to be leaving a lot off the table, and a disservice to readers who (presumably should) want to vote for politicians that will make the FIRE path more attainable for larger numbers through smart policy.
Yes, sure, I agree that talking about policies that affect readers is important. I don’t do it often, but I do it. Discussing facts and reality is one thing. Publicly stating a position and promoting a position is another. I try not to do that. (Again with the exception of our health care system, which needs to be scrapped. Bring on socialized medicine! It will save everyone money and improve the overall health of Americans. There’s no rational argument against this.)
Taxes are another great example. I don’t avoid the subject of taxes here. I’ve written before about tax policy and how it affects readers. There’s nothing inherently political about this sort of article. But if I were to interject my opinion about tax policy, that’s something different. I don’t want to do that and neither do readers. I only do that about healthcare. 😉
But that’s the point the original article was making — there needs to be that type of policy focus at FinCon.
And your exception on healthcare is making a political choice. It’s one I agree with (if literally every other developed nation has national healthcare, we should have Medicare4All), but it’s a choice on politics. You should feel free to write similarly on other proposed policies (regardless of partisan side!) that you feel are particularly positive in terms of helping people achieve financial security/independence, and those you feel would hinder those goals.
I’m with you on keeping politics out, J.D. The medical issue is one example why. I certainly believe our medical system needs to be scrapped. But I believe it’s partly because of government intervention in health care that our system is such a mess. And many people in the Financial Independence movement who have gone overseas actually proves this point. Why is is in other so-called 3rd World countries, health care is available at a fraction of the cost it is in the U.S. and even other developed countries? It’s partly because lower income countries have a lower cost of living. But it’s mostly because these countries have an actual free market where insurance (whether private or government sponsored) allows real competition between providers and real price tansparency for consumers. We haven’t had real competition or price transparency in the U.S. healthcare industry in 75 years. No wonder it’s so expensive. Health insurance (whether government sponsored or private) is one of the worst things that has happened to health care.
I live in a small town in Pennsylvania. We have a preschooler who goes part time to a local preschool, for which we pay about a thousand dollars a year. This is a great fit for us. I don’t want the government to take away my options while providing universal care for all kids. I recognize that a lot of parents need a lot more help than they are getting. However, government is not good at allowing people to keep what works for them. Advocating one national solution to fix individual problems often doesn’t work well. I think personal finance should stay personal.
I don’t see such a clear division between “the personal” and “the political”. It’s not like the individual is a ship and politics is the sea, and it’s up to you to just navigate the seas whatever they are.
The social “sea” is actually made up of other ships, of other individuals, and so we can decide to agree about how this sea operates. Society matters. Culture matters. At small and large scales.
Also, nothing is 100% guaranteed, so odds matter.
A society that offers high odds of success is less brutal than a society that offers low odds of success. Just like a high yield savings account is better than a no-yield savings account. We can choose our savings account, we can choose the shape of our societies.
This could be survivor bias. We don’t tend to hear from readers telling us how they tried to turn their lives around by individual effort but were nevertheless swept away by involuntary error, illness, violence, disaster, misfortune, abuse, fraud, so many other things beyond their knowledge or control.
Yes, individual effort is important. No, individual effort is not all-powerful. People are swept up by larger currents all the time—on the way up and on the way down. Sometimes you try to swim with all your might but drown anyway. We just play the hand we’re dealt.
Individuals are also largely conditioned by politics and society. Most of the things we do and know were copied and received from someone else. Family upbringing, formal education and social milieu play a huge part in our behavior. What we thing is “individual choice” is highly likely to be just the reproduction of a social pattern—a meme (in the original Dawkins sense, not the internet-funny one).
Now don’t get me started about biology. We don’t even know what’s what in that realm and we’re most likely our the puppets of our genes. So, if you won the genetic lottery which allows you to prosper, thank your lucky stars. But that’s a different conversation… I’m just trying to point out how little the “I” controls.
Politics can’t really be avoided. Putting everything onto the individual and ignoring the role of the social is just another political choice. You can own this choice, you can defend and stand up for it, but you can’t pretend it’s a non-political choice. Maybe it’s not partisan, but it’s definitely political. To claim otherwise is either error or lies.
As always, you make some good points, Nerdo. And you could even argue that I know it’s hard to distangle the personal and political because I’m so passionate about how fucked up our health-care system is. It’s the one topic I allow myself to write about here at GRS.
But I still believe that it’s not my job to tackle politics. It’s my job to help individuals navigate our larger society. And the same goes for Fincon.
Yeah, but the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not just “hard” to disentangle the personal and the political—it’s actually impossible once you’re in a group.
All the people saying here “yes yes thanks for keeping politics out” are just people who agree with your (political) choice to organize this community around an individualistic ideology, which is actually a very common ideology in America. So common in fact that it’s often invisible. See: “this is water.”
And what you’re actually saying about GRS and FinCon is that you’d like the politics to stay where they are, rather than become more social-minded, or whatever.
Which is fine, and maybe that’s the ideology increases an individual’s odds of success to the highest possible degree… but it’s not, again, non-political.
It can’t be non-political because you’re actually discussing/determining the shape of a social organization. Which is—of course—a political act.
“This is water,” etc.
I think what you are describing is what I would refer to as culture rather than politics. Politics is the actual argument of policies to address issues. Culture is the frame of reference and, indeed, the water we swim in.
No no, I know what I’m describing.
Sure, culture is a part of it, but culture gives birth to politics, and vice-versa. E.g., April 15 being tax day is now part of the culture, but once it was just a political policy made unto law.
We live and breathe in power structures we’re not even aware of. They seem “natural” and “obvious,” but they’re highly political, and sure were big issues when they were established.
We only tend to notice them when they hurt (e.g. J.D.’s medical bills) or when they change their shape, or when someone is trying to change them for or against our personal interests.
If we’re doing okay or we’re numb to them, we don’t even notice they’re there—but they are.
We’re political animals, as Aristotle would have it. We live in communities; we shape them and are shaped by them. Constantly.
El Nerdo’s comment here completely nails it.
The personal finance community is intrinsically ideological. It is rife with subtext upholding ideological memes about rugged individualism, economic libertarianism, putting idealistic notions like “free will” above material reality, historical conditions, cause and effect. These aren’t “non-political” concepts, on the contrary: they are central tenets of modern liberalism and have been since John Locke formulated “life liberty and property” in the 1700s. This has been the unexamined, default ideology that we are all conditioned into by our culture so much so that it operates at a subconscious level where you don’t even recognize such concepts as ideological.
Yet from a broader perspective, the entire personal finance movement serves as an *advertisement* for this ideology. See! You, too, can enjoy all this great success and wealth (implicitly under the status quo of a liberal capitalist economy and “corpocratic” (your term) government)! It’s all up to you as an individual!
It really does come down to this: “Putting everything onto the individual and ignoring the role of the social is just another political choice. You can own this choice, you can defend and stand up for it, but you can’t pretend it’s a non-political choice. Maybe it’s not partisan, but it’s definitely political.”
RE: survivor bias
What possible negative side effect could there be from those who sought out financial improvement and failed? Those prone to illness would have still become ill. Those prone to error or fraud would have still been prone to error or fraud, but would have lacked the basic financial literacy that they could have learned here. This is a very myopic viewpoint “why try if 100% won’t succeed?”
I bet JD has received a bunch of letters from people who rejected his viewpoints and don’t read GRS, but are off living their lives with some measurable improvement from having learned one of the core principles of FI.
Excellent and well said, I agree 100% with you.
I feel sorry for the people that have this stance of politics needs to be injected into everything! At least in my eyes, it’s a very dystopian view of the world.
The reality – it’s what you make of it.
We are all doled out strengths and weaknesses. We all can’t pitch a 90 mph fastball. We all can’t sing and write songs like Taylor Swift.
This is what makes us unique. We can tell our own story and we have a place in the universe.
The trick is figuring out what that is.
Wasn’t saying you were injecting at all – just that your argument against it was that talking about systemic issues at all would inject vitriol into the conversations and therefore wouldn’t be useful or helpful. In general, I love your blog and writing – yours is one of only a handful of finance sites I regularly read.
