Comments on: The Money Book Outline https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/ Writer, Author, Speaker Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:55:10 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 By: Scott https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19550 Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:55:10 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19550 The last chapter about kids learning the value of money, I find it to be the simplest concept to get across but our society seems to “give” to our children than to teach our children. Whether a family is rich or poor a child learns the value of money by working for it, the sweat of the brow teaches value, not education (but studying hard is sweat of the brow)or learning compound interest. The last 20 – 25 years of good living have changed our attitude towards work and money.

I’m a carpenter that can’t find a helper with a good work ethic and on the job there are hardly any people younger than 30.
Many kids have their college paid for by their parents, and many do miserable their 1st year only to spend the next 3-4 years trying to get their GPA up.

You need to know sacrifice to understand value.

]]>
By: Elizabeth https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19549 Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:39:26 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19549 The topics sound interesting, but I’m not sure about the flow of the chapters. In particular, the Help Wanted chapter seems out of place, but I might rearrange some of the others as well. It seems like there are two big messages that you’re giving — that experiences are more satisfying than things, and that you should focus on the big issues (what you do for a living, where you live, how many kids you have) and less on saving small amounts.

]]>
By: Mary Beth P https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19548 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:11:20 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19548 My husband is a minister, and I’m an OT (part time). We are not wealthy, but live frugally and have recently paid off all our debt. I suppose our 5 kids could be considered raised in “affluent circumstances”.

We are teaching our kids the value of money. The little ones have the Dave Ramsey “Junior Banks” with give, save and spend sections. We talk deliberately about money and why we don’t go on expensive vacations. We encourage them give some of their earned money to church. My oldest son recently brought his cash to Walmart to get a video game controller, and decided he’d rather not spend ALL his money on 1 thing.

I don’t expect that they grasp it all, but I believe that this foundation will help them understand the value of money.

]]>
By: CM https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19547 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:24:08 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19547 One more thing about the double careers — I know your book is about money, but I actually like and value my career, and my husband likes and values his. Neither of us wants to stay home with the kids full-time. For us, even leaving aside the cost of daycare, more kids means more commitments (including time spent dealing with childcare), more sick days, more unpredictability, more years when we’re (to be frank) not giving our careers our all because we’re more focused on our family. We think this is totally worth it for the two kids we’ve always wanted, but for us I feel the marginal non-economic cost of more kids is significant.

]]>
By: Denise R https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19546 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:41:31 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19546 @Laura-I agree with Alissa. There’s something about the expression of ‘buying’ happiness that doesn’t appeal to me. Maybe—Plenty:There’s Enough for Everyone; or Your Future, Your Way; or Plenty: You CAN Have it All.

]]>
By: Alissa https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19545 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:20:54 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19545 I like the title “Plenty” but the subtitled turns me off, although I can’t put my finger on exactly why or suggest an alternative. Sorry.

I like the chapter title “laughing at the jones” because it sounds like in this book you’ll be reminding people they do have a choice about how they spend their money (just as how in 168 hours you said we have a choice about how we spend time and that saying we don’t have time isn’t accurate).

]]>
By: Jason https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19544 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:12:55 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19544 Thanks. I especially like the part about thinking about wedding and engagement expenses rationally. Money is one of the toughest things that married couples deal with, so why not figure stuff out from the start? The ring, the wedding itself and the honeymoon are three items where the value of each should be carefully considered by the couple, especially with respect to their immediate future. Starting married life with tens of thousands of dollars in debt is not a strong starting point for a lifetime venture!

]]>
By: Laura Vanderkam https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19543 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:24:11 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19543 In reply to Jason.

@Jason – I hope it will be a breath of fresh air. I like J.D. Roth’s stuff. Dave Ramsey is fascinating, and has certainly found a market. I intend to stay far away from the concept of getting out of debt and budgeting. It’s not something I have any expertise in, so I more want people to think broadly about money.

]]>
By: Laura Vanderkam https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19542 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:22:05 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19542 In reply to Twin Mom.

@Twin Mom – tackling the problems of the American health insurance system is going to be outside the scope of the book, otherwise it would just be a book on that. Though probably worth a mention at some point. I’d agree with you that having a safety net is a good reason for remaining a 2-income family. And lots of families do have one person have the “stable” job while the other tries something entrepreneurial, precisely for the health insurance. Back when I was paying for an individual policy, I just had to build it in to the cost of living. And yes, it pretty much sucked. As for the retirement issue, employer discrimination is definitely an issue, though there are some interesting policy ideas out there on combating that (I wrote about one recently in USA Today). And since senior citizens qualify for Medicare, that removes one of the obstacles to trying something entrepreneurial that younger people face. I like the work that Civic Ventures is doing in encouraging “encore careers” — just because you can’t stand all day and do procedures doesn’t mean you can’t do something economically viable. In the case of a dentist, there are options like teaching, consulting to an oral care company or an insurance company doing dental coverage, etc.

]]>
By: Laura Vanderkam https://lauravanderkam.com/2011/02/the-money-book-outline/#comment-19541 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:14:10 +0000 http://www.my168hours.com/blog/?p=1167#comment-19541 In reply to CM.

@CM – the Motherlode people did point out that many people found it difficult to continue as 2-income families at 3 kids, but the funny part to me is that people differed on whether this was an expense or savings. I’d side with the people who think that a person leaving the workforce is an expense. Yes, you save on childcare but you lose out on earnings plus raises for those years and probably on a few additional years given the complications in re-entering the workforce. Of course, if the first kid is already in school by the time the 3rd arrives, the additional costs would not be the equivalent of a third daycare bill. Also, at least in my neck of the woods, many professionals switch over to a nanny at 2 kids, so that’s the big bump, not the third. The third would be a smaller added expense (albeit for more years).

]]>