Shaun Groves
Tom Corley, author of Rich Habits, spent four years interviewing rich and poor Americans, another 18 months analyzing the resulting data and eventually boiled his findings down to a list of lifestyle differences between the two groups.
1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor people gamble.
2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.
3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically 4 days a week. 23% of poor do this.
4. 63% of wealthy listen to audio books during commute to work vs. 5% for poor people.
5. 81% of wealthy maintain a to-do list vs. 19% for poor.
6. 63% of wealthy parents make their children read 2 or more non-fiction books a month vs. 3% for poor.
7. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month vs. 3% for poor.
8. 80% of wealthy make Happy Birthday calls vs. 11% of poor
9. 67% of wealthy write down their goals vs. 17% for poor
10. 88% of wealthy read 30 minutes or more each day for education or career reasons vs 2% for poor.
Read all twenty lifestyle comparisons at DaveRamsey.com.
Dave Ramsey wisely labeled this list “what the rich do every day that the poor don’t.” But Tom Corley goes further. He doesn’t see this list as a mere comparison of two different lifestyles. He sees causation: The rich are rich because they did these things. The poor are poor because they don’t.
And I disagree. Poverty and wealth are more complicated than that.
98% of presidents have lived in the White House (correlation). But does moving into the White House cause a person to be president? To establish causation we’d need to ask more questions…Are there people living in the White House who are not presidents?
Of course, we know without asking that living in the White House does not make a person president any more than living in a garage would make him a car. There is no causation between the two. Becoming president is more complicated than that.
I believe Tom Corley has given us a valuable and insightful list of differences between the lifestyles of rich and poor Americans (correlation) but has mistakenly interpreted them as the causes of wealth and poverty (causation).
But what do I know? So I’ve asked Mr. Corley for an interview and he’s kindly agreed. Specifically, I want to understand how his research was conducted and how he went about establishing causation between this list and becoming wealthy or staying poor.
Here’s why this matters so much to me. One myth that destroys our compassion and generosity is the belief that all impoverished people deserve to be poor; they chose their way into poverty. But poverty – the sociologists, economists, development experts and theologians agree – is much more complicated than this myth makes it out to be.
I wonder if you have any questions for Tom Corley as well. Feel free to share them in the comments of this post. I’ll post a copy of our interview when it’s complete early next year.
Marshall Walker says:
I’m not sure, but I know that I was poor, and did not become wealthy until I started doing most of those things. My progression was 1. writing my goals , especially financial (yes, Dave Ramsey’s baby steps so yes, focusing on one goal at a time)(checked out a Zig Ziglar video from the public library and followed everything he said to do, 2. reading non-fiction books (as many as I could get my hands on, especially on calling, career, etc..and listening to audio books some3. training for a marathon i.e. started running everyday. and trying to eat healthier. So for me all of these things came first and “caused” me to become wealthy.
Shaun Groves says:
I’m not dismissing your experience but I do wonder… Was becoming wealthy your goal? And why?
Marshall Walker says:
no that was not the initial goal my initial goal was to be able to give to my church more generously (at the time I started to listen to Dave on the radio I had stopped my support to compassion, my initial pledge to my church for the building fund, and any tithing to my church at all. My pastor taught a great sermon series on generosity/tithing that convicted/inspired me to get back to giving) and the only way I was able to do that was to get on a budget.
dubdynomite says:
You may find instances where those good habits correlate to a positive outcome.
What you may also find that the situation of those in poverty does not afford them the opportunity to engage in any of those positive habits.
I read an interesting post recently that addresses this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-tirado/why-poor-peoples-bad-decisions-make-perfect-sense_b_4326233.html
Shaun Groves says:
Whoa. I can’t imagine a more raw perspective. Thanks for sharing, dub.
TOM CORLEY says:
Hi Shaun. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss this very important topic with you and your readers. I know poverty is complicated. I know from personal experience. My family was wealthy and overnight we lost everything. But… my father recovered. He recovered because he had more Rich Habits than Poverty Habits. My research is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned but I do know I have stumbled upon something that could help millions end their personal poverty. I now know there are things we can do to lift ourselves out of poverty.
Amy says:
The first time I read the article was when you tweeted a link to it last Friday.
My initial thought was the correlation/causation problem. It’s sloppy data analysis at best. It really disappointed me.
By the way, my husband heard you speak last year at Lampo and it was perfect timing for us. We were in a season of God really speaking to our hearts about how we could put our resources where He wanted them and how we could give more generously. Thank you 🙂
Taylor says:
I have a Ph.D. in economics with a specialization in stats. If he wants to share his “data” and let others try to infer causation, that might go a long way to proving his case. I doubt you would be able to do any such thing however. I’d be interested in seeing what actual data he has, as in specifically what variables he’s collected on each individual. I would also like to know what technique did he use to infer causation. Was it correlation tables? Regression analysis? If regression analysis, what method did he use (as in what model)? Without the details of his study, I’m very skeptical of any claim of causality and I doubt a best selling book dives into these details.
Shaun Groves says:
Here’s a bit of what Tom wrote regarding his methodology: http://blog.richhabits.net/2013/02/28/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day-that-the-poor-dont.aspx
Taylor says:
That’s not much in the way of methodology. I don’t even see where he’s defining rich and poor as you state below. I’m sure he has a method, I just wish he was more forthcoming about it.
TOM CORLEY says:
I am doing my best to get my data out there through my research articles. I am also working on a follow-up book that will share this data. I am not an Economist although I graduated with a minor in Economics from St. John’s University. I did not use any of the economic protocols that you believe are necessary in order to validate my research. Many of the most significant breakthroughs in science and economics were by outsiders. Einstein (Patent clerk), and Adam Smith (Scottish Philosopher) are examples. Very often the greatest discoveries made in specific fields are by outsiders who do not follow standard protocols. Because they are not aware of such protocols, they are not confined by them.