You’ve put your finger on every single reason I’m so glad FinCon is not political. You said it way better than I would have. Of course, politics and finance affect us all. But we can come together as people without having sessions on it. We can talk about things, learn from each other, and gain some new perspectives and insights. It’s almost as if FinCon is a version of Eisenhower’s People-to-People program.
Here’s a real-life observation re: politics injected into personal finance.
This morning, for the first time in four weeks, I’m doing my curation ritual, scanning articles to bookmark here, for Apex Money, and for the newsletter. Because I just wrote this piece, I’m acutely aware of which blogs are political (or are publishing political posts).
The sites that include overt politics are divisive. Certain people love each site; others are haters. While I like some of these blogs, I’d argue that each of them is much less effective at helping people with money than they might otherwise be if they dropped the politics. The political message distracts from the personal advice.
Again, I’m not saying that there’s no room for this. I enjoy reading some of these sites, from both the left and the right. But I do believe that they’re less effective at providing financial education than folks who keep their political opinions more subdued.
I think what you’re trying to get at is not the problem of “politics,” but a lack of civil discourse.
It should be possible to discuss politics in a civil and constructive manner that promotes mutual understanding between differing points of view.
However… that’s an art we seem to have lost in this century, unfortunately. Politics on the internet quickly devolves into trolling and flames.
I appreciate how restricting the discussion within narrow parameters here helps keep things organized, and tempers constrained.
That’s addressing a symptom, not curing the disease—but unless you want to spend 18 hours a day taming dragons, maybe it’s the only choice left. ¯_(?)_/¯
hey, where did my shrug emoji go lol
Haha. I just tried to post the kissy face emoji on another blog and it didn’t “take”. I feel your pain.
I don’t think civil discourse will fix it. There is a reason “don’t discuss religion or politics” is guidance in many circles, though apparently it’s giving way to “discuss politics or you aren’t doing your job”. Politics is typically, by the nature of how we arrive at our political beliefs, highly emotional.
I know that saying as “we don’t discuss politics or religion at dinner/at parties/etc,” but not “ever at all.”
Money is also highly emotional, and yet here we are… wait, we aren’t talking about money anymore, hahaha…
Very good points, JD. Similar mindset. We adopted a mixed race pre-teen several years ago. We told her that no one will care about her background(adopted, mixed race) when she becomes an adult. At the end of the day, she is responsible for herself financially. Now that she is officially an adult, she sees this. People are only worried about themselves and how much of the pie they can get for nothing. She came from that type of background. She opened a Roth IRA at 18 after we had her research the advantage of the Roth IRA. Our politics has no bearing on us trying to educate and help her secure her own financial future. She will go her own path.
I’m bi-racial, half black and half white. Systematic racism exists and has an impact on people who are bi-racial too. Society views me as African-American, which I embrace. I also understand I have to deal with the same trials and tribulations that every Black person does.
This was also something my mother, who was white, explained to me as a child. She understood the realities of society. That said, I knew, of course, I couldn’t use this as an excuse and always need to be accountable as it pertains to life choices.
I’m assuming your daughter will have to go through similar trials and tribulations because our society, unfortunately, is not free of systematic racism—even in regard to people who are of mix race.
I couldn’t agree with you more JD. I think injecting more politics into Fincon would kill the event, it isn’t what it’s about at all, and would be too divisive. It’s more about community, about bringing together people from diverse backgrounds and beliefs and finding common ground in helping others to improve their lives.
We may not agree on everything, but we can still get along, be friends, and share and break bread with each other. Love your story about Josh and how you two can have mutual respect and friendship, even while not agreeing on everything. Honestly, that’s how it should be.
I do think I understand to a degree where the viewpoint that we need more politics comes from, however. For many financial empowerment and individual agency are mostly a myth, and the only hope they have is if the government steps in to regulate, or legislate problems away. The problem for me is that I don’t believe that is likely to happen, especially when the country is so divided as to what the solutions might be. While I believe that we certainly have some large societal issues that need to be dealt with, and that we should individually strive to promote what we believe in politically, I think we do still have individual responsibility for improving our own situation when we can as well. To strive to learn and improve. To help others on their way up. To create community and hope for the future.
Far too often these political discussions end up being only negative, causing division and strife in the community. We’ve seen plenty of that on Twitter – where discussions end with people blocking each other, demonizing others, etc. I don’t think we need to bring that negativity to Fincon as well, which for the better part of a decade has been a positive force in the world.
To start I want to be clear since it appears many commenters have differing opinions: Politics is the advocacy of specific policies to address issues (or parties with sets of policies to address sets of issues). Saying “homelessness in LA a problem” isn’t politics. Saying (as I heard on the radio) “homelessness in LA is a problem because the federal government has decreased funding” is a political statement. The beginning of any productive political discussion is agreeing on the premise (“homelessness is a problem”) and that both sides desire to address it. You can then discuss how you think the policies will help or hurt the goal you have agreed to.
I believe a big part of the degeneration of political discourse is that many people, like the author of the cited article, think that people that disagree with them on policies ipso facto disagree with the premise. In other words: it isn’t that I think more federal funding won’t address the problems of homelessness in LA, but that I want homelessness to continue, or at least don’t care if it does.
Many public pontificators seem to believe that if there are people that don’t agree with them it is because they simply haven’t been talking loud enough. Somehow people who read GRS are unaware that homelessness (to stick with my example) is a problem that must be addressed through increased federal funding. Therefore if JD talks about it we can finally get the support we need. And if we can’t then maybe we can use peer pressure and the appearance that everyone who actually cares believes in increased federal funding to get his readers to fall in line.
I think this perspective is both naive and full of hubris (for reasons I won’t go into as this is already long). There are plenty of conversations we can have about personal finance that are objectively helpful that have nothing to do with national or local policy. We can even touch on such things in a non-political way. For example we can say “Texas and Florida don’t have income taxes. That can be a consideration in your personal planning.” We don’t have to celebrate or shame Texans or Floridans or express our opinions on income taxes.
JD has a niche, and his niche is talking about specific actions an individual can take to improve their personal situation. I believe we can agree that there is usually SOME action people can take to make their lives better. No one is arguing that people don’t have varying levels of structural problems they are facing that make those steps easier or harder, but there is almost always something you can do to make your situation better. And that is actually useful and isn’t as likely alienate people.
Hi JD,
Just looking at the comments on this article makes me happy you stay non-political on your blog. Please keep doing that, and thank you for all your work over the years.
My politics veer far left, but I like reading your and FIRE-related content, in part because its a break from the chaos of the world.
-Scott.
A great read J.D.!
Well-written and thought out. Even your response comments.
But then again, you have had a few years of this to calmly take in and respond to many types of comments.
What was the craziest comment you ever had and how did you respond? Would you respond the same way today? – (maybe you could insert a link to it and I could scroll down and read the thread)
Great seeing you at FinCon and looking forward to our next visit.
Hm. Craziest comment? That’s a tough one. Two come to mind.
First, I wrote a post about a homesteading magazine that I liked. (“Countryside”. It sucks now.) One commenter hated that I was writing about homesteading in general and goats in specific. He wrote something along the lines: “I don’t read your blog for info on fucking goats.” I thought that was hilarious.
Actual crazy? I once had a reader write about how she had prepped herself financially for divorce. There’s a certain segment of the population who is never okay with divorce, especially when the divorce is initiated by a woman and planned in advance. Commenters were ruthless, one guy in particular. I tried to ask him to stop, but instead he went on Amazon and trashed my (newly-released) book, giving it a one-star review. All because he didn’t like that this woman was taking proactive measures to protect herself financially. That was crazy.
Generally speaking, I ignore crazy comments. And if they come from new readers, I just don’t approve them. They get sent to trash. I try to foster smart, polite discussions here. If you want to be an asshat, go to YouTube.
Excellent point, JD.
“Ultimately, what bugs me most about Olen’s argument is this: By trying to convince readers that societal and systemic issues are too large and too powerful, she strips individuals of agency. She denies them the ability and power to change their own lives. She encourages a passive, reactive mindset instead of an active, proactive point of view.
This seems like a miserable worldview. It robs people of dignity and hope. It’s a tacit argument that “you can’t control your life; your life is controlled by larger forces”. I don’t believe that. I don’t want others to believe that.”
