Dunno why his work is so offensive to me - guess i just feel that if you're running a business you suck it up and take the good with the bad. Had plenty of bad tenants, and they do detract from cheerful service to the 80-95% of good ones, but i guess my feeling is that in any group there will be some you are happier with and some you are less happy with. If you keep deleting the bottom 20% of your customer base where do you stop? Don't you just keep raising the bar for what constitutes a good customer and getting more and more put off by providing any modicum of service?
I think landlording is a perfect application of what he advocates. The best landlords take various precautions to try and ensure that the tenants they bring in will be low maintenance and high revenue.
So what's a landlord to do when they have somebody just sucking away at their bottom line? Some just bend over and take it, others start looking for ways to get the tenants out.
I think part of the reason why his book offends so many people is because he challenges the way we live life, the status quo, and many things we take for granted. A lot of people don't like having their belief system challenged, and I'm no exception.
As consumers, we've been taught "The customer is always right. Even when he's wrong, he's still right." So it seems wrong to cut out the 20% of our bottom... to just write them off.
But even in that, he's not saying to keep cutting 20% off all the time. He's really just saying, "Find out where your problems are, and fix them one way or another - even if it means losing customers."
The way I see it, he's just targeting his market in a different way to attract the kinds of people that *he* wants to deal with.
We may do business differently... perhaps the 20% at the bottom are the ones we want to reach if we're in a more socially oriented business such as counseling/therapy/etc.
Another issue people take with his book is that he speaks with a tone of authority, borderline arrogance, and with the energy that says, "I am right. I know my stuff." Generally speaking, people don't take well to that kind of attitude... particularly when it challenges their belief system.
I just filtered out the stuff that didn't resonate with me, picked up the things that do, and am running with it.
One thing he doesn't advocate is LBYM, which makes him the anti-FIRE.
"Mini-retirements" are great for the soul, but bad for the bottom line with individuals seeking FIRE fiercely.
One thing I really like about the book is the wealth of information he has about different websites. I will likely reference the book a lot, and when he talks about cheap travel.
I don't think he's a saint or anything, and in many ways I view him like I do Kiyosaki. There are certain really solid takeways from the book that I think are lost among people who focus on certain details that don't resonate with them.
I wouldn't advise people to read Kiyosaki for financial advice, but I would advise them to read Kiyosaki for finding inspiration to start making money work for them instead of them working for money. Were it not for Kiyosaki, then FIRE wouldn't likely have been a word I learned.
Similarly, I think Ferriss is great for a lot of practical "how-to" things on nourishing one's spirit and business resources, but I wouldn't recommend advise people to read him for building personal relationships (since his entire style can be summed up as "deal with as few people as possible so I can have as much time to myself as I want.")