Matthew McMahon says:
Tom, thanks for your openness about your work and your responsiveness to our questions.
As a physicist, though, (and at the risk of picking nits!), I dispute your characterization of Einstein as an “outsider” to physics, much less science. While he was working as a patent examiner when he had several breakthroughs, it is critical to note that in fact he was working on his doctorate degree in physics at the same time. You might say he was underappreciated, because he was passed over for lecturing positions as a physicist, but it is a rather extreme stretching of the truth to say he was an “outsider”. He published each of his “Annus Mirabilis” papers in 1905 in the German journal Annalen der Physik, which was probably the most prestigious physics journal of the time.
I would like to caution you against dismissing “standard protocols” too quickly. Upending prevailing theories in any discipline nearly always requires a thorough understanding of them in order to know where their weak points are. Einstein was acutely aware of what the “protocols” were, and perhaps understood them better than his contemporaries.
I say all this not to condemn your work or its conclusions, which may well be correct! But your (to my eye) casual dismissal of best practices in economics, and your casual treatment of my area of expertise, give me pause in accepting your data without at least a few grains of salt.
Taylor says:
Tom, like Matthew I am glad to see you so engaged in the conversation that we’re having here. One of the issues I have with the method you’ve described is you don’t seem to have any defined way to separate things that are correlated with a result with the things that are causing them. For example, lets say you were studying cities, some of which have very high crime rates and others that have very low crime rates. You pass out a survey to the two cities to try to find habits of low crime cities so that the high crime cities can do them and get rid of crime. One of the biggest differences that you would see is that high crime cities have lots of police officers while low crime areas usually don’t have nearly as many. So can we then tell the high crime cities, “Look, almost all of the low crime cities don’t have a lot of police. You should get rid of your police and crime will drop.”
One issue that economists run into often is that we are usually unable to construct the experiments we would like to try to prove causality. For example, to truly prove these habits lead to wealth, you might try the following (admittedly impossible) experiment: Find lots of individuals who are alike in every way, including income. Take a third of them and let them keep doing what they were doing before you found them. Take another third and have them implement your habits of rich people. The last third would implement the habits of poor people. If at the end of say 3 years, if you can show that group of people following rich habits have increased their wealth significantly more than the others (and that the poor group has perhaps even lost wealth) then I’d believe your hypothesis in a minute.
However, this experiment is impossible. So you have to use some analytical techniques to control for differences in your individuals (like previously mentioned “age”) to try to tease out causality. I’m not saying that these habits don’t lead to an increase in wealth. I’m just saying that the way it’s presented now, there’s no evidence that this is anything other than the police example from above.
TOM CORLEY says:
I think the common thread I am seeing is the idea that I am trying to prove causation. I am not. I sought to identify those things that wealthy people do on an almost daily basis (their daily activities or habits) and compare them to the things poor people do. The Rich Habits represent 10 Keystone Habits that most of the wealthy have and the poor don’t have. I am working on a follow up book that addresses the over 200 activities that I tracked (the data) as well as unique wealth-building strategies I found from doing this research such as the 5:1 Rule and 80/20 Rule, and strategies the wealthy use to control their thinking.
Tom Corley says:
I created over 200 categories and then compared each category item by group.
Amy says:
Tom.
Your books subtitle is “Find out how the rich get so rich. The secrets to financial success revealed.”
How can you say that you are not trying to imply causation?
Tom Corley says:
The Rich Habits are 10 Keystone Habits that were the byproduct of my research. I initially created the Rich Habits Training Program around these Keystone Habits and then led numerous seminars. I followed the Rich Habits and made that increased my income. Two seminar participants also had great success and begged me to write a book about the Rich Habits. So I did. There is not question in my mind that if you follow the Rich Habits you will become financially successful. No question about causation there. As for the data and the lists, that is something the media requested and I accommodated them.
Jon says:
What constitutes poor? Are his results based on US data are world wide data? How do you measure desire and opportunity? Some have desire, but no opportunity? While others have the opportunity and no desire… What little I know about surveys and data collecting, we tend to view the results throught the lense that we are wearing at that time. Basically we find what we are looking for…I wonder if that is the case.
Shaun Groves says:
I only know the answer to your first question, Jon. Tom defined “wealthy” as earning at least $160,000 annually and holding at least $3.2 million in assets. “Poor” was income under $30,000 a year and less than $5,000 in assets.
Amy says:
What about the people in between? What did they or didn’t they do to cause them to be middle income?
Christine @ Glory to God says:
I am shocked at the short-sightedness of these points, without reading more. We are low income and I can tell you that my husband works hard–on his feet 54 hours a week as a custodian, working one 30 hour job and one 24 hour job, without benefits because neither is full-time. He comes home at 7 PM to spend time with the family, and he is exhausted, but still, he reads to the boys the read-aloud part of our homeschool curriculum, does devotions and prays with the six of us, and then crashes not long after.
Making ends meet takes up all a poor persons time, basically. They have to scramble more, for instance. I spend two to three hours at a thrift store to look for the best clothes they have to offer, whereas another mother of four might spend a half hour picking outfits at The Children’s Place at a mall.
We have to scramble more to pick out groceries, going to more than a couple stores to find the best deals. We have to figure out how to make money stretch, and go without conveniences and comforts, compared to others in this country. Nothing is smooth or easy. Everything is done the long way, and without extra money to take advantage of food sales, money can only stretch so far. It’s week to week survival.
Depression is more of a problem, but God does help with that, and everything else. The poor have more instances of disorders (Bipolar, ADHD, OCD, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, chronic pain conditions, etc.). Sometimes, people can’t reach their full potential because of disorders and dysfunction. Being saved gives us daily strength, but it doesn’t necessarily give skill and assets that weren’t there before.