I think this needs to be pointed out there are success stories after success stories from very poor, middle class, health issues, diversity, death in the family, and debt that need to be shared and taught. The reason most of us are in the financial space talking about it is to help and lift up as many people as we can, it maybe with a blog, podcast or coaching one-on-one, to help them; help themselves. I’m so thankful we live in a free society so anyone has the ability to create wealth. I mean it anyone and we read and hear these stories over and over. I look forward to helping as well as reading and hearing more of them.
Thank you! It was great seeing you at Fincon.
-Holly
No politics, please! Personal accountability, even if some societal-economical surrounding does have some influence, it is still how we, ourselves, respond to it.
Just dropping in to mention that the gender split of this year’s FinCon was approximately 53% female, 47% male. Source is PT himself.
Great article JD. I hear this argument all the time as it relates to personal environmental action vs political environmental change. That argument disempowers individuals and often comes from the perspective that if the government doesn’t change, nothing will. I have to acknowledge the importance of both political and personal actions. However, some forums are focused on one, or the other. Not all discourses about personal finance need to include political and personal perspectives. FinCon is one of them that does not focus on the political, and is better because of it.
I agree JD wrt focusing on circle of control v/s circle of concern. There are no right and wrong answers but only trade-offs in every solution being proposed. Voting and getting involved with local politics is the better way to address the issues one cares about v/s mixing it in with personal finance. The basic principles of personal finance apply to most situations and the danger of mixing politics with personal finance is people can sit on the sidelines waiting for help instead of taking charge of their own situation.
I’ve met poor conservatives and rich liberals and visa versa.
I enjoy coming here to be encouraged in making the choice to “Get Rich Slowly”. The people I have sent here are every persuasion of politics possible. They are from 20-89 years old. “If JD can do it, so can you.” One step at a time- sometimes a forward step, sometimes backward.
You do a great job pulling articles that make me think. Believe me, there is plenty of politics out there. No need for more here. JMHO
Okay, but JD did not get rich slowly. He did get out of debt slowly, but the rich portion was from an internet gold rush. Which is, you know, awesome— but it’s a different thing.
This is true. And the hilarious thing is that I just happened to be standing on the creek next to the gold when the gold rush occurred. I wasn’t even looking for it. But when I saw others digging, I dug and voila! there it was. (And, in reality, Jim Wang had to say, “Buddy? You should dig.”)
It took several years of good writing to hit internet gold. A few wrote to gold, many did not. If he had not slowly gone through the very public movement of getting out of debt it wouldn’t have happened. Once he got out, it was about managing that. His shared parts of his life that are real -family, business, relationships and now travel- making this something to read. Loads of great information here on getting rich slowly ( and rich is about who you are more then the money you have in the bank). There is a reason people stopped reading this site and why they are back.
Of course it was a well deserved gold strike, but it was not getting rich by socking away a little bit every month and waiting 40 years.
There was a confluence of good writing, a good community of commenting readers, and an urgent social need.
The financial crisis sent millions of people to PF blogs in search of advice, answers, solutions (that’s how I discovered this place btw,) and suddenly J.D. was sitting on a hot property, and cashed in.
There are a lot of good writers who don’t get big bucks because there isn’t a lot of demand for what they write. Great poets are often poor.
Anyway, it’s always worth clarifying things when we talk about money.
Financial discipline provides a good stable foundation, but I’d rather get rich faster with a business hahhaaha.
JD this comment is why I really love you (in a non-creepy way) and your blog. You are so willing to admit your faults and examine them. Not that getting rich relatively quickly is a fault, but you are so not defensive and just seem like a good person. And you are an excellent writer an deserve the success you have had.
JD,
I’m having a hard time with the hair splitting here. Personal Finance is tied to economics, economics is tied to economic policy, and economic policy is pretty much as political as you can get.
I’m the captain of my ship, and nobody steers it but me. But the height of the waves on the ocean? That’s politics, things I cannot control directly. But how rocky those waves are (and how sick my passengers are) influences how I operate my ship.
Economic policy and PF is all over the place. Look at the 2008 housing crisis, which was precipitated (or not constrained) by law and/or policy. Paying for college? Also political — state funding of higher ed institutions, availability of government backed loans, Pell grants, and even the interest on my loans are *all* directly tied to politics. Tell me that fed rates, which impact my debt servicing costs, isn’t political.
On housing: I live in an HCOL area. Affordable housing, zoning, and all of that are big topics of conversation. They *all* affect housing prices. The NIMBYs want less new construction because it increases their home value. The non-NIMBY crowd who is looking to buy wants new construction as it increases supply and decreases values.
The toll prices on the local toll road? Politics. (And in my area, it’s actually a BFD because they keep jacking them up.)
Health care? Politics.
The state of the social security fund and potential changes to retain its solvency? Politics.
At its core, the non-political aspects of personal finance are apolitical. But “make more than you spend” can only be repeated so many times, and by now there’s nothing new to say on the subject. (Hence why you’re struggling with the blog focus.)
Minimum wage? Politics.
“Gig economy” Independent Contractor/Employee classification? Politics.
I’m not saying everything has to boil down to democrat/republican politics, because I’m not. What I *am* saying is that economic policy touches many aspects of our lives, and we’d be fools to ignore it. We cannot separate policy and politics.
But we can have an open and honest debate around health care policy, education funding policy, transportation policy, affordable housing policy, etc without making it a “D” vs “R” discussion. We can inform ourselves as to what the different policy options may be, and different ways to tackle a problem that we never even thought of, and then privately figure out what party best represents those policy positions.
But “make more than you spend” or “get a side hustle” is so yesterday’s PF blogosphere news. You’re tired of writing about it, and those that have been following the space (not necessarily your blog, but the PF space) for a decade are tired of reading about it. It’s been written, it’s been said, and it’s been read.
Policy issues that affect my bank account are fresh news, and that’s worth writing about. It doesn’t matter who’s in office, but a “here’s what this policy means to you” can be written about objectively without dragging D and R into it for the sake of it.
Thank you, Dan. This is a great response.
I’ve had many excellent conversations today, both here and on Twitter. And if I were to write this article again, I’d aim for increased subtlety. But this is the price you pay when you write something in the heat of emotion haha!
I’ve decided that we could draw a Venn diagram. One circle is personal. The other circle is political. There’s a lot of overlap (although the circles don’t overlap completely).
I’ve also decided that Olen’s article got me riled up on two accounts.
First, I don’t like her suggestion that Fincon needs to be more political (and, by extension, that blogs need to be more political). Politics is fine for some people. But if a person (or event) chooses to be non-political, why not let them embrace that? Why not accept this decision?
Second, regardless the political situation, I want people to take personal responsibility for their individual situation. I think there’s power in that. I think that’s the road to financial success. By all means, fight the system in the ways that you see fit. If you believe women’s rights are at stake, fight for your rights. If you believe government is too omnipresent and taxes are too high, then fight that. But do not lose sight of how your day-to-day decisions affect your financial well-being.
In short, I believe it’s important for people to pursue both the political and the personal simultaneously. There’s some overlap, yes, but if I were to urge a person to choose one, I’d urge them to choose the personal over the political. Others disagree. They’d urge political over personal. And that’s fine. To each her own.
JD,
Thanks. I don’t know Fincon at all, so I can’t speak to the issues you’re having with Helaine’s position.
As for the rest of it… go back to my analogy with the boat and the ocean and your Venn diagrams. The ocean is the ocean. That’s policy/politcs aspect of things. My ship is mine. How I operate it is up to me, but that ocean very much influences what *I* choose to do.
If one says, “I don’t care about the ocean and what it’s doing, all I want to talk about is how to operate my small watercraft”. Well, guess what. If you don’t want to talk about the water, if you want to pretend it doesn’t exist, there’s not much left. Maybe a few things about the boat’s systems or whatnot. You point that thing into rough seas, and you may make your passengers sick, and at worst, capsize.
Point being, you can’t pilot your boat without knowing the conditions of the ocean, whether you like it or not.
Live below your means, pay off your debt, save for an emergency fund. That’s taking responsibility for your personal situation. How many different ways are there to write about that? I don’t come to PF blogs to read about getting a side hustle.
