You see, this is where a costly mistake was made, which I warned DEI proponents about many years ago. Their line-of-sight focus was on curtailing discriminatory practices (against minority or carve-out groups) rather than crafting emancipatory principles (that benefit every person, however one wishes to be identified). And when the topic of discrimination leads and emancipation lags with a movement, this is what happens when the political pendulum swings in the opposite direction. Whether you’re a black or brown American, a woman, or part of the LGBTQ+ community, you want to be treated fairly under the economic law. Right? Things got quite messy, actually diluted, when these groups were all thrown in the same opportunity bucket — by their own coordinated, advocacy representatives! Boxed in with no “fair” way out. Not a smart strategy. Well, when you aggregate divergent groups of people into a single-minded cause, you’re bound to alienate millions of Americans who fall outside that box. Suburban moms. Committed dads (aka involved fathers). Straight men. Traditional families. Conservative voters. As a black man who grew up on welfare in a single-parent home, my advocacy for DEI opportunities was always wrapped around FEI options. Diverse candidates with noteworthy credentials who are promoted to C-Suite positions can also leverage diversity within their portfolios — stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate holdings, private equity offerings, and other investments — and lucrative compensation packages. Equitable employment practices allow targeted minority groups to create equity as first-time homeowners, a key step to building generational wealth. Inclusive workplaces and inviting educational spaces allow marginalized communities to be part of a dynamic, inclusionary environment that prioritizes financial wellbeing. The FEI pull should have led the DEI push.

Why a downstream playbook for an upstream problem? Truth be told, social class habits, really ingrained economic mindsets, are hard to break. And once they are deposited in early childhood, they’re usually solidified in young adulthood. As a certified financial planner for 15 years, very little training is received in our profession to address a client’s root system issues from a social class perspective. Exceptions to the rule do exist, but the foundation for a person’s monetary template or socioeconomic grid is typically laid early in life through observational programming, environmental priming, and biochemical prompting. I discuss these three topics in great detail in my book, Sociopsychonomics: How Social Classes Think, Act, and Behave Financially in the Twenty-First Century. In short, how caregivers act or overreact in handling financial resources, children invariably pick up through osmosis … unless they’re shown a different way by an outside tour guide with inside knowledge. Three social class mindsets come into play: the scarcity class, the security class, and the seniority class. I’ll address each of these mindsets over the next three articles while making this case: financial education programs should be offered in elementary school when students’ brain waves are in alpha mode, a time of intuitive breathing, introspective storytelling, and inquisitive downloading. Between the ages of 9 and 12 — alpha mode’s sweet spot — children are exploring what they want (and are willing to pursue) out of life. Let that sink in for a moment.