I don’t believe God creates everyone to make plenty of money. He allows contrasts to change hearts. We will always have the poor, but hopefully not the abject poor. God allows some to prosper, but he wants to get the credit for that, and he expects humble thanks in return, and he expects the haves to help those who can’t fully provide for themselves–the have nots.
We, though low income, are not the have-nots. We are blessed to rely on God and know that all things truly do come from him. We do not lack food, shelter, clothing, vehicles.
The perception that the poor are lazy is so mean. The working poor work very long hours for little pay, and the work is often very physically taxing.
If a man spends every available minute trying to get ahead, how does that bring glory to God, if he neglects his family’s spiritual health, and his own. Is it wrong the read the Bible, and then not have time to read trade journals to try to get ahead? God’s word sets our priorities. Men are called to provide for their families, not assure them every comfort. Provide means to feed, clothe, shelter, and if you are a Christian man, it means to assure spiritual sustenenace as well. Sometimes making time for the spiritual sustenenace means you will stay last in the status race.
But aren’t the last first in God’s Kingdom?
Shaun Groves says:
Because of comments like this? I need to add a “like” button.
Thank you for sharing a very different perspective, Christine.
Do you mind if I ask…Is your family “poor” by Tom’s standards? Earning less than 30K annually and having less than $5000 in assets? Hope I haven’t offended by asking.
Again, thanks.
Christine @ Glory to God says:
I don’t mind you asking because it is important for male readers to know that they don’t have to have huge earnings to have a blessed family. It is society that puts pressure on men to be workaholics to get ahead, sometimes neglecting their families in the process.
The earnings are a thousand over that, but in America there is Earned Income Credit and additional child tax credit, so the actual income is more than the earned income. These tax credits are spent for medical expenses and house and vehicle repairs. It is because of these credits that we have vehicles at all, actually. We are grateful, and I know I’ll get some grief for this because some will feel it is wrong because it isn’t earned income, but some of the tax credits do go to our Compassion children for family gifts (one sponsored, two correspondent).
We bought the 3-bedroom house for $110,000 in 2005, but because of the economy it is worth $86,000 and we owe $84,000. The vehicles are quite old, so no, probably not $5000 in assets in this current economy.
Amy says:
Thank you, Christine. My husband and I have also chosen differently. We have chosen not to “get ahead” at this point, because we want to put God and family first. I could go into a long diatribe on this, BUT I don’t have time, honestly. I am about to go work the job I CAN do to supplement our income (cleaning toilets), but one that won’t make us “rich”. We have seen two other close families get ahead and they are doing quite well. Both of them filed bankruptcy on their credit cards, car loans, etc. My husband and I were very far behind and were advised to file bankruptcy. We did not feel that was the right thing to do. It took years, but this last May we finally paid off that last bill, which wiped out our savings. I could say, though, that there is a connection between filing bankruptcy and becoming rich. Anyway, neither of the fathers are ever home, they are always at work or getting called back to work. As for my family, we have decided that we do not want that for us. We will sacrifice the income we could have for the life we want. Maybe things will change someday, but this is for us right now. It concerns me that anyone’s goal is to get rich, rather than getting by. I think that studies can cause people to feel guilty, because they are the direct cause of their problems. Sometimes they are, but other times, life happens. I have to remind myself constantly that I am okay with where we are at, even if I am not considered rich.
Dan DeJaeghere says:
I would tend to agree with much of Mr. Corley’s comments here, but I think it is important to qualify this to where people have an access to opportunity such as we do in the United States. In many developing countries in Central America, Africa, India and so on, millions of people don’t have the opportunity to advance. Its hard to worry about listening to audio tapes in your car, for instance, when billions of people on the planet are currently living on $2 a day.
Also, please note that Jesus commanded us to help the poor, he didn’t specify to only help the poor who aren’t able to help themselves.
Matthew McMahon says:
I would like to know whether or to what extent Corley controlled for age. I did read the link you (Shaun) posted about the details, but, other than the number of people in each group, there wasn’t any statistical information. Statistically, people in their 50s and 60s prior to retirement are at their maximum earnings and assets, and twentysomethings are poorest in terms of both income and assets. When I started grad school for my Ph.D. in physics, for instance, I earned less than $30k a year (in 2013 dollars) and probably had a negative net worth my first few years. Now I make a considerably higher salary, and if I stay on my current career path, there’s a small but nonzero chance that by my 50s I could actually reach that upper group.
I also had Jon’s question about US/worldwide, but the posts seemed to indicate that the surveys were US-only. I find it hard to believe that many of these would translate to any Third World – developing world? – contexts; some of them obviously wouldn’t (reality TV, for instance). Still, I think it’s interesting to look at the U.S. on its own.
I do share Christine’s concerns – it is kind of one-dimensional to define “success” as a particular income and net worth. It’s also important to notice how many of the poor did not have certain habits; for instance, I would have expected the gambling gap between rich and poor to be much higher. (In that case I wonder if there’s a gap in the type of gambling that is hidden by lumping them all together.)
TOM CORLEY says:
I did not control for age. Most (rich and Poor) were between ages 40-60. All U.S. Financial Success means you are financially independent. Success is another matter. I know many in the clergy who I consider successful, even though I know they are poor. Re: Gambling here are my stats:
Gamble on Sports at least once a week:16% R vs.52% P
Play Lottery weekly: 6% R vs. 77% P
Mark DeJesus says:
Jesus certainly said that we would always have the poor around. Although we cannot put a blanket list of why some are poor and some are rich. There are many contributing factors involved. Blessing call fall on the just and the unjust. People can become rich for bad reasons as well as good. People can end up poor, but did all the right things. I think at the end of the day, we always need an eye out for the poor, remain grateful for where we are and always be willing to move forward out of any ditches we may be in.