In my PF “journey”, the debt (other than student loans) are paid, the car is paid off, I have a good job (dependent on government funding, hah), and I rent in a HCOL area. No wife, no kids. When the SL are paid off in three years, I’m looking at the “next step” (e.g., buying real estate) and from there, retirement.
What “new” PF topics are of interest to me? I hate to say this, but housing tax policy is a big one. I don’t know enough about the subject at the moment to comment one way or the other how that SALT stuff affects or could effect me, but with a $500k mortgage, those things are going to be a big deal. Same with FHA loans and all of that. Health care? Always on the table — I have great coverage through my job, but if that changes, then what? From there, retirement. Right now, my projections suggest a $3800/mo SS payment at age 70. Will it all be there? If not, how much will I lose? While I will not be fully dependent on the payments, they will be a material part of my planning. I’m expecting a $3 million nest egg give or take, but that’s all in my tax advantaged retirement accounts. Will I keep those tax advantages?
So that’s my PF boondoggle, and politics affects all of it, whether I like it or not. If I don’t want to talk about politics, what’s left from a PF standpoint? I already make more than I spend, the student loans are on an aggressive repayment plan, and 22% of my income goes straight into a tax advantaged retirement account every month.
I don’t write this to be argumentative… it’s just that if I totally shut economic policy (politics) out of my PF life, there’s not a whole lot to discuss. I’ve got the basics covered. And from where I sit, I see economic policy (and by association, policy) having a big effect at every step of the next phases of my life.
And related to all this….politics IS actionable as a matter of personal finance. I can vote for, volunteer for, and donate to candidates who supports policies that will make my personal finance situation better/easier. Hell, that’s what rich donors to both parties are constantly doing — supporting politicians who will enact policies that help them in some way, either financially (tax/regulatory changes that reduce their tax burdens/business costs) or in regards to causes they firmly believe in.
Why not educate your readers on policies (currently in existence, or proposed) that they may have an interest in because it will impact their personal finances and journey towards FIRE? No one is saying to stop writing about the mechanics of personal finance (just as the original article author was not saying that all personal finance should be replaced by political discussion at FinCon), but certainly there needs to be some discussion of policy issues alongside the typical personal finance stuff to allow your readers to advocate for and support policies/politicians that will help improve their personal finances.
I believe there are a number of GRS readers from outside the US. I’d think posts that focus too heavily on (US) policy would be largely irrelevant to that portion of JD’s audience, no? And even if JD’s audience is limited to the US, how do you effectively write about policy knowing there are policy differences between states.
Additionally, a lot of these proposed and newly enacted policies end up in news articles. So there are already multiple forums outside of PF blogs for learning about policy changes and how they may impact individuals. I like how JD’s writing style feels apolitical when I’m reading, but then the political side comes out in the comments.
The read I had on Olen’s article is that she is looking for the PF community to take on an activist role, which is totally different than simply talking about the various intersections of politics and PF.
Not every post is directly applicable to every reader, I think we have to concede that. My credit card debt is paid off, so advice on managing high-interest credit cards isn’t applicable to me. I’m done with school, and have no kids, so issues related to the increasing cost of college don’t relate to me directly. So by that standard, should JD no longer write about those issues, because they don’t apply to everybody?
With regard to your standard of “news articles” covering stuff so JD doesn’t have to, the basics of PF are well covered by many blog writers over the years. At this point, they pretty much bore me because they’ve been covered ad nauseum, and there just isn’t much fresh to say about the basics. Should JD no longer write about those topics because they’ve been covered elsewhere? Besides, news articles report the facts and stay out of the opinion space. They also don’t tell me how a new policy change could affect me directly.
I don’t read every article in the newspaper. That doesn’t mean I don’t read the newspaper.
To give JD a semi-direct answer to his blog title question, personal finance blogs don’t need more *politics* per se. They can definitely benefit from more *policy*, and more specifically, how that policy may affect me personally.
Dan, it sounds like you are telling JD what he should write about. If he’s not a tax optimizing wonk, and has no desire to write about that then what exactly are you trying to accomplish by ordering an oddly specific article? If you are so interested in that content, you research and write it. Or find a blog that does. Go Curry Cracker does a lot of tax optimization stuff, although he is anti home ownership so you’re unlikely to find it there either. Michael Kitces is a tax wonk too.
I hadn’t read down fully in the thread, but this is EXACTLY my point above. You’re doing a disservice to your readers/the personal finance community if you’re not engaging with them regarding how policy impacts their personal finance journey, and/or informing them how proposed changes to policy might make that journey easier/harder.
Extremely long time reader here but first time commenting. Like others have expressed, it seems to me that personal finance and politics are inextricably intertwined and while it may not be the goal of FINCON to address systemic issues around personal finance and politics, I do wonder if not personal finance experts, then who? The tone of your post has a bit of a feeling of protesting just a little too much – like maybe the whole thing makes you uncomfortable. And wrestling with the uncomfortable makes for good learning and great writing. It’s why I started reading you in the beginning and I bet I’m not alone. I’d love to ignore politics but I think those of us who have the capacity to engage in making the system better for everyone also have the responsibility to do so. Personal finance can be engaged on multiple levels – just because I’m getting my personal financial life together doesn’t mean I can’t also work to make the vast inequities in our common life together less severe. I’d love to hear you wrestle with that for yourself.
This. This is me, straight down to the long time reader first time comment. Thank you for stating this so well, Sara.
I’ve long been thinking about finding a way to blog about economics and social theory in the context of personal finance. It might be time. I’m all for pulling up on bootstraps and I’m glad that personal responsibility is a principal message of the PF community. But the very idea that somehow leaving out systemic issues from our discussions is a good thing, that it makes it “apolitical” strikes me as absurd. The idea that PF shouldn’t engage systemic economic and social issues *is* a political stance in and of itself, so ironically, this is the most political thing you’ve ever posted, JD. The truth is, some people have shorter bootstraps, and if our goal is to teach people to pull up on them we ought to at least grapple with what the problem is with the bootstraps in the first place.
Jessi – I’ll be your first reader! I’m so with you. Particularly this – “But the very idea that somehow leaving out systemic issues from our discussions is a good thing, that it makes it “apolitical” strikes me as absurd.”
If I knew JD better and we had a relationship on which to build, I might have suggested that if you are white and male and educated (and probably some other things too) in this country, you have the luxury of “staying out of politics” but I don’t know him at all and so I didn’t. But I think it’s absurd to ignore the water that we’re all swimming in and the blame people for drowning. I really would LOVE to see the PF community wrestle with this. We’d all be better for it. Write on!
I keep going for the Like button but this isn’t Facebook.
Anyhow, I’m very aware that I’m open to the privilege accusation and I accept that. I get the argument and think it has merit. But it’s not just white men saying we’d prefer there were places (like Fincon) where we can escape politics.
Also, I do not and never have blamed the “drowning people” for drowning.
Hey,
I appreciate so much that you keep your bias/politics/etc. out of your blog posts as much as you do. I’m from Australia and here we aren’t exactly like Americans and so much of the time I have to google and decipher what things in the US world actually mean. One reason I keep coming back to read your posts is that they are practical and useful with specific examples while still being general enough that I can apply it to my situation also.
I agree that while a country’s governance could be impeding our ability to get wealth the biggest factor in stopping us is our own habits/patterns/thoughts. I’ve helped a few people look at their finances and plan our their budgets and time and again their issues mostly have little or nothing to do with taxes/governmental policies.
J.D.,
If only you could stay away from the Portland Timbers too! (just kidding)
LOL!
i admitted my privilege and nothing changed. if there’s one thing i can’t abide it’s some blogger telling others what they ought to be doing/writing according to their theses. i’m glad you avoid trying to make rules and policies for the rest of us who just want to write in the manner and style of their choice and include and exclude whatever the hell they like. it’s almost like the term financial independence includes the word “independence.” the readers ought to have enough independent thought to decide for themselves if the material is right for them and not try and bully anyone to change style or direction.
Why do you say “bully”? All bloggers basically tell others what to do. Even “do what works for you” is being told… to do something. Just because you disagree with something it doesn’t mean it’s “bullying.”
Back in the day, the saying was: “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” That was a time when young people (myself included) believed that action and involvement would make things change — for ourselves and for everyone.
Fast forward to 2019, and the nation is polarized again. Many people have just dropped out, buying into the idea that these big problems can’t be changed and they are in the game only for themselves. What a pity.
