Learning about personal finance and investing has been a hobby of mine for the better part of 30 years… wow – that’s a long time! No wonder I make those odd noises when I get up from the couch…
Anyway, one of the first books that set me on my successful path was The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey. I loved this book! I was in undergrad when I read it, and I promised myself that I would follow its tenets once I had graduated and was earning real money.
I’m not sad to say that this is one promise to myself that I’m glad I broke. See, while I still think that the debt snowball is a brilliant strategy for getting out of debt, I’m not so sure about the other steps.
In particular, I take strong issue with the step about only investing 15% of your income after you’ve gotten yourself out of debt.
What’s wrong with 15%?
On the fact of it, saving 15% is a great goal to strive for. My question for other personal financial afficianados is why stop at 15%? If you can comfortably save 20% or 30%, or even 50%, then why not do so?
See, somewhere along the line, I discovered FIRE. It’s an acronym for Financial Independence, Retire Early. Thanks to the vastness that is the Internet, I went deep down the rabbit hole of FIRE. I learned about people who saved 70% of what they earned, who’d lived on $7,000 for an entire year, who’d retired in their 30s! Eventually, I discovered Mr. Money Mustache – a fellow Canadian, whose face-punch imagery caught my attention from the word go.
The FIRE community is varied, like any other community. However, the one thing that they do seem to share is the belief that you need to save more than 15% to become financially independent anytime soon. There’s even this handy-dandy retirement calculator floating out in the world. (Plug in your own numbers – see if you like the answer!)
FIRE and Dave Ramsey seemed to have a lot in common. Both financial perspectives eschewed debt. They both emphasized having an emergency fund and saving for retirement. There are even many in the FIRE community who think Dave Ramsey is great, and happily pay homage to him.
Yet Dave Ramsey… is remarkably quiet on his thoughts about the FIRE movement.
Why is that?
Look. I can’t speak for Dave Ramsey or his organization. Maybe he’s a huge fan of FIRE, but it’s not part of his company’s mission statement. Or maybe he hasn’t heard of FIRE yet. There are a million reasons why he sticks to advising people to only save 15% of their after-tax income.
My theory is that FIRE is an anathema to employers, and Dave Ramsey is a businessperson who needs employees to work for him. As an employer, it makes no sense to encourage the pool of talent from which one draws to become financially independent. Employers have the advantage when employees are dependent on a paycheque. I think that this was most beautifully illustrated in the blog post of other fellow Canadians over at Millennial Revolution.
Allow me to be clear. I’m not for one minute suggesting that Dave Ramsey speaks for all employers. Of course, he doesn’t!
What I am saying is that it would not be in Dave’ Ramsey’s best interest as an employer to encourage the pool of potential employees to strive for financial independence. Think about it. Being FI gives jobs candidates more negotiating power since they don’t need the job to survive. The beauty of the FIRE philosophy is that it gives people choices, including the choice to work for personal satisfaction without consideration of the paycheque. After all, just because one is FI does not meant that one has to RE. If your job brings you joy and you’re also FI, then your are truly and wonderfully blessed. No need to retire early if you don’t want to.
Think about how terrifying that must be for an employer. If money is the primary tool to control the workforce, then what weapon is left when money is not effective? A financially independent pool of employees means the employers have to find another tactic to persuade people to work for them.
In my very humble opinion, 15% isn’t enough.
If you’ve paid off your debts and your budget has breathing room again, I don’t see why you should be implicitly encouraged to spend 85% of your money. Spending at that rate keeps you tethered to your paycheque longer than you may like.
Until recently, I didn’t really consider why Dave Ramsey doesn’t encourage people to pursue financial independence. Yes – some people won’t be able to save more than 15% of their income, even if they’re out of debt. I get that. If you don’t have it, then you can’t save it. However, those aren’t the only people who listen to him.
My question is more about why those who can save more are not being encouraged to do so.
Again, the only theory that makes sense to me is that he doesn’t want to use his platform to encourage financial independence. I find it odd. Firstly, I don’t believe that everyone who calls his show for help loves their job so much that they want to stay for as long as possible. Secondly, one of the very best things that money buys is freedom from doing what you don’t want to do. Thirdly, financial independence doesn’t mean that people become lazy and idle. Instead, it gives them the time to work on what truly makes them happy.
Currently, I believe the following. Pursuing FIRE status will always be an employee-driven social movement. Given its nature, it has to be. After all, as a group, employers cannot maintain their vice-like grasp on power where there is a financial balance in the employment relationship. When employees have the ability to walk away without negative financial consequences, employers run the real risk of losing employees’ labour. A vision remains a vision unless there are minds and bodies that can bring it to life.
The concept of financially independent employees is adverse to the employer’s interests. It’s hardly surprising that employers are not advocating that their employees put some of their focus on saving and investing.
Getting back to Dave Ramsey. His book was written long before the FIRE movement hit the mainstream. I do not believe that he suggested a 15% savings rate in an attempt to maintain the imbalance of power between employers and employees. That’s a pretty broad stroke, and it’s not one I’m intending to make.
What I am willing to say is that the practical effect of his advice to only save & invest 15% works to give employers the upper hand. I’ve had many good jobs in my lifetime, yet none of my employers has encouraged me to save and invest for my future. There’s never been any kind of nudge towards financial independence.
Think long and hard.
The sooner you invest your money, the sooner you can hit the target of being financially independent. There may come a day when you no longer love your job, for whatever reason. When that day comes, you’re going to need to have money in place to pay for those pesky expenses of living like food, shelter, clothing, etc…
I’m not telling you to not follow the Baby Steps. What I am telling you is to think about their practical effect on your personal finances. Take what works… leave the rest.