Can you explain how the "maths just don't work out"? I'm pretty sure saving IS the way to wealth for the overwhelming majority of people.

This honestly sounds like it's straight from one of the Facebook posts with clouds in the background.

Mid and lower class people won't get rich by saving their salaries.

In fact, it's not unusual that the entire earnings of a work-life of a mid-class worker do not add up to something that would make a person rich, even if 100% of it is saved.

The other side of the coin is that mid-class life is pretty good, most of the GP advice will lead to poverty much more often that it'll lead to wealth, and the one important piece that is "create more" comes by responsible working.

"Responsible working" is how you make other people rich.

Having fun and playing ("irresponsibly"), expressing your true essence, is the only way to create ANY lasting value.

It is also the only way to create any wealth. The OTHER (much more common) way that people get wealthy is by capitalizing on what others have created. Which is fine with me (I'm all for the wonders of capitalism), but I prefer creating my own wealth.

Well, you may be the one of the few that like improving the same project, day after day, until it's good enough to get some money out of it.

Most people get bored, and will only create something for themselves if they act responsibly after a while. Unless what you call "responsible" is working for other people, instead of the more usual "hey, I don't want to do this right now, but I'm doing because I know it's good for me" meaning.

Most people get wealthy by working for other people. Depending on what you call wealthy. 1-2M in investment accounts and a paid off home is very affluent/wealthy to me.

Also, to say those people aren't creating wealth is very offensive.

Mid and lower class people can definitely get rich by saving. Of course their savings don't add up to millions, but you're completely disregarding the returns of a decent mutual fund. At 4-7% real returns, the amount they have after a 20-40 year period is wildly different from the raw amount they've put in/saved, due to the power of compound interest. So although they haven't SAVED millions, they HAVE millions.

>Mid and lower class people won't get rich by saving their salaries.

They get richer than they would by spending them.

http://www.millionaireeducator.com/our-story

Depends what you mean by wealth, but for the majority of middle-class people the way to wealth is highly leveraged property speculation: borrow deposit from parents, take out mortgage, wait 25 years during which time the property has gone up hugely in value.

.. which requires a steady enough job to make 25 years of uninterrupted mortgage payments.

That's completely wrong. Invest in a mutual fund monthly and you'll be amazed by the power of compound interest.

And local property markets where prices rise above inflation forever (this is never always the case!)

It's not guaranteed, but on average in the UK it's 2.9% above inflation since the 60s: http://monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/

Did you read this in a self help book?

People do not learn by reading. Reading only helps to re-enforce what you already believe in and are open to accepting (all other propositions are ALWAYS discarded - no exceptions, regardless of how "objective" you think you are).

I myself only accept what works for me. I am pragmatic to the extreme. I know of NO other person who fully agrees with my philosophy on life (my fundamental beliefs are VERY different from what is commonly accepted) - but that's exactly the point - that's what makes 'me' me.

Now I have offered the above guidelines for those who are already inclined to agree. I have no interest in arguing or convincing those who do not.

> I have no interest in arguing or convincing those who do not.

In my experience, people who say that have a lot of interest in convincing others. It's like, "I don't care what people think or say". It's mostly pre-emptive reply to criticism.

Abstracting further, explicit and unprompted denials are usually protecting something.

That is correct - I am protecting my (very expensive) time from having to waste it on convincing you of something that you don't believe in, when the convincing would not do me any good anyway.

This is not about trying to convince people, it is about bringing convincing arguments to make an interesting discussion. Otherwise, that's just your opinion thrown in there, and why should anyone care?

I'm glad you asked. This is exactly what the essence of my philosophy is all about. I believe that each person's opinions (and each person's existence) are valuable in and of themselves - no need for any further arguments. You either agree with someone (as some people agreed with my original comment, judging by the number of up-votes) or you disagree - and, in my experience, there is NEVER any value in trying to bring those from one camp into the other. Arguments are always a waste of time. Sharing stimulating ideas is a much better use of time and language.

So, no, this is not about "convincing arguments". As with all of existence, this is about making a statement of who you really are and inspiring others. There is intrinsic value in that. I believe in leadership by example. I do not believe in leadership by "convincing arguments".

That sounds like a fairly postmodern-ish stance, which I don't really subscribe to. To me, some opinions are better than others, and being able to articulate them well, showing where they come from and what they immply, is part of what makes many discussions interesting. I don't assume an opinion is so good that others will understand it immediately so there would be no need talk about it, or that it is a great piece of wisdom that I should study or let others study.

Good discussions can make you see things differently, take a new perspective that you had not fully considered before. If you only make "life statements" and never cordially exchange points of view, you lose a much useful way of changing your own; you risk keeping yourself in a warm sense of certitude, losing precious feedback from other people's insight.

>People do not learn by reading

If that is true your comment is utterly useless to anyone reading it.

"Those who speak do not know, and those who know do not speak"

-Said the guy who wrote the Tao Te Ching

Your logic is lacking.

You contradict yourself. If someone is open to accepting what they read, as anyone who was intending to learn by reading would be to some extent, then they can learn by reading.

I guess you've never had to pay rent/mortgage or had to support anyone. In the real world, your advice would get you out on the streets.

In the real world, I support a large family of which I am the only person making money. I have three young children. I pay rent for a house in London proper. Not that any of this is any of your business, but I said it before and I repeat it again - I am EXTREMELY pragmatic and ONLY believe in that which works for me. I am ruthless when it comes to dismissing beliefs that other people accept as dogmatic, but that don't work for me.

I agree with your mentality but shy away from your EXTREME-ness .. I wholeheartedly empathize that there is no point doing something you don't want to do in order to wake up the next day and do something you don't want to do.

If I were in SF i might be jaded enough to believe that "the maths just don't work out!" but where I live, i've been able to pay off my mortgage in about 2.5 years. I'm putting up solar panels so that i can reduce my monthly obligations to basically just a food co-op membership.

These aren't EXTREME or irresponsible, but they are easy, and get me closer to freedom than paying rent because it takes less planning or sleeping in the cold.