J.D. has the right to shape his blog the way he wants. I’m a big fan, but disagree when he says his job is not to change society. He doesn’t have to do it on his blog, or at FinCon. But as a person, living in our world right now, I do believe each of us has a responsibility to step up to the plate—-to vote, to be informed about reality, to donate to causes we believe in, to advocate for changes that will improve our lives and the lives of others around us.
And that’s my $.02.
Good, thoughtful column, J.D.
I’d like to hear some of your ideas, if you don’t mind sharing.
Regarding J. D., there is a shift of people working to secure a middle class lifestyle before the age of 40, which will allow them t do better things for themselves and others. For example, Pete, the Money Mustache Guy, opened a hangout in his town, which draws a good number of people into the area where they likely shop in their local town instead of online. I think I recall he also made a $100k donation to charity a year or so ago.
He’s clearly living life for his own best interests, but others are benefiting, too.
I went to the MICDC event last Sunday (same place/time as FinCon) to meet with Doug Nordman – a very nice guy who was extremely generous with his time; we’re total strangers.
What I liked about meeting with @Nords is the same thing I liked about the little bit I saw of MICDC: The agenda was to share thoughtful info at the level people are at.
EXAMPLE 1: Nords told me he and his wife fly via military Space A, and they travel about 4 months a year, and said to me “if you follow this program, once your kids are grown, you can do the same.” But he didn’t mean that if I follow a program he sells. He meant that if I’m frugal and stash my cash away. There was truly nothing I could do to enrich him personally. I was taking 90 minutes of his precious and valuable time, and when I ended our conversation so as to allow others the chance to have time with him, he gave me the impression that I was welcome to stay as long as I liked. Like a said, a truly nice guy.
EXAMPLE 2: I saw presentations from Brandyn Cox, an accountant, and some RE investors. At a normal seminar, presenters want your money for their program, so that they can take the OPM to flip a house; these guys probably wouldn’t deal with such small amounts. I’m sure Brandyn is available to do your taxes, but he was simply there to share info to complement the RE guys.
In none of the 6 hours I spent in DC did I hear a single political word uttered. It was very nice, and I won’t mind if next year in San Antonio, it’s the same.
I think focus and avoiding feature creep is tantamount to any project, so I appreciate the care and thought you’ve put into this topic. Personally, I happen to think you’re making the right choice for this blog (though obviously life is bigger than just this one blog!)
Some other commenters have mentioned a “victim” mindset. I prefer to think of this as “internal locus of control” versus “external locus of control”. Real life is honestly a mix of both, but basically it comes down to: if something bad happens to you, do you think there’s something that YOU can do to improve things, or is there nothing you can do personally because the factors are so far outside your control that all you can do is give up?
So, yes, politics affect us, and 100% YES people need to be aware of society at large, and how this affects not just their lives, but the lives of their neighbors and fellow humans. And they have to act on their conclusions too.
But if this blog is going to be focused on the specific, practical, and immediate things that an individual can do, then matters of grand policy are sort of outside the scope of GRS (though not outside the scope of our complete personal and financial lives).
Sticking to this stance 100% isn’t necessary either, “perfection” isn’t very human, and I think your readers like you as a human! You have an opinion about healthcare and feel comfortable expressing it here, and that’s a GOOD thing when you can present clear and interesting discussion on it.
Of course, pair that topical delving with the practical things that we can do right now in our lives that can mitigate the current dangers of our world and that’s what makes this blog useful, no matter if someone separately chooses to pick up a sign afterwards and march, or write a letter to their representative.
I’ve written a wall of text here, so let me conclude by reiterating that I think your choice is well-made, though I admit I’d be excited to hear your opinions on various social-political-cultural issues. However, what I’m REALLY looking forward to in the future is more thoughtful, practical, personal, and very-human advice on how to keep me and those who depend on me in good financial health!
Thanks for writing this JD. As always, I appreciate you, your approach, and your voice. Glad we got to see each other, albeit briefly, last week my friend.
– Nick
Good article but yes quite long. I think it was “If you can’t get your point across in less than 20 words, you don’t have a point.” I’m not meaning that as an insult, because I think you have SEVERAL points in this, each of which would be great for an article. What I like is your passion, this means a lot to you.
For one thing, while I wish I saw fewer people ruined by health care costs (even with insurance it can break you) and also, needing to get rid of your savings so you qualify for some financial help (often this is a state by state problem, to qualify for disability health care in one state, if. you ever inherit or earn any money, you have to pay back the health care costs the state had. So you have to tell everyone to take you out of their will.). Sometimes the only way to GET HELP, is to be at the point of being HELPLESS. You can’t help yourself as it would hurt your ability to get any other help.
So those are things I would like perhaps government to change, to make it easier for you to help yourself. A hand up, or a safety net, for those times when stuff just happens. So politics does have a bit in the equation.
But, a conference is to talk about things. I would suggest a good way to control things is to be more involved with the planning and organization of the event! Making your voice heard like this is great! A conference where people can talk and exchange ideas with civility is a WIN. But can people do so about politics? That’s the sad loss. We can’t.
Definitely wish I could have experienced FinCon this year. I am inspired by the environment of open conversation and friendship rooted in the common ground like you and Joshua can share at breakfast each year. Being able to form friendships that cross political and normal social circles is one of the greatest aspects of personal finance, and I look forward to future friendships through the personal finance world. Well written, thanks for putting this out there!
Andrew, so long as you support [insert candidate you don’t like] you’ll be fine.
As an immigrant, new American and former undocumented person I find personal finance and politics highly intertwined within my community. But I agree, not everyone’s message has to be this way. I think FinCon has done a heck of a job to include everyone and every topic. Personally, I have always felt welcomed by PT, FinCon and all the awesome PF peeps.
I had an interesting experience while visiting a friend in Seattle. We were watching a documentary about a rich school in a poor neighborhood, and one of the residents in the poor neighborhood was talking about trying to better himself, build up his finances and make a better life for himself. My ultra-liberal friend (I’m more of centrist, maybe left leaning but not always) seemed disgusted and offended by this. I was a guest so I held my tongue, but I couldn’t help but think, what, should he just sit around complaining? Because that will solve something.
There are certainly societal issues that we should address. And solving those issues involves political compromise, vote counting, trades, and all kinds of things that go on at national level politics. And we should be aware of those issues.
But at the end of the day, we’re all dealt a starting hand and it’s up to us to do what we will with that hand. Some people were definitely dealt with a shitty hand, and the rules aren’t always fair. You can complain about it, and as a society we should be trying to make sure everyone’s hand is a little more fair. But each person, as an individual, should be aiming to play their best hand, and FI gives us the tools to do so. It is not the sphere for politics and complaining; it’s the sphere for action, for giving people tools to change their situations, whatever those situations might be.
We’re already inundated with politics in every facet of our lives. What’s wrong with a sphere where we can see others, from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs, as individuals?
There’s a group of people, BC, who see stories of personal triumph against broken systems as perseverance porn. Rather than focus on the fact that individuals have taken it upon themselves to improve their lives despite the shitty circumstances, they want to focus only on the shitty circumstances. That gets to the very heart of the discussion we’re having here.
I believe that it’s important to do both, to fix shitty systems and to praise (and encourage) individual effort. It boggles my mind that people would think it’s bad or wrong or “horrifying” to tell stories of achieving personal financial success. I do not understand the aversion to these tales.
My guess was your friend being upset with “why did they help themselves instead of helping everyone?”…not realizing you can’t help anyone if you can’t help yourself!
Ok, with the hope of stirring the pot this morning (lol), here’s a good confluence of personal finance and politics.
To get rich slowly you need a steady income, stable employment, a decent work-life balance, good health care, and protection against catastrophe. That’s how you win in the long run.
Working retail, always on call, at minimum wage, and at the mercy of arbitrary policies and silly managers isn’t going to get you there. Low pay, long random hours, absurd health care and being fired or downsized at a whim leave you too exposed for your individual efforts to have much chance of success.
You want a basic foundation to build a solid decent life? Join a union.
There’s a reason the working couple featured in “The Millionaire Next Door” were not a and a Walmart stocker and barista, but a teacher and a firefighter.