Lori says:
This is called confounding bias or spurious relationship. In order to establish causation in medical studies, you have to control for a single variable that would prevent drawing false conclusions. Unless there was an attempt here to do such a study by scientific methods, causality can’t be established and the results can be misleading. This link provides an interesting example of confounding.(Does eating ice cream cause drdrowning?) I would ask Mr. Corley how he tried to control for so many outside variables? Couldn’t his results simply reflect confounding?
TOM CORLEY says:
Many of the most significant breakthroughs in science and economics were by outsiders. Einstein (Patent clerk), and Adam Smith (Scottish Philosopher) are examples. Very often the greatest discoveries made in specific fields are by outsiders who do not follow standard protocols. Because they are not aware of such protocols, they are not confined by them.
Lori says:
Sorry here is the link…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
Holly Barrett says:
Not to dismiss Mr. Corley’s personal experience, but I don’t think you can compare once-wealthy people who have become poor with people who have lived in poverty all their lives. Wealthy people who become poor have a different mindset, different habits already established, and access to different resources that can help them rise above again. They also tend to live in a different way emotionally, mentally, and psychologically than their income/assets would indicate.
I know this because after living a very comfortable middle-class life, I became a single mother earning right at the US poverty level with two kids to support and no child support to help out. We were “poor” by accounting standards but we did not live “poor”. Our thought processes, values, and way of interacting with the world didn’t change because our circumstances were reduced.
Now years later, having worked with those who have been caught in the generational cycles of poverty, lack of education, unemployment, illiteracy, etc., I can see an even larger gap in the way these two groups of people interact with their world.
Like most things in life, it’s way more complicated than a simple list can describe.
Amy says:
Yes, absolutely this. On paper, we are considered poor. The government considers us poor, which boggles my mind, because in my heart I am one of the richest people I know.
Christine @ Glory to God says:
The third commenter left a link to a Huffington Post article that was very sad, about a generational poverty woman’s perspective on the poor decisions that the poor make.
Reflecting on what you said, Amy, and what I feel–that we are indeed very rich because spiritual blessings are deeper than financial ones–I can’t help see the contrast between the Christian poor, and the non-Christian poor. Poverty is indeed the absence of hope, as the woman’s blog post proves, and as Compassion learns each time it visits the children and families at the Centers. Those who know Christ have a beautiful hope, whereas those who don’t leave a heaviness in your heart as you read.
And yes, it is true that there is a difference between generational poverty, and those who choose to live poorly for Kingdom reasons after previously being middle class or better.
The greatest gift we can give the poor is Christ, and on top of that, the means to help them achieve physical dignity (something in their bellies, means to start a small business, spiritual counseling, nutrition and health counseling, school supplies and tuition, letters, etc. )
Compassion does it all as well as it can be done. Praise God for that.
tomcorley3954 says:
I agree with everything you’ve said Holly. I think the one advantage I have from being rich as a child and then poor as a child is that I grew to hate poverty because I was able to see both sides of the equation. I’ve made it my mission in life to do what I can to help the poor not be poor.
TOM CORLEY says:
Wow! So many great points raised. I’m not sure where to begin but I’ll start with the methodology, which seems to be the most frequent point raised. I used a broad 20 question list. I asked these questions to both groups over a 4+ year period. The wealthy came from a combination of clients, business associates, former colleagues, people I worked with on nonprofits (charitable, civic and business groups), people I know, and those who responded to my free financial planning ads. The majority of the poor came from people I knew were poor, my free ad for financial planning and reduced tax return prep ads. I spent over 2 years asking the 233 wealthy my 20 question list. It took 2 years because they did not know they were part of a study and it took sometimes 5-6 meetings & phone calls to complete a list for one person. Studying the poor was an afterthought. When I told someone I know what I had done they asked me “what do poor people do?” I then spent another 2 years doing the same analysis for poor people. Once I completed my info gathering I spent 2 years grouping the data, analyzing it and comparing each group. Every 4-6 months, for the past 3 years, I have been going back over the data for things that are raised in my TV or Radio or Print interviews, which I missed in my original analysis. Such as gossiping, professions, education etc. Sometimes I tracked requested data and sometimes I did not. For instance, I did not track by age. I missed that one. But my gut recollection is that most (Rich and Poor) were between the ages of 40-60. I accumulated all this data on excel worksheets and then summarized it. I keep all the core data from the interviews in two large separate folders. One titled Rich and one titled Poor. Within each large folder are subsidiary folders for each participant with all my notes & the completed 20 question list. I hope that helps.
Amy says:
Tom, I feel like you understand how to gather and summarize information, but I wonder if you [understand] how to come to a statistically provable causation relationship between the things these people do and their financial situation.
This is not about you being an outsider and not “confined” by the rules.
If you want to be taken seriously by people who understand statistics there are specifics rules that must be followed. My hunch is that you are more concerned about writing a book that will sell than you about how solid your science is.
[edited by the moderator for clarity]
tomcorley3954 says:
I was never a “rule follower”. My guiding principle in life has been to pursue facts in pursuit of the truth.
TOM CORLEY says:
My latest article addresses this.http://richhabits.net/rich-parenting-vs-poverty-parenting/
Shaun Groves says:
Thank you for the phone call today, Tom. And for your kind words about my readers – they really ARE some smart people. Thanks for your time here taking in all these questions. Looking forward to our interview and the chance to share a bit more of your personal story with the world in 2014.
Amy says:
My questions:
Why did Tom do this study?
Now that he knows, is he going to do anything further? (Besides write a book) if so, what?
