3.5 stars probably. Picked it up because, growing up, my parents would never talk to me about money. I agree with his points but it's not the most compelling read. The ideas are creative but backed up by less stats than I'd like... although I definitely found good logic behind most of them. I found many people and values to admire. Worth a read. ( )

Yes! Finally someone who puts onto words the reasons I am very uncomfortable with voluntourism. Besides this, there were many eye opening sections. My children are young and I appreciated the many ways to have conversations about money with them. The author uses examples of many different kinds of families and I think while many situations might seem extreme or foreign to the average reader, there will probably be at least one story that hits home.

While the book seems aimed at the upper class, most people living in America with electricity, clean water, and free public education need to remember that they are rich compared to a majority of the world's population. So many parents could use the advice to have conversations about needs versus wants, and about answering questions about the costs of things and each family's priorities in spending, saving and giving.

I do think the book could have been even better with some more grounding in psychology and sociology research. Some studies are referred to but a few times the author makes broad sweeping statements about the nature of children without anything to back it up and made my footnote-loving self cringe. But overall, the book is not a scholarly examination of human nature and economics but that's ok. It is a big bag of compelling stories, intriguing questions, and tricks to try. ( )

This practical guidebook written by Lieber, a personal finance columnist and father, is a blueprint for the best ways to handle the important lessons of money matters with your children. From the basics of the tooth fairy, allowances, chores, charity, saving, birthdays, holidays, cellphones, checking accounts, clothing cars, part-time jobs, to college tuition, he shares how to help parents raise kids who are more generous and less materialistic. This is a book that will start many important conversations, no matter what age the child.

I found this an intensely problematic book. In fact, by the end, I was reading it out loud to my husband in the car. I picked up the book at the library after hearing the author on a regional NPR broadcast--and he seemed like a very grounded man. However, it wasn't long before I realized the book was written for the 1%. The author claims to presume the reader has a $75,000 annual income--but based on what I read in this book, that would be the minimum both parents would have to be making in order for any of this to be relatable. We read celebrations of a homeowner who sold his $2 million dollar home for a $1 million dollar home, donating the difference to charity only after he was sure he could "cover his kids' college expenses." This is a level of wealth that is decidedly not middle-class, nor even upper middle-class. If it were only that, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but we've got other advice that truly can only refer to a very narrow band of parents making far more money than they need, and who are facing the first-world problem of entitled children. I'm actually glad there's somebody out there gently helping wealthy parents understand that giving their children everything is actually harmful. However, the admonishments, such as they are, are as gentle as a falling flower petal. The most successful anecdote, about a Mexican immigrant who nannied for a family with a child in an expensive private school, is actually not about the successful immigrant as much as it is about the way other wealthy kids could not relate to the immigrant's daughter who was able to attend that same private school on scholarship.

I think the fault is mine, honestly. I didn't realize there was coded language in the title and subtitle. As a middle-class reader, perhaps even on the upper-middle class end of things, I thought I was going to read a book about helping my kids be "smart about money" as the title implies. But I missed the coded words: "Spoiled" and "Grounded" and even "Generous." The suggestion is, of course, that children with unimaginable opportunities and toys and vacations and so on, might actually need help being grounded and generous. For my own misapprehension of the author's approach, I take responsibility. But I do think that when the vast majority of your anecdotes--and there were a load of them--are about investment bankers, real estate heirs, lawyers, sociologists, and doctors--you're not speaking to the 99%. That was why I kept reading the book aloud to my husband: there was nary a public school teacher, a social worker, a service worker, a day care attendant, a business analyst among the people written about. However, considering the author himself is a successful New York Times columnist and author and his wife, Jodi Kantor, received a seven-figure advance for her book on the Obamas while also being a New York Times reporter, Lieber is really only writing about his peers. For that purpose, I'm grateful he's helping his one-percenters "be more decent." ( )

The central piece of advice from Ron Lieber's The Opposite of Spoiled is one I intend to try out on my own kids: Introduce an allowance early on, in incremental amounts, and then maintain it independent of routine chores. In other words, I'm not planning to use it to bribe them to do everyday household tasks. Some won't agree and that's fine. I think there's wiggle room here in order to best teach kids about money while they have limited means to earn their own. The part about allowing kids to spend their own fun money on (almost) whatever they want is one of the best ideas in the book. I'm eager to see how that principle works in reality.

The rest of the book is take-it-or-leave-it. You will notice throughout that, whether the author sees it this way or not, his target audience is the upper middle class family. Mr. Lieber is at least aware of this charge because he shares an exchange he had with a woman from a lower income family who described his plan as "a conceit of the rich." I see her point, but there's still plenty of useful information to borrow. ( )