Teachers and firefighters may not get paid a lot, but they have union contracts with good benefits and worker protections, and can afford to save money week in and week out without having to fear uncertainty.
So, yeah, big PF move, don’t try to beat the odds against you alone, and join a union. 😛
Are you always wrong, sir?!?!?! To get rich you have to support The True Party of the United States. Vote True Party 2024 (I have to get it started first, so 2024).
Send donations to Jimmy “The Shoe” Shine.
I’m dead serious/not trolling.
Being a member of a union household is an ace PF move.
I get health insurance through my wife’s job and it’s fantastic. She gets a pension too, employer matches and then some.
We also get life insurance, dental, vision, all sorts of benefits and protections. She doesn’t have to work overtime, she doesn’t have to work on weekends, so she doesn’t have to contend with stress and its concomitant illnesses, and time to exercise/eat right/etc. PF victory all the way.
Her union job provides a solid hedge for my (individual) entrepreneurial adventures. The money I make is for saving and investing and financial independence plus some family fun.
Before this, we both had a business and it was a crazy rollercoaster. The ups were good but the downs were terrifying.
Now we have a family safety net from a union job that allows better risk management.
I believe that when J.D. got started with this blog he might have had similar union benefits via Kris (please correct me J.D. if I’m wrong). I recall they kept separate finances, but I don’t think he got his health insurance on the open market.
Also in millionaire next door it is often mentioned that some of the spouses of the business owners (not the firefighter) were teachers. So maybe their union contracts provided the safety net and good healthcare for the family while the businesses developed.
So, yeah—joining forces with others in a union is a great PF move for the individual. Let’s talk about that 😉
Thank you for bringing this up, El Nerdo. My father had a secure union job, so my family had the benefits you listed. My siblings and I had a stable childhood because of it.
J.D., the aspect of the article that jumped out the most to me was labeling GRS as a “safe space”. I don’t think that was an intentional use of the current “PC” definition…I think you were actually trying to say the opposite, right?
Hm. I don’t really know what the PC version of the term is. What I mean is that Get Rich Slowly is for anyone, regardless their beliefs. It’s a place where everyone can come for civil conversation about personal finance. We might have different opinions, but we disagree respectfully, as we have in this comment thread.
I won’t tolerate name-calling, hate speech, and personal attacks. I’ll put the kibosh on terms like “libtard” or “Trumptard”. I’ll challenge or remove inane comments that parrot the inflammatory style of prominent talk-show hosts.
I want people to feel safe here, as if they can hold discussions without risk of being attacked for their beliefs, whether those beliefs are conservative or liberal or something in between.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I take your meaning – “this is a space safe for you to put forth/debate ideas that make people question his/her/your viewpoints”.
The newish-“PC” definition is the opposite, and tends to be attributed to college campuses, where “safe spaces” are created for those who do not want to be exposed to opposing ideas and viewpoints, so they retreat to where only like-minded individuals will be present.
Example: “That speaker coming to campus is too controversial, I don’t want to hear any of her points or be around/debate any of her supporters, I’m going to stay at the safe space.”
A quick search on “college safe spaces” will bring up enough articles to make your head spin.
When people feel bullied by something they disagree with, and don’t want to hear it?
That happens on all sides of the spectrum, not just liberal college campuses.
E.g., shoving protesters into “free speech zones” or requiring oaths of loyalty for event attendance is the same thing.
Concur, which is why I chose the wording “tends to be attributed to”, and not “explicitly found only at”.
I once said someone derisive about “safe spaces” on college campuses. My college student daughter quickly told me safe space was not meant to be the classroom or lecture hall. Rather it meant a place where people could speak about personal experiences with which they were struggling in a judgement free zone.
Beautifully written. Amen.
NO PLEASE NO. Yes I understand that policies effect my bottom line whether it be Trumps tax cut that allowed me to deduct $24,000 even though I no longer have a mortgage or kids or whether it was Obama’s health care that took away my $20 dollar copay and replaced it with a $12,500 deductible. (family out of pocket maximum, $6500 individual)
Politics have seeped there way into sports, TV, schools and just about everywhere else, the last place it needs to seen is on the FIRE/financial blogs I read. Today it is the left that wants everything to be politicized because they are not happy, and in the future it will be the right that will not be happy. The social injustices did not start 33 months ago, they have been going on since the beginning of TIME. Billy Joel wrote a song about it a few decade ago.
America was once the great American melting pot with lots of winner and losers and it was not that long ago that the left would be mad as hell if you mentioned the color of someones skin or sexual orientation and today that is all they want you to see. As a blogger you would never be able to keep up with what was popular at any given moment let alone the pronouns you would have to know.
If I want politics all I have to do is turn on the TV. We all need a place to escape, it used to be sports and TV and the great outdoors now it is only in your blog.
I’m on the fence on this one.
While I agree that personal finance is personal, I also agree that when you get a large group of people together who are all working toward a shared goal, that creates a lot of power. That power could be used for the good of society, if deployed correctly.
Just arguing about politics wouldn’t be helpful and would add to the noise, as you say; however, discussing the issues that keep people from being able to fully engage with your/other financial advice, and coming up with potential solutions (not just ONE solution to each problem, but a range of options) that could get in front of legislators would actually be a great use of this community’s time together.
I LOVE reading personal finance blogs, but honestly, I didn’t even make enough money to start utilizing the tips and advice until very recently. Living paycheck to paycheck on seriously low wages makes it difficult to “save the extra” or “cut the fat” where there IS no extra to save and no fat to cut, because every penny goes to a necessary expense. SO MANY Americans live this way, and I believe that Olen’s point was to bring in politics in order to come up with ways to help those people, so they can also take part in the personal finance community.
It’s so great and inspiring that you get such wonderful individual feedback from your readers, and I sincerely hope that you are able to reach many more successes. However, breaking down some of the barriers that currently exist would open the floodgates and allow even more people to spread their success stories with you/the world.
It’s an interesting discussion as arguably the degree to which people think politics and the personal should collide is in itself a political opinion that may well align which party they tend to vote for.
This is based on my limited understanding as an outsider looking in, although even here in NZ there’s the general idea that one side of politics favours smaller government and less overlap between the political and personal.
So, I read the article by Helaine Olen, and I took away something a little different from it. It doesn’t seem that she’s asking anyone to become more politically ACTIVE when it comes to personal finances. It seems that she’s calling for a little more political AWARENESS, as she believes that monetary policies do indeed have an undisputable and measurable effect on our finances. I agree with that. It’s important to know how fiscal policies affect our situations, and figure out how we can best work within those realities for our best financial good.
On the other hand, there are many other places rather than Fincon to gain that knowledge. Discussing and/or imparting political knowledge has never been the intent of Fincon (from what I can tell anyhow, never having been there myself) but rather to come together to discuss how to best navigate our financial health on individual bases.
Maybe someday I’ll attend a Fincon and I’m sure that if I do, I’ll be walking away with a bevvy of new knowledge and a renewed enthusiasm for all things personal finance. If I want to grow my knowledge of fiscal policy, I can go elsewhere, simple as that.
Honestly (and forgive me if I am misquoting) but the fact that you are really tired of hearing about how the finance community needs to be more accessible and helpful to others especially the low income commmunity says more to me than anything else in this entire missive. It implies to me that much of the PF community is unwilling to try and reach those who may need it most, even if the changes made in that population would be miniscule compared to the 40 something mid level manager.
These are the people who actually NEED advice and help the most, and for whom traditional advise like “don’t buy coffee every day on the way to work” is useless. And honestly, it’s impossible to reach that community without dealing with and accepting those societal constructs in place. Whether that’s political, I don’t know. But to the segment of the society that’s working at Walmart, being your kid’s preschool teacher, or working as a nurse’s aid in your grandpa’s nursing home or hospise, the so called “eat your vegetable ” advice is generally never going to apply. And someone needs to reach out to that, and recognize it.
Barb: A word of warning. Your comment got me riled up. With the caveat that I haven’t read your second paragraph yet (because there’s so much to reply to in the first):
I never said that that I’m tired of hearing how the finance community needs to be more accessible and helpful to others, etc. I’ve never said anything remotely close to this. Because that’s not what I think. This is a strawman argument. I did say that the early retirement community has talked about how to make its concepts more accessible to low-income folks a lot, and I have grown weary of this discussion (because really, there are no solutions, which isn’t terribly surprising since FIRE represents the extreme end of personal finance).