TOM CORLEY says:
In late 2004 a small business client who was failing inspired me to find out what wealthy, successful people are doing that others are not
AJ says:
What are even the sources on these extremely dubious numbers he’s putting out? I see a few references on his web site to his having “studied” the habits of rich and poor people, but nothing about his methodology — nothing that indicates it was scientific, peer-reviewed, etc.; which would mean its merit is basically nil for those concerned with a tricky thing called “reality.” I have to suspect that, like Dave Ramsey and Joel Osteen, this is just another narcissistic blowhard drunk on his own privilege and telling the “haves” and the “wanna-haves” exactly what they want to hear — always a profitable venture.
TOM CORLEY says:
Please read previous my comment on the methodology I used.
Sandy says:
If an individual eats more over the winter months and gains weight, their waistline increases. If the same person eats less during the summer and exercises more, their waistline decreases. Thus weight and waistline can be said to be positively correlated. Correlation does not tell us the cause of the observation e.g. the expansion of one’s waistline is not the cause of one’s weight gain, it is the effect. [Brandon, M. (2009) “Following the Flows” in Smith, J., Brandon, M. and Kurtz, M. ‘Environment:journeys through a changing world; Block 2 Arctic Approach’, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p.115]
I would like to ask the author to consider continuing the research and finding out *why* these differences exist, because maybe these things are the result of poverty, or wealth, not the cause. Statistics on their own are meaningless.
“So wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor, only because they are idle’.” ~ John Wesley 1753
This is a very interesting piece of research by churches in the UK on the myths surrounding poverty: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truthandliesaboutpoverty/
Mike Raburn says:
I haven’t seen any mention of race on here at all. Was race controlled for or accounted for? I ask because there remains a high degree of functional racism in the U.S.
Tom Corley says:
60% white males or females, 25% Jewish, some African Americans, some Spanish, some Portuguese
Benjamin Johnson says:
Shaun, I think you make a leap when you get to the point that assuming causation leads to the assertion “all impoverished people deserve to be poor.” Many have never been taught that there is another way — in fact they are conditioned by society and government to play the victim. The notion that they must be a permanent underclass because the man is holding them down is reinforced by power-hungry politicians seeking to grasp political power.
I would much rather enable the poor to leave poverty through positive habits than spend my time worrying about a few wealthy people thinking the poor are poor for the wrong reasons.
Shaun Groves says:
I don’t understand. Can you restate your point another way?
Benjamin Johnson says:
I can certainly try. A key element that is nearly universal to self-improvement is to take responsibility for one’s self. I agree with the idea that the difference between “poverty and wealth is more complicated” than just doing the 10 things above. However, it is critical for people to understand that though they are not the only variable in the equation, they are a (if not THE) crucial one. Scenarios and outside forces will always evade our control, but for two people in similar circumstances, the actions above would likely “cause” the one who puts them in to practice to excel by comparison to the one who does not. To me, that makes certain principles “causal” on the road to financial success.
Will there be some people whose compassion will be diminished because they falsely think that it is entirely up to the individual? Unfortunately, yes. However, the far more dangerous extreme is for poor individuals to ignore principles that would improve their situation because they believe their behavior doesn’t impact their financial status — or for no one to explain this to them. Better for Tom to do his research to find causality so with real compassion the poor can be offered wisdom to help tangibly improve their lives.
This list is by no means the be all end all — but I think we have to be clear that certain activities help and certain activities hinder us financially. We may not be wealthy if we follow the good principles, but, especially over the long run, we WILL be far more likely to do better financially. To cut out the personal responsibility is a disservice to the poor.
“Gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.” –John Wesley, The Use of Money, 1744
Shaun Groves says:
I never meant to imply that personal responsibility is unnecessary.
Bobby G (@iBobbyG) says:
Wow, this is a very interesting discussion. I came across this while preparing a sermon on Thanksgiving.
I’m wondering which group were more “thankful” or “grateful.”
TOM CORLEY says:
I don’t have any direct stat on gratitude other then the stats I have relating to work. The wealthy are grateful with respect to what they do for a living and how much they make from their jobs. I do have some stats regarding other emotions. The stats I do have are on anger, happiness & optimism. I have learned from this research that the wealthy try to stay positive and avoid negative thinking and engaging in negative activities such as gambling, gossiping, lying etc.
Thomas Dalke says:
First the Scriptures make it clear that the “self-made person” is a lie. For no person is guaranteed “success” or “wealth” simply because they through their own desires, strength, or abilities pursue it (Ecclesiastes 9:11-12). Indeed in regards to the pursuit of wealth the Scriptures warns us all about overworking to be rich (Prov. 23:4-5). For those who do so are only pursuing and serving a very misleading and unreliable “god.” As Jesus Himself warns about in Matt 6:19-24; as well as warning us all about covetousness in Luke 12:15-21. As does the Apostle Paul in 1 Tim 6:5-10. (Also see Matt 16:26; 19:34; Ecclesiastes 5:10, 12; Prov. 13:8; 28:20; 28:22 etc. for similar exhortations or warnings).
Now Biblically it is true that idleness (Prov. 10:4; 19:15) or substance abuse (Prov. 13:4; 21:17) will lead too poverty. And so the Scriptures commend us all too virtues like righteousness (Prov. 15:6); diligence (Prov. 10:4; 13:4; 14:23); generosity (Prov. 11:25; 13:7; 19:17; 22:9; 28:27) honesty (Prov. 28:6) and self-control (Prov. 25:28). Because within every nation and within every jurisdiction there is greed and injustice. And thus there is always needless poverty through the waste and exploitation of resources; whether the lands natural resources, or the wasting or exploiting of people’s God given potential, when people are only set on their own gain (Prov. 13:23; 14:31). Therefore in contrast to that, the Scripture makes it clear throughout that the righteous considers the cause of the poor… And thus works to alleviate poverty, or bring the poor relief from it (Prov. 29:7). To bring about a more just society, that doesn’t just consider the welfare of its own affluent citizens, but the welfare of all (antithesis Prov. 30:14). For even a king (i.e. a nations ruler) is served from the field (Ecc. 5:9). And so he too will be judged and rewarded by God on how he treats and has treated the poor within his own jurisdiction, just as we all will (consider Prov. 22:22-23; 29:14; Luke 14:12-14). Therefore Jesus Christ as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords ultimately exemplifies God’s Perfect Will in this most righteous duty of men (Psalm 72). Now this He has done by first purchasing salvation for us all who believe in Him through His own death on the cross. For ultimately before God we are all poor in His sight until we come into a saving knowledge of God through faith In His Son Jesus Christ. For only then does God change us on the inside, by His Holy Spirit regeneration, by which He transforms our heart and minds and thus our inner motivations, desires and drives, to be and do more justly as He Himself is just. For only then do we see God lifting the poor out of their poverty and misery to be seated with His Son and Himself forever, where all poverty ends (1 Sam. 2:8).
