Thomas J. Stanley (1944–2015)

What I've noticed about books that are described as 'first in their category' is that many times they contain disappointingly small amounts of information. Why might that be?

In this case, I'd been looking at a few financial independence blogs and reddit threads, and saw this book mentioned a handful of times. I was aware of it previously as one of the first that examined people who became financially 'free' in their lives; "rich people don't buy new cars, just read TMND." What surprised me show more about this book was the utter lack of new information. After getting 25% in, I had to put it down; you could glean any of this information from a half-decent reddit wiki or introductory blog post on FI. So why do people call it so great?

My theory is that since originally topics like these were uncovering unexplored, fertile ground, readers were so amazed with the revelations that there was enough 'newness' to excuse, or possibly even warrant, such long-winded explanations. But when a category gets more popular and the basic knowledge becomes widespread, returning to the exploratory piece makes it seem dated and unoriginal. The reason it gets recommended is because those in the community doing the recommending did really perceive it as new when it was first released, and remember that experience of reading the book when recommending it to others. Unfortunately, as someone who likely already knows some basics, you won't have this same experience.

In summary, the book presents very little new information in a haphazard and difficult-to-read format of throwing tons of absurdly specific data at you (like answering, "What percentage of Irish-Americans save at least 2x the normal amount of money according to our made-up benchmark?"). It provides less value than you could get from spending 20 minutes reading the reddit financial independence FAQ. Definitely skip this book. show less

I loved the themes about the mindset of many millionaires living modest lifestyles and slowly building wealth over time. Some examples were dated, but the ideas still are true today. One great nugget was that research has showed that the more money parents give to their adult children, the less their children’s net worth grows.

I found this follow-up to The Millionaire Next Door to be rather less interesting and less applicable to “regular people.” For one thing, it is focused less on low-level millionaires and more on those with between five and ten million dollars; a person with an upper five-figure income and frugal habits might break a million in net worth, but would not be in that five-to-ten club. Almost all of the people he talks about are successful entrepreneurs. The section on house buying is perhaps show more the most applicable to non-entrepreneurs. (To summarize, millionaires buy houses in good school districts, shop for a bargain, and live in those houses for a long time. They don’t have houses built because it takes up too much time.) show less

I read this for a book club I'm in. I was hoping to learn about saving, investment, etc. Really all I learned is that the wealthiest people tend to live well below their means. That seemed pretty obvious to me already. After the first few chapters (where three separate examples are used to show millionaires don't spend money on clothes), everything just sounded redundant and drawn out. As many other reviews have said, this study could have easily been summarized in an article, rather than a show more full length book.

Additionally, this book is highly outdated. Part of it is due to inflation since it was published, but much of the social structure is also different now. Nearly every millionaire discussed talks about how his wife stays home with the kids, clips coupons, and makes meals. I understand that was the setting when the book was written, but it really does lack relevance to today's society. It's also difficult to read a book that was written during an economic up-swing when the current economy isn't as booming.

Perhaps this was a good read at one point, but I'd say it's time of relevance has passed. show less