Negative Wheaton levels

[jacob]

The origin of the scale is arbitrary. The only reason the new one is negative is because the other one started at level 1. But level 1 above does seem like it could be somewhat more differentiated. I'll certainly be willing to insert some rows at the top to keep all the levels positive.

[unemployable]

The original Wheaton scale has a Level 0, which seems to embody zero enlightenment. Maybe the scale here is off by one then. In any event I do believe in some actualization of "negative enlightenment", namely, actively and routinely making your situation ever worse to the extent you make it harder for others to ERE, by sucking up tax dollars or freeloading off others. But I don't see a benefit for it to be lower than -1.

If the Wheaton scale were symmetric around zero or 1, it follows there would be a most negative level that contains exactly one person. Who? Who are the ~10 people at the next most negative?

I don't worry about being judgemental. We're already doing that on the positive side.

[Jin+Guice]

It seems like most people that I interact with are on the negative side of the Wheaton scale, as in below level 1. Is this not true for everyone else?

I often think that in some respects my broker friends have it easier because they don't have access to or decline access to debt, while my wealthier friends tend to have more expensive tastes/ fancier college degrees. Of course, my friends who are poorer do so somewhat out of choice/ laziness and are in the same class as me and aren't burdened with children or prison records.

[jennypenny]

It was not my intention to derail the thread wrt discussing male/female takes on PF. My main point was that I think women seem to take a more wholistic approach to asset building -- which I view as an asset -- but then don't always measure up on the Wheaton scale accurately. It's kind of like a body builder for whom a BMI doesn't accurately represent how healthy they are. I only wanted to avoid including groups of people on the negative scale who are possibly mislabeled on the original scale.

As far as FIRE being off-putting, there are several reasons that probably don't pertain to this thread. If there's another more appropriate thread, I'll answer the question there.

[7Wannabe5]

In any event I do believe in some actualization of "negative enlightenment", namely, actively and routinely making your situation ever worse to the extent you make it harder for others to ERE, by sucking up tax dollars or freeloading off others. But I don't see a benefit for it to be lower than -1.

If the Wheaton scale were symmetric around zero or 1, it follows there would be a most negative level that contains exactly one person. Who? Who are the ~10 people at the next most negative?

Good point about the symmetry. OTOH, the systems level analysis gets a bit more complex if you start considering which level helps or hinders those on some other level make way up the scale. For instance, in "Efficiency" the Wall Street Players advise that if you want to make money with your business you should likely not target middle-aged men of moderate (not multi-millionaire) means as your customer base, because they are usually "weird frugal guys" who try not to spend money. In general, as soon as a producer moves from simply saving what they have produced (alone in the forest splitting wood for the stove) and moves into the realms of investing, trading, or profit-seeking, their activities or the "game" or the system requires the participation of another consumer. So, much more likely that the single mom at Level (-1)driving through McDonald's to buy Happy Meals on over-extended credit line is contributing to the ease of achieving ERE for some members of this forum than some EXTREMELY weird individual at Level 8 engaging in full-time Primitive Technology lifestyle out on his compound.

In fact, since only humans exchange money with other humans, the only possible way anybody can earn interest is for somebody (of course, inclusive of some "bodies" which are only legally conceived) else to be in debt, except to the extent that ownership of other living species is included in model, because trees will keep growing timber and wild hogs will keep fattening no matter what humans do.

[jacob]

@Jin+Guice - Outside these forums, it's true for me as well. Most are level 1 in the table above, but there are different behaviors justifying various degrees of level 1. We can call them 1a, 1b, 1c, ...

@unemployable - I do see the value in considering the state/focus of being misinformed (as opposed to uninformed). For example, the idea that one should never pay off the balance on one's credit card because you need to carry a balance to build credit. The idea that saving 20% on a new TV is actual savings. The idea that your horse or boat is an investment. Some ideas are more misinformed and more value-destructive than others. A lot of consumer advertising are actively installing these ideas that are counter to good resource management.

This also ties into the concept of multi-dimensional poverty. If you're surrounded by other "resource-sinks", it will likely act as a drag on your own level. And vice versa.

@all No symmetry required. Lets not make the harder than it is...

[prognastat]

I don't think having a whole negative scale would be very useful, but possibly adding a -1 level which starts when you aren't living paycheque to paycheque anymore, but instead have a negative savings rate actually building up debt constantly putting yourself further and further into the whole your situation continually getting worse rather than staying the same or getting better might be a worthwhile addition. Though you could subdivide this -1 level many times into multiple levels I don't think this would add much value to the scale.