Tom Corley says:
I agree with everything you’ve said and your knowledge of the scriptures is very impressive and beyond my skillset, but I did not see any reference to the Mathew 25:14-30 Parable of the Talents. This lesson is important because it addresses so many things that relate to business, industry and God’s view about on these things including taking economic risk in pursuit of profits.
Sandy says:
You’ve just made my day! I can now say I have seen everything: the bible, the words of Christ himself, used to justify capitalism. That’s a new one for me. Genuine laugh out loud. Even St. Francis’ Lady Poverty is having a giggle.
Mr. Corley, fair play to you, sir, you have answered everyone with respect and this has been an interesting discussion that has not descended into the un-Christ-like verbal abuse that one finds elsewhere on the net. Hats off to Shaun, too, for hosting this.
TOM CORLEY says:
That was such a cool response from you. Thanks.
Benjamin Johnson says:
Tom, you my friend are a saint. 😉 I tend to get too fired up in these kinds of discussions but your handling of it has been a class act. There seems to be this basic assumption that Jesus was some kind of socialist guru. Although not by any means perfect, of all the economic systems, capitalism aligns most closely the whole of Scripture. (e.g. Protection of private property, encouragement toward industry, excellence, and charity not by coercion but by the decision of the giver.) Jesus earned his living, and very likely financed the start of his ministry by his trade.
Never mind that capitalism has lifted more poor from poverty than all charitable endeavors combined. Most charitable endeavors would not even exist were it not for the profits of capitalist. My pastor even goes so far as to say that God is a capitalist… It is unlikely to me that any of the Saints of old giggle at the proposition.
Now there is an extreme caricature of capitalism that exemplified as greed on steroids that squeezes blood from a turnip and treads upon the poor. That is not to which I refer. To me, that IS greed and it will make itself known in capitalism, socialism, and communism because man is fallen.
Capitalism is simply an economic system where transactions take place by mutual consent and contract. Government plays a minimal roll by enforcing such contracts in case of a breach. We bless each other with the labor of our hands and by uncoerced giving and trading.
People don’t seem to have any problem understanding that cigarette smoking is casual in regard to lung cancer. Does everyone who smokes die of lung cancer? No, but smoking is still a cause of the disease. Similarly, not everyone who practices rich habits will achieve the same level of wealth, but they will improve by degree and put themselves at a much better probability of having resources to bless the work of God’s kingdom.
Scripture teaches against money lust, but a person that is godly and content, that is considered great gain. (1 Tim 6) That type of vessel can do much good for the kingdom of heaven. Some very big names in scripture were both prosperous and godly. (See: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Lydia, Daniel, Elisha, Jehoshaphat, Paul off the top of my head.) Their wealth never became an idol and was always at God’s disposal.
Tom, thank you disseminating information that will help those who have an ear to hear.
TOM CORLEY says:
Thanks Benjamin for your kind words
Bryce Boddie says:
This is an interesting topic. Thanks Shaun, and Tom for taking it up. I’m a social work researcher, so this is right up my alley. There are three things that might help understand causality.
The first question to ask is, does the cause precede the effect? For example as many noted earlier on the blog; were the rich rich because of the habits. Were the poor, poor because of their habits?
The second question that you have to ask is is there valid and reliable evidence to support the claim of causality. Tom I think this is such a passionate topic especially on Shaun’s blog because this site is a site full of servants. If in fact a list of habits could pull people out of poverty, then we want to harness that and use it for good. In order to assess validity and reliability we have to take into consideration, age, race, socio-economic background, employment, education, access to education, and many more intervening variables. As an example, if you could go back in your research and show that a certain percentage of those you interviewed grew up poor, with poor access to education, in a hispanic neighborhood, and had these habits, and then became rich. By certain percentage, I am referring to a significant number that represents reliability and validity, then you might have something.
The final criterion you have to have is that in order for this to hold true, there can be no other explanation for the relationship between the cause and effect. It is important to understand that leaving a question mark at this point in the research can inspire further research and possible innovative solutions to the problem.
One of the reasons I like this so much is that Tom is taking this on. Tom you are not a researcher. You saw a problem, and wanted to address it, and I commend you for that. Hopefully some of this information will help guide your findings, and challenge you to explore other variables in your research. Great research usually inspires us to ask more, and in turn do more.
