By Paula Pant
You’re excelling at work, hitting deadlines, and putting in long hours — yet your boss overlooks your contributions. You feel stuck, unseen, and unsure how to move forward.
That’s the exact problem executive coach Melody Wilding helps people solve. In her work with thousands of professionals, she’s discovered […]
By Paula Pant
Jason’s analysis of his retirement plan shows that the simple path beats the efficient frontier. Is he right or is he missing something?
Minerva is worried about the impacts of tax inefficiency to her wealth. Are her investments properly located?
Scott feels frozen because he doesn’t understand the nuances of the efficient frontier. Where can he get a simplified explainer so he can start taking action?
Former financial planner Joe Saul-Sehy and I tackle these three questions in today’s episode.
Enjoy!
By Paula Pant
The Bureau of Labor Statistics issues massive job revisions on Friday morning. The revisions wipe out nearly 90% of previously reported gains for May and June. This raises fundamental questions about how our most trusted economic data gets calculated.
In this episode, we break down how the system works. We examine why the revisions are so large. We explore what this means for understanding the real economy.
Friday arrives. The BLS delivers what appears routine: 73,000 new positions added in July. But the revisions tell a different story. May’s initially reported 144,000 job gains become 19,000. June’s seemingly solid 147,000 drops to just 14,000. These represent 87-90% overestimates. They fundamentally alter the economic picture for those months.
The BLS surveys 560,000 businesses each month. They use payroll data from the 12th of the month. But only 60-73% of those businesses respond by the initial release deadline. The remaining portion gets filled through statistical modeling. The models rely on historical patterns.
This approach typically produces revisions in the 20,000-50,000 range. But throughout 2025, average monthly revisions reach 66,000. That’s triple the normal size. The statistical models aren’t capturing current economic conditions effectively.
The problem becomes clear when economic conditions shift rapidly. Historical patterns become unreliable guides. The 2024 annual revision was the largest since 2009. What happened in 2009? The Great Recession. Another period when traditional forecasting tools struggled with rapid change.
ADP is a private payroll processor. They serve 460,000 companies. They provide useful comparison data. For May, their 37,000 private-sector job estimate aligns reasonably well with BLS’s revised 19,000 total. For June, ADP reports a 33,000 job loss. BLS shows a 14,000 gain.
ADP’s independent data helps validate the revised numbers while highlighting the magnitude of the initial errors.
These numbers drive real decisions. Federal Reserve officials use employment data for interest rate policy. Investors allocate capital based on these reports. Workers make career decisions based on perceived labor market strength.
When the initial data misses by 90%, everyone operates with fundamentally flawed information.
The revisions expose how fragile our economic measurement systems become when conditions change faster than models can adapt.
By Paula Pant
Interesting observations about the current housing market, meme stocks (again), GDP, Fed Meeting, Stock Market, and the latest Jobs Report updates.
Timestamps:
Note: Timestamps will vary on individual listening devices based on dynamic advertising run times. The provided timestamps are approximate and may be several minutes off due to changing ad lengths.
00:00 Introduction to Economic Turmoil
01:21 Jobs Report According to the BLS
09:23 Impact of Tariff Negotiations
12:36 The Broader Trade Landscape
16:04 Stock Market Reactions
24:11 GDP and Inflation Insights
31:52 The Fed’s Steady Hand (Interest Rates)
39:55 Housing Market Dynamics
39:40 Affordability Crisis in Real Estate
50:23 The Return of Meme Stocks
By Paula Pant
Here’s the thing about personal finance advice: what works when you have $10,000 won’t work when you have $1 million.
Yet most financial guidance treats everyone the same, whether you’re scraping together a $1,000 emergency fund or deciding whether to upgrade to business class.
Nick Maggiulli, author of “The Wealth Ladder,” joins us to break down how money strategies must evolve as your net worth grows. He’s mapped out 6 distinct wealth levels, each requiring different approaches to spending, saving and investing.
The levels start simple.
Level 1 covers anyone with less than $10,000 in net worth — that’s 20 percent of American households. Here, bad luck gets amplified. A flat tire that costs $200 could spiral into job loss and debt if you can’t afford the repair.
Level 2 spans $10,000 to $100,000 in net worth. Maggiulli calls this “grocery freedom” — you can splurge on the nicer eggs without checking your bank balance.
Level 3, from $100,000 to $1 million, brings “restaurant freedom.”
Level 4, the $1 million to $10 million range, unlocks “travel freedom.”
Getting beyond Level 4 — into the $10 million-plus territory — requires business ownership or extreme patience. Maggiulli calculates that even saving $100,000 annually after hitting $1 million takes 23 years to reach $10 million, assuming 5 percent annual returns.
The data shows income matters more than frugality, especially in the early levels. The median household income in Level 1 is $32,000, but in Level 4 it’s $197,000, and in Level 6 it reaches $4.3 million.
We discuss why homeownership dominates wealth in Levels 2 and 3, how investment assets become crucial in higher levels, and why many people in Level 4 choose “Coast FIRE” over the grinding path to Level 5.
By Paula Pant
You follow all the right personal finance advice. You know you should save more, invest regularly, and build an emergency fund.
So why does it feel so much harder for some people than others?
The answer lies in your personality.
