Add DMNews to your Google News feed.

Tension: We treat saving money as a complex optimization puzzle when our greatest obstacle is the constant negotiation with ourselves.
Noise: Financial advice industry profits from complexity, drowning simple wealth-building principles in apps, strategies, and endless content.
Direct Message: The most powerful financial rule requires zero skill: decide what you’ll save first, then live on what remains.

To learn more about our editorial approach, explore The Direct Message methodology.

I opened my banking app on January 3rd last year and set up an automatic transfer I was convinced would fail within weeks. $2,833 would move from checking to savings on the first of every month. No negotiation. No flexibility. No checking my balance first to see if I could “afford it.”

The amount felt absurd. I’d just finished analyzing consumer behavior data for a client’s subscription service, studying exactly how people made spending decisions. I knew the psychology of loss aversion. I understood decision fatigue. I’d built entire growth strategies around the principle that people need options, flexibility, and control.

Yet here I was, about to lock myself into a rigid commitment that eliminated all three.

Twelve months later, I had $34,000 in savings. The transfer had never failed. I’d never missed the money. And I’d never once felt like I was sacrificing anything meaningful.

The rule I followed comes from Warren Buffett, though he’d probably laugh at calling it a rule. During a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, he put it simply: “Do not save what is left after spending, but spend what is left after saving.”

Eleven words. No app required.

When saving becomes a daily negotiation

Every financial decision carries an invisible weight. Should I transfer money to savings this week? Can I afford to put away $500 this month? What if something comes up?

During my time working with tech companies on user behavior, I watched countless experiments on decision-making. One pattern emerged consistently: the more decisions you ask people to make, the worse their outcomes become. Decision fatigue is real, measurable, and expensive.

Yet we’ve built an entire approach to personal finance around constant decision-making. We’re supposed to track every expense, categorize every purchase, evaluate every potential saving opportunity, and then decide, every single week or month, how much we can “afford” to save.

The psychology is backwards. When saving is the last decision you make after spending, you’re negotiating with the part of your brain that has already justified every other expense. You’re asking someone who just spent money on rent, groceries, subscriptions, occasional dinners out, and a new pair of running shoes to now look at what’s left and voluntarily move some of it out of reach.

That version of yourself is tired. That version has already made dozens of financial decisions. That version can generate an unlimited number of reasons why this month is different, why you should wait until next month, why you deserve to keep that money accessible.

Research from behavioral economists at Harvard and MIT shows that people with self-control problems allocate more money to commitment accounts that restrict early withdrawals. When given a choice between liquid and illiquid savings accounts, participants put more money into the account with stronger commitment features.

The tension runs deeper than psychology. We’re caught between two incompatible beliefs: we believe we should save money, and we believe we should only save what we can “afford.” The problem is that “afford” is infinitely flexible. You can afford anything if you want it badly enough. You can afford nothing if you frame every dollar as essential.

The complexity industrial complex

Open any personal finance website and you’ll find yourself drowning in strategies. The 50/30/20 rule. Zero-based budgeting. The envelope method. Micro-investing apps that round up purchases. Savings challenges that gamify putting money away. High-yield savings accounts with promotional rates that change quarterly.

I’ve built marketing campaigns for financial services companies. I understand why this complexity exists. An industry that told people “just save first, spend second” would have nothing left to sell. There’s no subscription model for simplicity. No affiliate commission for discipline. No data to harvest from people who’ve removed themselves from the decision-making cycle.

The advice gets more elaborate every year. Now we’re supposed to optimize our savings across multiple accounts, each with different purposes. Emergency fund here, vacation fund there, house down payment over here, retirement in these three different account types. We’re told to automate everything while simultaneously tracking everything, to be hands-off and hyper-aware at the same time.

The noise serves a purpose. It makes saving feel like something that requires expertise, tools, and ongoing management. It transforms a simple behavioral principle into a complex system that needs tending.