TOM CORLEY says:
Thanks Bryce. I have to confess I never heard about correlation and causality. While I have a minor in economics, that was many, many years ago. I am studying up on these statistical and economic subjects. Many of the things you list (employment, education, rich, poor or middle-class background) I did track. I also tracked marital status, health, income, net liquid worth, use of time, mentors, habits learned from parents, habits taught to their children, self-improvement, relationship management, savings philosophy, spending and many others.All told, there are 207 things or activities I tracked and documented. My objective was to try to find out what the wealthy and the poor did from the moment they woke up to the moment they went to bed and then compare the activities of the two groups. I was trying to find out what the wealthy were doing every day that the poor weren’t. What I found was that the habits or activities of the two groups were very different. I created a training program focused on the habits of the wealthy vs. the habits of the poor and did some speaking engagements and seminars. I only decided to write a book after myself and two others made substantial money following just a handful of the strategies that make up the Rich Habits. For example, there were two strategies I call the Hello Call and Life Event Call that I used and which were directly responsible for making me an additional $60,000. An insurance agent followed the goal strategy to make well over $100,000. I was glad I wrote the book because it may have helped save a life. I gave a copy of my book to a friend of my wife’s who went through a difficult divorce, became quasi-homeless and was contemplating suicide. She began following some of the Rich Habits, particularly, the Rich Thinking Rich Habit and she turned her life around. Every time I see her she hugs and kisses me and says I saved her life. Incredibly, she and her ex-husband are back together and they are rebuilding their lives. She told me she would not have gotten through that period in her life if it were not for my book.
I have no idea if I followed proper economic protocols, rules or procedures, but I do know that this stuff works. I have tapped into something big here.
Bryce Boddie says:
Tom,
I’m not sure if you are “tapping into the next big thing” here. That’s why you need to take proper steps in your research. It is not economics, it is validity and reliability of information. Any information. Causality in my opinion would not be an insurance agent who struck it rich, or a divorcee who did the same. Those people do not necessarily face institutional racism, or a poor education. Your hypothesis is: If you use these habits, then you will be rich. In order to prove that hypothesis your research needs to show causality. Though you have collected data on this it is all qualitative. Through the data collected you believe that “Rich People” have these habits in common. You know you have “tapped into something big” when you can prove those habits are what made them rich, and only those habits. Research will rule out other intervening variables, and causes.
Poverty in the United States is not all related to sending birthday cards, setting goals, and working out. Unfortunately there are institutional systems that exist that hold people back.
That being said most of the people that will purchase, and read your book, or post on this blog, or access your website, are not “poor”. Poverty does not have access to information. Just some thoughts to consider when addressing poverty.
Benjamin Johnson says:
Bryce,
You are demanding some awfully stringent tests. Isn’t it possible that a particular habit is a contributing factor to wealth without being the sole cause? Demanding that it be the one and only cause isn’t helpful. What if your institutional reasons for poverty were held to the same standards? I doubt you would find any reason for poverty that is absolutely completely causal as you seem to demand of Rich Habits.
In the U.S. there is a lot of movement across income quintiles every 10 years. In other words, the poor are not institutionally poor. Habits seem more at the heart of where people end up — the government even fosters many of those behaviors. Access to information? I don’t think the access is as much to blame as the choice of what is consumed. My dad works for the department of social services in Greensboro, NC and tells me horror stories of people getting healthcare, food, and lodging at public expense. They don’t work, and they don’t try… And then the government provides child care and the they go use illegal drugs why the government looks after the kids. These people don’t need to have victimhood and hopelessness reinforced. They need to know that they can improve their situation.
Please don’t think I lump everyone in that group – but we live in the land of opportunity. I’ve ministered in Mexico and India. I helped my parents plant a church in the poorest neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY for 12 years while growing up. I have seen real poverty… We have it so good.
Even race is a dubious cause of institutional poverty. Check out Thomas Sowell’s writings and research. He has found that from the Civil War to Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” that The standard of living among blacks improved radically and dramatically. However, once the government entitlements were put in place, families collapsed, and education and upward mobility stagnated. Of course he points out that to the liberal it isn’t the results, but the appearance of doing something that counts.
Bryce Boddie says:
Benjamin,
I would agree with the statement that behavior dictates a persons economic situation. Institutional poverty does need to be held to the same standard. Welfare, food stamps, Veterans Affairs all contribute to that institutional poverty. People are trapped in that system. Generation after generation are encouraged by subsidies not to work. If a wounded warrior wants to get a job they could lose up to 50% of their medical benefits.
The reason you need such stringent tests are to present this as true, valid, reliable information, and not something that looks like an infomercial. Maybe that’s what it is intended to be and that’s alright. But if this truly is something that could change the face of poverty then shouldn’t we be the ones that let people in on the secret?
How great would it be if we had more families like yours, who dedicated their lives to living in those neighborhoods, and sketchy places of the world? Families like yours who invested in relationship with people. Who modeled behaviors, and learned some to.
Families who invested in relationship in those places giving direct access to good habits.
Lauri Flaquer says:
Not an economist or any type of mathematician of any sort, i have seen the Rich Habits playing out in my family.
The ONLY people in my family who smoke, drink soda, eat junk food daily, and are undereducated are poor. They consistently make decisions that keep them so. They are “smart” enough academically to be granted scholarships to college, only to decide not to attend.
We all started with nothing, growing up in a poor neighborhood. Poverty habits were rampant there. The other four have made changes that have allowed us to live happier, healthier lifestyles. We’ve adjusted our habits and it shows.
I met Tom late last year when I was looking for guests for my cable TV show. I was blown away by the Rich Habits. I immediately saw the relationship between wealth and habits. I believe that Tom Corley is onto something here and I support the work that he does. He is trying to help people make better choices and I have seen the results of these changes in others.
Further, I learned lots from reading everyone’s comments here. Great discussion filled with valuable insights. Thank you for sharing.
Shaun Groves says:
Stumbled upon this possibly relevant quote today…
“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” ― Herman Melville
Benjamin Johnson says:
I don’t know, it seems equally preposterous on the flip side… the non-rich who assume the rich are merely the winners of life’s lottery. They look past thousands of hours of training and practice, early mornings, late nights, risked principle, scrimping and saving, and the postponement of satisfaction for the CHANCE that tomorrow will be worth it.
Bryce Boddie says:
What if there was a book titled “Poor Habits”?
