Millionaire Next Door
I’m falling a bit behind in my “book reviews”. Since I get two Audible books per month, I actually have “read” a couple of books since this one back in late November of last year… but I made some notes on it at the time so this is a pretty fair commentary.
I actually quite liked this book. Right up until the last chapter.
In fact, I had been using it as a bit of a reference in conversations around town. I found the statistical analysis – slicing-and-dicing the numbers from every angle to show characteristics of “millionaires” – pretty interesting. That said, it did get a little repetitive after a while. Ok, we get it, folks who “waste” money will statistically not end up rich. Folks who “start businesses” and “live frugal lives” are statistically more likely to end up rich. Hehe.
Even with the sense of repetition, the book was pretty interesting and agreeable right up until the last chapter.
Then, all of a sudden and without warning, they pulled a “Joy at work” on me (see my earlier review). Well, maybe not quite as bad. In that book, they did a 180 and became preachy and irritating. In this book, it was not nearly as bad, just a terrible last example that ended the book on a bad note.
The last part of The Millionaire Next Door was a story about a “rich” type who was so successful at real estate investing that he bought condos all over the place as investments. He used one or more as vacation homes for his family, and brought along his family dog. In several cases, over time, the condo association of these various buildings refined their dog-rules in such a way that his dog (a big dog, evidently) was no longer permitted.
Now, the book plays this as a bad thing. And if I were a huge dog person with no other perspective on life, I might tend to agree. I might even take it personally, which is evidently how the author wants it to be portrayed — this successful person is being persecuted.
Ok. Except there was no evidence presented that there was any malice in the policy change. in fact, there was no evidence presented at all. Just the statement that the policy was updated.
But it gets worse. Eventually this successful, dog-loving real-estate investor comes up with a plan. He buys a majority of units in a condo development during its construction and participates directly in the writing of the condo covenants and restrictions (CC&R). He ensures that *HIS DOG* is allowed explicitly by the rules. This is a bit silly, perhaps, but perfectly legitimate in my mind, because as a majority stakeholder he can pretty much write the rules.
Over time, he sells off his investment units, with the rules still in place allowing his dog.
Eventually, the association board changes the rules, excluding his dog. And he’s angry. The end.
Let’s analyze this for a second. If he sold off his majority stake, he can no longer “call the shots”. Every association has a process to update its CC&R; we did this in our homeowner’s association in Charlotte to more clearly define maintenance requirements. It was a huge amount of work, and it required some large % of the owners to sign (with notary) the amendment, as well as the county filing. But it certainly can be done. In general, either local law or the CC&R itself will spell out the process requirement to make this sort of change.
So, we’ve established it can be done. And in general, it can only be done by overwhelming owner approval. Not on a whim or at the discretion of a single owner.
So what was this guy’s problem? I suspect he was just a monstrous pain. He and his dogs were probably a terror in this building. There may have been behavior problems (perhaps from both he and his dog) that led to the overwhelming support required to make a legal change to the CC&R document. Maybe the dog attacked someone. Maybe it was barking all the time. Who knows, the book presents absolutely no details on this. Which is strange, because the rest of the book is all, seemingly, evidence based.
I found the ending of the book inappropriate and stupid. It ended the book for me on a note of incredulity. I found myself questioning assumptions made earlier in the book, based on sloppy, unnecessary commentary and opinion implied by this last chapter.
And for what? Unless I was so blinded by my bias on this last chapter (as a long-serving homeowner association board member who has had to deal with just these sort of problems on occasion), there was no actual “millionaire” point to the last chapter. The only lesson to be learned from the last chapter is: “the only way you can control your surroundings is to own all of them”, or perhaps “even being a millionaire doesn’t mean you’re not perceived as an ornery pain to those around you”.
Oh well, that’s my take on Millionaire Next Door. I’d love to hear other perspectives on the book, and in particular if there are other interpretations on the last part!