But research on scarcity and decision-making from behavioral scientists Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir shows that “scarcity creates a distinct psychology for everyone struggling to manage with less than they need.” When facing financial pressure, people’s ability to make complex decisions becomes compromised. Complexity is a luxury. Simplicity is what actually works under stress.

The financial advice industry has convinced us that the path to wealth requires constant optimization, that we need to be always adjusting, always refining, always engaging with our money. This generates endless content, endless products, endless reasons to check back tomorrow for the new strategy.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest people I’ve observed in my marketing work rarely engage with this complexity. They decided once what they would save, automated it, and moved on with their lives.

What actually compounds

The insight that changed everything for me came from reframing what I was actually doing. I wasn’t creating a budget. I wasn’t managing my money. I wasn’t optimizing anything.

I was removing future decisions.

The power of “pay yourself first” isn’t financial, it’s psychological. You’re not outsmarting the market or finding hidden returns. You’re eliminating the daily referendum on your own priorities.

When $2,833 automatically left my account every month, I experienced something unexpected. My spending didn’t feel restricted. It felt simpler. I never looked at my checking account balance and wondered how much I could save. The decision was already made. The money was already gone.

This created a second-order effect I hadn’t anticipated. Because I was living on what remained after saving, I became more intentional about actual spending decisions. Not because I was tracking or budgeting, but because the money that existed in my checking account was truly available. There was no mental accounting, no “this is for savings” balance sitting there tempting me with possibility.

Research on commitment devices shows that people are willing to pay for systems that lock them into specific financial behaviors. “Despite extensive evidence that preferences are often time-inconsistent,” the study notes, people seek out mechanisms that help them commit to saving. Buffett’s rule is a commitment device that costs nothing and requires no financial literacy.

The mathematics are almost trivial. If you save 30% of your income, you’ll accumulate meaningful wealth. If you save 5%, you probably won’t. The difference has little to do with investment strategies or market timing. It’s almost entirely about the behavioral system you create.

What compounds over time isn’t primarily the money. It’s the identity shift that happens when you remove negotiation from the equation. You become someone who saves first, not someone who tries to save. The difference might sound semantic. In practice, it’s everything.

Making the principle practical

The implementation is deliberately simple. Calculate a savings amount that feels uncomfortable but not impossible. For me, that was 30% of my income. For you, it might be 15% or 40%. The specific number matters far less than the commitment to remove it first.

Set up an automatic transfer for that amount, scheduled for the day after you receive income. Not the end of the month. Not when you “get around to it.” Immediately after money arrives.

Then, and this is the part that feels counterintuitive, forget about it. Don’t check your savings balance weekly. Don’t celebrate small milestones. Don’t engage with it at all. The money is gone. You live on what remains.

What I discovered over twelve months was that my lifestyle adjusted without effort. I didn’t feel deprived because I never perceived the saved money as available for spending. My brain categorized it the same way it categorized taxes, money that was never mine to begin with.

The resistance you feel right now, the voice saying “but what about emergencies” or “what if I need that money” or “I can’t afford to save that much”, that’s the exact voice this system is designed to bypass. You’re not arguing with a rule. You’re arguing with your own future security.

Buffett’s principle works because it exploits a simple truth about human behavior: we adapt to our circumstances faster than we expect. Cut your available spending by 25%, and within two months it feels normal. Tell yourself you’ll save 25% after spending, and you’ll find reasons why every month is exceptional.

The rule is boring. Deliberately so. Boring means sustainable. Boring means you can set it once and ignore it for years. Boring means it still works when you’re tired, stressed, or dealing with the hundred other decisions life requires.

I saved $34,000 last year using a principle that requires no skill, no optimization, and no ongoing decisions. The money appeared in my account because I removed my own ability to negotiate with myself.

That’s the rule. It remains boring. It remains effective. And it requires nothing except the willingness to decide once instead of deciding constantly.