The inference you’re drawing from this strawman argument — that the PF community is unwilling to reach those who need it most — is completely false. I would argue that the Fincon community, especially, is passionate about teaching smart money skills to those who most need them. Over and over, I talk with fellow bloggers (especially women) who devote their time and energy to financial literacy education. We make money at what we do, but we also donate time, money, and energy to improve the financial situations of those who need help.
So, what I’m saying, is that your first paragraph makes me cranky because it contains erroneous statements based on a false assumption.
Okay. I will calm down now. I will breathe. 😉
Your second paragraph doesn’t set me off. I do disagree with you, but that’s fine. This is an example of how people can agree that things are problems but disagree on solutions. I will always fall on the side of teaching individuals how to improve their specific situation regardless what that might be. I will never fall on the side of fighting the system. I’m glad that there are people who want to fight the system, but I think it’s a largely fruitless battle. I think greater change can be achieved through empowering individuals. And that’s what this whole discussion is about.
I’ve thought about this a lot this week, and I’ve come up with Yet Another Metaphor (YAM). Are you ready? I hope I don’t butcher this.
When you’re fighting a war, you need a variety of different officers. (And because I know zero about the military, I am going to mess this up. I apologize.) You need leaders educated in strategy, with a broad vision to formulate an overall plan of attack. These are your generals. But you also need sergeants (?) who can train the foot soldiers in tactics, the actual in-the-trenches fighting skills. The interesting thing is that these tactics are largely the same regardless what the overall strategy is. Not everyone needs to be a general. Not everyone needs to understand or develop the strategy. Some folks are better suited for training soldiers in basic combat skills.
I hope that imperfect metaphor makes sense.
Continuing this metaphor, I would argue that somebody like Tanja Hester from Our Next Life wants to be (and is) a general. She wants to address systemic issues, to formulate broader strategy. I do not. I want to train the troops. Do I need to know something of the strategy in order to do this? Sure. Does strategy affect the fate of the GI? Sure. But the best thing they can do is learn combat skills, and the best thing I can do is teach them. This will increase their odds of survival.
I am pursuing financial independence, and I’ve been following the FI community for about 4 years. I am also a social worker (so definitely on the slower FI track), and my biggest critique of the FI community is that many folks shy away from “political issues” which in turn is refusing to acknowledge the very real systemic racism and classism in our financial systems. These realities ensure that you, J.D, will never get to “help [those] individuals get better with money” because getting “better with money” is not always the problem.
For the last 5 years, I’ve been working in a large city with people who have criminal records (which I know is going to be its own loaded issue for many out there). As a social worker, I am all about people taking responsibility for their actions and choices. I encourage this in my clients as well as focusing on the parts of their lives where they do have some control. However, I have also witnessed people being held back relentlessly by systemic issues that never allow them to get ahead.
For starters, the fact that so many black and brown people have criminal records in the first place is not always due to their personal actions but due to racist policing and laws. We’re all responsible for our actions, but poorer communities of color are held way more responsible than white communities. I am white, and I’ve lived in white neighborhoods in this city. I bought a car not long ago and because it was late on a Saturday, I couldn’t go get my city sticker until the next afternoon. I had no problems. A POC client of mine did the same thing, and the car was towed within hours, and then it was a weekend, and then they needed a special person there to give them their car back, and the fees piled up. In some neighborhoods, having marijuana is a ticket, and in other neighborhoods, it has meant an arrest. I had a client get stopped for pulling out of a gas station “incorrectly.” I had clients get stopped for jaywalking in a city where literally everyone jaywalks. For black people in my city, simply owning a weapon is treated as a felony but white people get to proclaim their second amendment rights. Personally, I’ve never been stopped by the cops for anything. For my clients, it’s not if they have a run in with police but when. Once you already have a criminal record in the system, getting pulled over or stopped for something dumb can easily turn into a much larger event. Even just being arrested and spending a few days in jail (keep in mind some people spend years in jail while being legally innocent) can force someone to lose a job, their apartment, and other forms of stability.
Once someone has a criminal record, there are over 44,000 ways to legally discriminate them (https://niccc.csgjusticecenter.org/) from employment, housing, voting, and more. This is going to impact what employment and financial opportunities they have. They can make the best personal decisions within their control and still be continually held back by systems designed to keep them back.
We are all responsible for ourselves and our choices. However, myself and at least 90% of people in the FI community have been able to make choices from a radically different starting point than what a lot of my clients face. Both sets of my grandparents served in World War II and had the ability to benefit from the GI bill. Both sets of grandparents were homeowners, and their stability positively benefited my parents who became homeowners, which benefited me in giving me a lot of stability from having a home base growing up. My family is not wealthy, but we’ve been solid middle class or better for a couple generations, in part through government programs and subsidies (GI bill, mortgage deductions). We lived in good areas, and I did not choose them, but I was fortunate to go to great schools. All of this has impacted who and where I am today. The choices and benefits of my grandparents and parents have compounded over time (which is a concept I know this community can understand).
The GI bill did not officially exclude people of color, but it did leave it open for many states to do so, and this happened. There was also the practice of redlining which segregated communities and forced people of color into home loans with really awful terms and little room for error. These policy decisions have compounded for people today as well and because of it, people are still coming from radically different start lines than I had. Even today, people of color with the same or better credit still have to fight to get mortgages. Reveal investigative reporting (https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks-are-shutting-the-door-to-homeownership/) did a great story looking at this kind of discrimination. One of the people affected was a black woman with a good job, savings, and a good credit score, and she was repeatedly denied until her partner (half white, half Asian and working part-time in a grocery store) came on to the application. This stuff doesn’t happen to white people, and that’s because of systemic issues.
I can go on forever. Criminal justice is what I know best right now. Two general resources on racial wealth inequality that I highly recommend are 1) Prosperity Now’s Road to Zero Wealth Report (https://prosperitynow.org/resources/road-zero-wealth). It’s about 20 pages of actual reading and goes into the history that has caused POC to have so much less wealth than white people today as well as policy solutions. 2) The Color of Money by Mehrsa Baradaran (https://www.amazon.com/Color-Money-Black-Racial-Wealth/dp/0674237471/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=color+of+money&qid=1568461836&sr=8-2)
These are big issues, but I do not feel hopeless. There’s a lot that is being done and that we can all do. One of the things is to be more aware of these issues and talk about them rather than leave it as someone else’s problem. These issues hit all of us, especially if we have benefited from a system that makes an idea like FI easier to achieve. If we really want FI to be something that is accessible for everyone, we have to be willing to raise these issues.
“My mission is to help individuals get better with money regardless their political or religious affiliations. Others, including Helaine Olen, have a broader vision. They want to change our society and are less concerned with the success of discrete people.”
Why can’t we work on both?
I get your overall comment and agree with most of it, but sometimes I think we see racism and classism where it doesn’t necessarily exist. Take your POC client getting their car towed, and you did not. Given that you and your client weren’t at the car and interacting with law enforcement at the time, I think it’s a stretch to assume that the towing was directly attributed to skin color. The only thing the cops can do is run the plates, see the registered owner, and make some assumptions based on the name. I’m not saying it didn’t happen that way, but there are times where the outcomes of an event are more or less random and not as nefarious as one wants to believe.
I can also tell you that as a white guy, I’ve had my share of law enforcement encounters that sure as heck “didn’t go my way”… and I’m talking about things where the judge and the cops have had some discretion that they could have reasonably chosen to exercise in many ways.
That said, I’m familiar with the cycle of poverty, and have had some first hand experience with it. Once you get stuck in that rut of getting pulled down, it takes a lot to get out of it. As a society, we need to think long and hard if that’s what we really want to do to people. It’s even as benign as a $100 speeding ticket is a drop in the bucket to me these days. But a poor person? They get one, they can’t pay it, they get their license suspended, but they still need to get to their minimum wage job, they get caught driving on the suspended license, and it all goes downhill from there. What, as a society were we trying to achieve with that?
The reason we can’t have nice things (the reason we can’t work on both) is because whenever such topics crop up, the ideologists of ultra-individualism dismiss the subject outright as… communist propaganda, or something.
