There a number of money focused books that address the whole financial picture while specializing in a particular area such as investing, money psychology, or early retirement. This book touches on a broad array of topics, but the central theme is debt. Dave Ramsey has had challenging experiences with debt causing him to offer advice, which in my opinion, is an overcorrection: “to live debt free.” While the idea of living without debt of any kind is a protection to those with problematic spending personalities, the average person will benefit more from its responsible use than from its avoidance.
His tone comes across as demeaning and he seems to assume his audience is uneducated and incapable. He treats the reader like a child needing a hyped-up, zealous commitment in order to not mess up his plan. He uses cult-like imagery by saying that people will judge your abnormal behavior, but to just press forward knowing you’re right (which as a rule I find problematic even if it is effective). He creates this level of religious mysticism to make you feel like participating would make you one of the special few. Since the majority of Americans have very little Emergency/ Retirement Funds, there is truth in this mentality but I’d rather it were motivated by something less prone to abuse by corrupt leaders.
That being said, Ramsey doesn’t seem to be pushing too self-interested of an agenda. It’s refreshing to hear someone talk about one of the main reasons for getting rich is to have the means to give and help others. I love that he slams financial products that do more harm than good like: get rich quick schemes, payday loans, credit card abuse, buying new cars, whole life insurance, spending to impress people, and more. Many of his altruistic motivations seem to stem from his religion, which I respect. But some of the connections to Christianity seem contrived (depending on how you feel about religion). For example, it feels out of place to hear that: "god sent a Jaguar back into my life. He returned what the locusts had eaten, but he only did so when it was not my idol."
There are areas that I find EXTREMELY problematic that I would recommend getting a second opinion on before following:
-He frequently quotes getting a standard "12% average annual return" which seems optimistic, if not misleading. While that is a possible figure, it is unlikely to be reached while using the broad mutual funds he suggests. One would be better served assuming the commonly quoted average of ~7.5% and then being ahead if that number is surpassed. I worry about people planning their lives with that as the baseline.
-He recommends paying off debts before anything else, even before taking advantage of company 401k matching. While it's nice to focus on the emotional benefit of seeing debts disappear, missing out on free money is irresponsible. You lose a guaranteed 100% return in order to avoid an interest rate that is surely less than 100%. While there are situations where paying debts should be the priority, the blanket statement of “paying debts first no matter what,” can do more harm than good.
- He also says that if your net worth gets to a point that you can live off 8% of your savings, you can retire. This feels like an unsafe metric to live by. Most voices in the finance world preach aiming to live off 4% of savings, which is a safer route. To confidently expect 8%+ gains every year seems dangerous. For someone so pessimistic about debt, he is very optimistic about market returns which could lead to problems for someone mapping out their retirement.
Overall, this is not a book I’d recommend. I’m sure he has helped countless people and I love that he has an emphasis on charitable giving. But there is simpler, more helpful advice for the average person out there.