Austintatious wrote: As I mentioned, I've not read her book. I think I can say, correctly, that the word "latte" was never mentioned in the 55 minute C-Span interview I watched earlier this evening, though I cannot swear to it. If Ms. Olean actually suggests that saving money by cutting back on one's lattes, and going out for lunch five days a week, instead of brown-bagging-it, or splurging on a Beamer instead of settling for a Corolla doesn't make a difference, then she would be wrong. But I haven't read her book, yet. Have you? And how about all the others posting here who have rejected her work so readily? Have they all read her book?
There is this thing called "context", and it just mioght apply to this woman and her work. Why don't you "invest" in the 55 minutes it takes to view the C-Span interview and see what you think? And if you already have viewed that interview, what do you think, Victoria?
Lattes may not have been mentioned in her C-span interview, but here is a quote from her opinion piece that is linked from an earlier post in this thread (Vhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/cant-save-heres-why.html?ref=contributors):
"THE odds are good that you haven’t yet given up on your New Year’s resolutions and that one of them is to swear off those expensive cappuccinos and save money for your old age. That’s a typical suggestion from finance gurus, who say we can add thousands of dollars annually to our nest eggs by eliminating such wasteful spending. But deciding to take your lunch to work or to cancel your cable television won’t help nearly as much as you’d think."
I think most of the earlier posts that you are skewering about jumping to conclusions, relate to her opinion piece rather than the book.