In other blogs and places of discussion, such topics instead are the red meat for ideologists of statism who claim that nothing can be fixed except by government.
Neither is right, but PF blogs by nature attract more individualists, and hence, the discussion gets promptly disqualified.
Any accounting for societal issues also removes or reduces the implicit moralism of good/bad choices, and the comforting illusion of control it provides. (Yes, you’re the captain of your ship, but the Kraken might still eat you if he wants to.)
Most importantly, individualists tend to legitimize the societal issues that affect them, while dismissing or denying the existence of societal issues that don’t affect them.
We had a fairly recent article that dealt with gender-based price discrimination, and you can see what happened there:
https://www.getrichslowly.org/pink-tax/
Yep. That “pink tax” article is a great example of what happens when GRS veers toward political. But it happens on both sides. It’s not just individualists who trot out the propaganda and ridiculous arguments. I was reading another blog yesterday where the author wrote — in all seriousness — “If you voted for Trump, you’re an outright bigot.” sigh As if voting for a candidate means you subscribe to all of their beliefs.
Fallacious reasoning comes from both sides of the political fence. (Or all sides, I guess.)
I don’t want to get sidetracked by the T-word, which is as explosive as it gets.
But sticking to financial/economic issues, I did mention other blogs & communities, and the ideology they espouse. Although that doesn’t happen here.
Here it’s more the individualist dismissal, or the individualistic cherrypicking of issues—which is also wrong, and a missed opportunity for productive discourse.
But it is what it is. Things have limits… who knew? xD xD xD
The Reveal story about modern day redlining, and people with perfectly decent credit not getting home loans because of their race, is mindblowing. Access to credit is a HUGE part of personal finance, and millions of people are being disadvantaged right from the get to by these practices.
No matter the direct focus of any one corner on the internet, I can’t imagine arguing against the awareness of institutional forces that selectively hurt a great many people and make it harder for them to achieve their financial goals.
Do people really believe a country that’s 22.5 trillion dollars in debt wants their citizens to be financially responsible? Do you think the government has our best interest at heart? I don’t if they did we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Liz, governmental debt has zero equivalence to personal debt. That’s why Presidents and politicians — Republican or Democrat alike — make use of debt. It’s a very different thing, and trying to equate the two leads to all sorts of false analogies and comparisons. Governmental debt is a red herring. Don’t believe me? Go check out the list of governmental debt for every country in the world. You’ll see that every country except for three or four small ones make use of debt. It’s a tool. It’s not a thing to worry about.
I agreed with you, J.D. until you said government debt wasn’t a thing to worry about. Government debt, at some point, IS something to worry about. Just ask the people of Greece and Argentina. Debt levels can reach certain tipping points, and once that happens, it destroys the finances of most people in that respective nation. The thing is, no one knows where the tipping point is until after it’s been reached.
Another one:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/07/oecd-study-labor-conditions-confirms-that-u-s-workers-are-getting-ripped-off.html
In an environment like this, I wonder if PF couldn’t become a tool to squeeze more out of workers.
“I can’t pay you more, but here’s a budgeting manual.” (I think JD once posted an old cartoon like that.)
Think about it: the whole FI movement is predicated on being an outlier. People in your occupation get paid X, you spend a fraction, you win.
But if everyone could be taught to save 75% of their income, employers would figure they can pay everyone just 25% of the usual salary, and kill your savings. “You’re going to have to learn to do more with less” .
They’re tricky things, these money games we play. Ignore the various angles at your own peril.
Quote from blog post:
“Ultimately, what bugs me most about Olen’s argument is this: By trying to convince readers that societal and systemic issues are too large and too powerful, she strips individuals of agency. She denies them the ability and power to change their own lives. She encourages a passive, reactive mindset instead of an active, proactive point of view.
This seems like a miserable worldview.”
Unfortunately, this is the worldview of Socialism. Individuals exist to serve the state, and you promoting ideas to empower individuals and create a mindset of independence threatens that.
I’m glad you took a stand to Olen’s nonsense.
Politics has no place in this site or FinCon. Period. If somebody wants to “fight the power” and take up a cause, let them do it on their own time and dime.
As others have said here, financial education and FI are about individual self-reliance, agency, and real empowerment. It’s a message of hope and it’s a message that’s the complete opposite of those promoting a mindset of victimization and powerlessness.
In my opinion you can either use the system to your advantage, or do nothing and let the system use you.
OMG, this was an amazing post, J.D. Thanks so much for writing it!
JD,
Thank you for writing this post. I didn’t get a chance to attend FINCON this year, but hope to someday. However, I have to disagree with your points regarding personal finance and politics.
First, I appreciate your perspective. I really do, but those who are personal finance bloggers (even my small little blog) are many of the privileged few who do not. We have knowledge that others don’t. And those who publish on those blogs certainly publish pieces that are designed, hopefully, to help people. But what they miss is that all of those pieces tap into larger financial conversations, larger financial problems that exist on a societal level. Those bloggers because of their privilege have a duty to take that one step further. They have a duty to go into their communities and help solve the problems (beyond the individual) that exist locally, nationally, and perhaps globally. That is part of what being a citizen is about and also a good financial citizen.
Perhaps, that is a conversation that needs to happen. What constitutes a good financial citizen? In America, we conceptualize the ideal citizen as someone who is literate about politics and gets involved to change their local communities for the better. Why is that different for the financial citizen?
You mentioned the idea of agency. You argued that Olen’s analysis strips away an individual’s agency from their ability to solve their own problems. People should solve their own financial problems. I believe in personal responsibility. However, her analysis also can give a push toward using their agency to advocate for solving larger societal issues. People could and should use the position of privilege they are in to assist others (and I don’t mean financially by giving handouts) by creating greater financial literacy, advocating for creating solutions to income inequality, solving economic problems within an agency. If people don’t then what is the point of being a citizen? By working only for the good of helping individuals don’t we strip ourselves of our own agency to do much more good in the world.
I can understand why you would post this. Politics is hard. Politics is messy. Politics can bring out the worst in people. But politics is everywhere. Aristotle wrote the politics is the master art and rhetoric is the ethical branch of that art. I am privileged to teach and do both. It is time more of us, in the personal finance world, take up the master art and work for the good of the world, no matter what political side you come down on.
Applause, applause.
Saying there’s no room for agency in the civic arena is what robs people of their agency.
There is a lot of power in joining efforts with others where the lone individual gets swept away by large forces.
I loved reading this post because it reminded me of conversations I had in college with people of differing views. We wanted to understand each other rather than preach. I couldn’t agree more that personal finance should be personal and not political. It is enough that we have to constantly adjust to politicians decisions, but I agree that if we engage in political banter rather than financial training we will do ourselves and our readers a great disservice. Thank you for this post, and keep up the good work.
Thank you so much for writing this! I also get sick of everything seeming to be a political argument these days as 99% of the time it does nothing to change minds, only to entrench each side. And it is your blog! You can write about whatever the heck you want, frankly. As a centrist myself I rarely seem to run into others in the middle these days and appreciate you keeping politics out as much as you do. Always appreciate your insightful, deep posts and view into personal finances in life.
Thank you, JD! As soon as I read the headline stating we need more politics in the FI community, my stomach turned. Yes, I agree that policies – health care, economics, taxes, etc. – affect us all, yet we all have different approaches to their solutions. Considering how fiery, unreasonable, and intolerant some are of others’ political beliefs or opinions, a real conversation among the community, particularly online, is impossible. Your screenshot of the grocery store closing illustrates that point perfectly.
Change starts with each and every one of us on an individual level. Need an example? I’m in Philadelphia and recently read about a local teacher who teaches his at-risk high school students about personal finance, including how to open a bank account, how to track bank transactions, etc. His students are among the poorest in the city, yet he’s offering them life changing skills. The students are receptive to his teachings and many have applied these skills in their post-high school lives. It’s provided them with a way to gain financial footing in a world where they’d otherwise probably fail, financially speaking. At least they now have a core skill to stop generational poverty.
We can’t all be high school teachers, but we can all start somewhere to change what needs to be changed — and that’s another aspect of PERSONAL finance.
Love reading his was an amazing post, J.D. Thanks so much for writing it!