@Jacob
There are of course some differences where behaviours that look similar at a superficial glance could actually be indicative of very different levels. For example one might put a product on a credit card, but situation A) is a guy who is buying a fancier TV because now instead of $2,000 up front that he doesn't have it's only $140 a month for 2 years which he can totally afford. He ends up spending $3640 on his TV. B) a guy decides on an affordable TV, but he either has a credit offer with 0% interest for 1 or 2 years, he still buys the affordable TV he could have bought in cash, but instead leaves his cash invested while he pays off the 0% loan in time not spending more than he was originally intending. Or he uses a cash back card or travel card to actually save on the expense or cover part of a trip to visit family etc.

Though from the surface level these would both look like people buying a TV on credit card they would be in very different Wheaton levels. Of course the vast majority of people using credit/credit cards are A not B. That's why credit card companies make so much money.

[jennypenny]

maybe the original scale just needs to add a column for 'prerequisites'

[7Wannabe5]

maybe the original scale just needs to add a column for 'prerequisites'

BINGO!

Building your own computer at age 12 not strictly necessary, but...

This forum would be more interesting if we could get some young single moms who really need help into the mix.

[jacob]

The Wheaton structure is already constructed so every single level is a prerequisite to the next level. The current level is operated at conscious competence. The previous one(s) become unconscious competence. The next ones become apparent as conscious incompetence.

This also explains why it is so hard to grok levels +2 ahead and why it is equally hard to relate to -2 levels behind.

[prognastat]

Are the previous levels necessary/prerequisite though? I would say I grew up in a household somewhere around level 2-3 as far as spending and savings were concerned. I remained at that level for most of my young adulthood/marriage at first voluntary and later on involuntary finally pushing our household closer to 4-5 when my own unexecuted level was probably closer to 6-7. Now after the divorce my actually executed level went from 4-5 to 7 practically overnight.

I would say mentally I progressed reasonably steady through the ERE heaton levels from 2-3 to 7, but due to being in a relationship with someone not on board it has progressed in jumps from where we started to the most I could convince my wife to participate with to my actual mental level once single so the executed levels made some significant jumps going from 2-3 to 4-5 pretty fast and from 5 to 7 almost instantly.

[Laura Ingalls]

The original Wheaton scale has a Level 0, which seems to embody zero enlightenment. Maybe the scale here is off by one then. In any event I do believe in some actualization of "negative enlightenment", namely, actively and routinely making your situation ever worse to the extent you make it harder for others to ERE, by sucking up tax dollars or freeloading off others. But I don't see a benefit for it to be lower than -1.

If the Wheaton scale were symmetric around zero or 1, it follows there would be a most negative level that contains exactly one person. Who? Who are the ~10 people at the next most negative?

I don't worry about being judgemental. We're already doing that on the positive side.

Isn’t that Bernie Madoff or other Ponzi type folks not SNAP recipients? Bernie was industrious though and worked hard at stealing unlike somebody panhandling in downtown Portland with a sign “need money for weed” who is not stealing but also not doing much period.

[jennypenny]

@7W5--I agree. I think maybe we aren't explaining our point clearly enough. I agree I'd like to see some young women ... a single mom may not know much about money management except for the monthly in and out, but most of their skill set would qualify them for the 'embracing efficiency' level on the Wheaton scale.


Regarding negative levels ... I have sympathy for people who are at a negative level if it's because they are following the advice of others (parents, advisors, friends) and (we know) the advice is bad. Some people get into a hole while earnestly trying to do the right thing financially. A lot of student loan debt falls into that category, as do business loans ('takes money to make money').

There can also be incredible pressure on parents to overspend on their kids to 'give them every opportunity', yada yada. (I don't mean from advertisers but from family and other parents.) Lotta guilt comes with that advice. It's hard -- and sometimes socially unacceptable and isolating -- to resist following the herd wrt kids.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I have been perusing Epsilon Theory since @bsog brought it to my attention and this article discussing the author’s choice to homeschool is inspirational.

[Jin+Guice]

I think the guy who lived under my house and read Maya Angelou in a lounge chair he set up around the corner is at least 2 levels ahead of me on any scale that I'd like to measure my life by. Maybe it's just because he's also skinnier than me though.