I know of someone’s habits I wouldn’t mind following, I probably wouldn’t wear her habit, but would follow.
For Mother Teresa, apparently her lifelong habit of quieting her ego through prayer has led to a vibrant life in the world and the rich development of her personality. Modern psychology has yet to discover what the religions have taught for millennia that loss of self leads to the discovery of soul. (Moore, 2010).
TOM CORLEY says:
I love Mother Teresa. Did you know at the time of her death she had amassed over $500 million dollars? My point is that even Mother Teresa understood that the more money you have the more good you can do. I feel the same way. I wrote Rich Habits not because I love the wealthy, but because I love the poor and I love my country. If more poor people can elevate themselves by following the Rich Habits then it benefits all of us in America.
Major Singleton says:
I wonder what would happen if all the people that criticized Tom’s work took just 30-60 days to implement the “Rich Habits” in their lives rather than trying to determine research strategy or correlation/causation.
I am by most definitions “middle class”. I’m a naval officer. I came across Tom’s book after it was promoted on the Dave Ramsey show.
I started making my 13 year old son read nonfiction books (from the library), writing down goals with my wife, eating less junk food, maintaining a to-do list, and running every morning. I have also made an effort to call my friends on their birthdays. Note that none of these activities costed me a dime so I could have done them if I was poor.
The result?Our family’s net worth has increased $7k in 60 days. Why? Because I got a bonus and because our goals were written down, we knew exactly what to do with the money. My son can have more educated conversations about real world problems to include money, poverty, and wealth. We are now more active and we are planning to run a half-marathon in a few months.
What’s my point? To me, causation, correlation and the scientific method for the collection of data is totally irrelevant. If you do these things, you may not end up rich but your life will move in a positive direction.
tomcorley3954 says:
Thank you Major Singleton for your comments. I am in awe of this group. This is an exceptional group of people.
Lauri Flaquer says:
Hello Major Singleton,
This is an amazing testament to Tom Corley and his book, Rich Habits. This is exactly what Tom is trying to communicate.
I’ve had similar results, and financial gain, with much less adaptation to the habits. One of my goals for 2014 is to incorporate more of them into my life.
Congratulations on your success. Keep up the good work with your son. He’s a wealthy individual in the making. Not only are you positioning him for a great future, you’re enhancing his now.
Keep up the good work!
Benjamin Johnson says:
Amen! I felt like the whole concept was greeted with panic as if it were dangerously destructive. To me, you get very similar advice reading the book of Proverbs.
Lauri Flaquer says:
Hi Ben,
I couldn’t agree more.
It seems that the basic concept that one’s habits dictate their outcome seems to have been taken as an assault on the poor. I’m not sure how one’s habits could NOT play a role in their success or failure, because it seems obvious to me, but to other’s this was perceived as an attack.
Great info from Tom Corley in Rich Habits. I keep reading and rereading it to more fully incorporate the habits into my life.
Happy New Year!
Shaun Groves says:
It’s the certainty and the causality that causes the “panic.”
Tom now admits he hasn’t proven causality. And that he’s not certain the way to go from poor to rich is to do these ten things…or 200 things. So no more panic.
Like proverbs, Tom’s writing needs context. Now that he’s provided it I understand – and I think others do as well – what it is he’s actually attempting to say. I just don’t think he’s said it all that well elsewhere on the internet or in his book.
tomcorley3954 says:
Shaun has been kind enough to allow me his forum to better explain the Rich Habits, my research and my findings. I have been reading the comments. I’ve responded to a few. This is clearly a very intelligent following Shaun has. I look forward to defending my research, explaining the Rich Habits and responding as best I can.
Benjamin Johnson says:
Proverbs 10:4 NAS
Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, But the hand of the diligent makes rich.
Does the verse suggest causality? Absolutely — and it carries a message of hope to all who aspire to diligence. From what I have learned from “What’s in the Bible with Buck Denver” that Proverb may not be a promise — but it is a principle from which everyone can benefit. Follow it’s instruction, and you will VERY LIKELY reap its reward.
David Stinnett says:
Why can’t people just appreciate sensible advice. If everybody needed research study results to try things, the whole world would be poor.
David Stinnett says:
Do we need a guarantee to take good advice?
tomcorley3954 says:
Seven Millionaires Uncover Their Secret Habits for Achieving a Lifetime of Wealth http://www.moneynews.com/Personal-Finance/Franklin-Prosperity-Report-NMX/2014/01/31/id/550237 via @Newsmax_Media
bjchawaii says:
I have read Tom Corley’s book. I’ve also read every book I can get my hands on that deals with self improvement and wealth.
I’ve followed his posts at several blogs and a lot of the attacks on him are shameful. He is kind and has the heart of a teacher.
To those who would nit pick his studies and try and discredit him because of some b.s. you learned in a college statistics course in order to score a point and a cheap thrill, shame on you. You are missing the point entirely.
In fact, I’ve not seen Tom and very few others make this link, which is this: a dollar lost has a zero percent chance of compounding. You know, that human intellectual discovery Einstein dubbed the most powerful force in the universe. That’s why the rich don’t eat fast food. They have internalized the concept of compounding returns, but may not be able to articulate it.
If you eat one fast food meal five days per week, and the incremental cost of that fast food is $4 above the cost of brown bagging it, after 10 years at a CAGR of 9.6% you have cost yourself $16,260.
Now throw in tobacco and eating dinner out at a restaurant twice a month, a car payment, and all of the other things that poor people do and it’s no wonder they can’t get ahead. This life is hard. It’s harder when you levy a tax on yourself.
If you are an open minded person, this should be extremely liberating for you. If, however, you are the kind of person who strives for pleasing methods (e.g. do whatever feels good) versus pleasing results (e.g. having a definite purpose and a goal), then you will continue hating on Tom and others trying to help you.