Dr. Sandra Matz, a professor at Columbia Business School, studies the intersection of psychology and money management. She joins us to explain why one-size-fits-all financial advice often fails.
Her research found that agreeable people — those who are caring, empathetic, and put others first — have a harder time saving money.
The solution isn’t better budgeting apps or stricter rules. It’s reframing financial goals to match your personality type.
For example, agreeable people save more effectively when they view their emergency fund as protection for loved ones or a way to help others during tough times.
By contrast, competitive personalities respond better to framing savings as getting ahead in life.
This personalized approach extends beyond personality assessments. Algorithms can now predict your financial behavior using digital footprints — social media activity, spending patterns, even smartphone usage. With just 300 Facebook likes, artificial intelligence understands your money habits better than your spouse does.
The conversation also covers the darker implications. Companies exploit these same psychological insights to manipulate spending decisions. Dr. Matz discusses data cooperatives as a solution — member-owned entities where people collectively benefit from their shared information.
We dive into negotiation strategies for salary increases, breaking out of financial echo chambers, and using AI to optimize your money management without losing your decision-making autonomy.
By Paula Pant
Jlyn and her husband are 20 years from retirement, but they’ve got their eye on a second home they’ll live in when the time comes. Should they make the purchase now, or keep saving?
Reese was recently laid off, and she’s struggling to choose between two financially responsible paths. Should she continue her long-term disability insurance? Or is it wiser to save money?
Kip’s youngest has finally graduated from college, and he’s looking forward to an early retirement. But, with the eyewatering costs of long-term healthcare, is this still a viable path?
Former financial planner Joe Saul-Sehy and I tackle these three questions in today’s episode.
By Paula Pant
A software programmer and an accountant walk into retirement planning. Are they being creative? Dr. Zorana Ivcevic Pringle, a senior research scientist at Yale University’s Center for Emotional Intelligence, says absolutely.
Pringle defines creativity as something that’s both original and effective, whether you’re solving an accounting problem or planning an unconventional retirement.
We explore the gap between having ideas and actually implementing them. You have this brilliant vision for starting a business, changing careers, or retiring early, but somehow you never take the first step. Pringle calls this the implementation gap, and she explains why it happens.
The conversation centers on a hypothetical couple: both 55 years old, one a programmer, the other in middle management. They want to retire at 57 and travel the world. Pringle uses this example to illustrate how creative problem-solving works in real life.
She explains that creativity requires comfort with uncertainty. When you’re doing something new, you don’t have a blueprint or checklist. There’s always the risk that your early retirement plan could fail spectacularly — imagine having to return to work at 59 after the market tanks and your portfolio gets crushed.
Here’s the key insight: you don’t need full confidence to start. Pringle compares creative confidence to fuel in a car. You don’t need a full tank — you can start with just a quarter tank and refuel along the way. Each small success builds more confidence for the next step.
The bottom line? Innovation happens through constant iteration. Your final destination might change throughout your career and retirement, and that’s completely normal.
By Paula Pant
What do you do when you’ve reached financial independence? JL Collins says it depends entirely on your spending rate, not just your net worth.
Collins joins us for part two of our conversation about what happens after you reach financial independence. He tackles the question of whether you should invest differently once you’ve “won the game.”
Someone with $5 million spending $100,000 per year sits in a completely different position than someone with the same amount spending $200,000 per year. The first person can afford to stay aggressive with stocks. The second person needs bonds to smooth the ride.
Collins walks through his withdrawal strategy using his daughter as an example. She stepped away from corporate life in her early thirties and now follows an 80-20 stock/bond allocation.
She pulls dividends from both funds into her checking account, covering about 2.5 percent of her target 4 percent withdrawal rate. Vanguard automatically sells shares to cover the remaining 1.5 percent.
We cover Collins’ thoughts on the 4 percent rule, which he calls extraordinarily conservative. He references Bill Bengen’s research showing that 5 percent withdrawals succeed 86 percent of the time.
Collins would take those odds to escape a soul-crushing job, especially since most financially independent people end up accidentally making money anyway.
We discuss the tension between frugal habits that build wealth – and learning to spend money once you have it. Collins flies first class, but he drives a basic car.
Collins explains why financially independent people often stay engaged with work — the problem was never work itself, but working without agency.
By Paula Pant
JL Collins doesn’t know what the efficient frontier is. The author of “The Simple Path to Wealth” — the guy synonymous with VTSAX and chill — admits this right off the bat when we challenge him with advanced investing concepts.
Collins joins us for Part 1 of a two-part series where we skip the basics and dive straight into the complex stuff. We grill him on whether his simple approach actually beats more sophisticated strategies, and his answer might surprise you.
He concedes that Paul Merriman’s four-fund portfolio probably outperforms his one-fund approach mathematically. But Collins argues that execution trumps optimization every time. Most people can’t stick with complex strategies for 20 years, especially when those strategies require selling winners to buy losers – something that goes against human nature.
Collins prioritizes what works in real life over what looks good on paper. He calls index funds “self-cleansing” because they automatically rotate out failing companies and sectors while rotating in the new winners. You don’t need to predict which companies will dominate next – you’ll own whatever rises to the top.
The episode covers his thoughts on VTSAX versus VTI, international diversification, and why he’d rather put Tabasco than Cholula on his eggs — his quirky way of explaining personal preferences in nearly identical investment options.
