Talk:The Millionaire Next Door

Deleted section about audio tapes etc
Reads like an advert. 80.2.201.161 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree...were there no criticism of this book when it came out? I find the contents hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.158.67 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

can the formulas and rules presented in the book be summarized in a section of its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.97.179 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I am proposing a merge of Under Accumulator of Wealth with this article. It does not seem to cite any independent sources that use the specific term or concept being described, and reads more like a persuasive essay promoting the concept than an encyclopedia article. This article is also tilted too heavily toward promoting the concept, with little written about the other aspects about the subject that would be expected in an encyclopedia article. After paring that excessive content down, the articles could easily be merged. Dancter (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is reference and edit the opinions out of the section.
Where is the reference on the metric being criticized?

From Article "This metric has been criticized since, for example, a 20-year-old making $50k a year should have a net worth of $100k to be considered an "average accumulator of wealth".

Opinion starts with made up information.

That makes little sense since it would take a new graduate years of strong savings and investments to accumulate that amount. The formula fails to take into account compounding interest; younger people up to age 45 or so will generally have much less as a % of income than older wealth accumulators due to compounded growth.

What doesn't make sense about the formula? Why is the 20 year-old a new graduate? How many 20 year-olds are graduates? What if the 20 year-old opened their own business at the age of 18 living at home with no bills and saved 90% of their money. It's a formula defined by the author - the math is correct. I suggest removing these parts and provide reference for criticizing the metric with valid facts and not opinions.

M avery13 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs work
I fixed some blatant grammar, style, punctuation, and ref tag errors. The content is still rather poor.--John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)