4 ms·

> and those smart enough to have invested in them. Correction: Wealthy enough to be able to invest in them.

by TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago

undefined1 6y ago
or early enough $1,000 invested in AMZN is now worth over $1M. or $10 in Bitcoin would have done the trick.
- TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago
  Do you understand how poor some people are?
  - unishark 6y ago
    This is a different goalpost. The story is about the top 1 percent versus the bottom 90 percent.
    - wyre 6y ago
      The bottom 90% contains people that are too poor to invest in stocks.
    - TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cover-a-surprise-400-expense/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cov...
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I've known many people like that. They weren't poor, they just overspent their income. It's common to be middle class and have no money.
        unishark 6y ago
        I think the headline is misleading. Only 12 percent flatly said they couldn't pay for the expense. The 40 percent includes everyone who would take on debt and pay it off over time (i.e. not immediately in the next cc statement), or else sell something. People who choose to live right at their level of income would included, regardless how high that income is, and even when it is possible for them to make adjustments when surprises come along. The survey also found 75 percent of people responded they were living comfortably or "doing ok".
- mike00632 6y ago
  A lot of people did invest early in tech stocks... Pets.com, Webvan, Boo.com. And then there is crypto: "144 ICOs Launched During 2017 Failed Last Year" https://news.bitcoin.com/144-icos-2017-failed/ https://news.bitcoin.com/144-icos-2017-failed/ Do I really need to illustrate how dumb it is, the idea that the stock market and cryptocurrency are the cure to poverty?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    It's far more likely to work than investing in lottery tickets. Besides, you can just invest in the S&P500 via SPY.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kamaal 6y ago
  The thing is there are were a lot of dot coms back then and no one really knew which one would have been the next Amazon. The entire push behind diversifying one's income is to ensure that people who don't have lots of $1000's to spare don't lose $1000s investing it behind few stocks. If you know the future. Tells us a few stocks where investing $1000 today would give you a million in 2 decades.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    If you invest $1000 per year at 7%, you'll have $45,000 after 20 years. After 40 years (age 25 to 65), $215,000. https://www.calculator.net/investment-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/investment-calculator.html For $5,000 per year, you'll have $1,073,000 after 40 years. 7% is the average stock market return, adjusted for inflation. If you invest $0.00, you'll have $0.00 after 40 years.
  - wyre 6y ago
    I feel as if this opportunity is past us. Any company with the potential for that amount of growth is going to get bought out by multi-billion $ corps to further increase their already out of reach stock prices.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > out of reach stock prices Robinhood enables buying fractional shares.
WalterBright 6y ago
Robinhood has conclusively shown in the last month that ordinary Americans, even poor ones, have access to investing in stocks. This includes access to margin and sophisticated options trading.
- TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago
  Access does not mean they have $10k to invest.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    If you can buy video games, beer, pot, lottery tickets, you can invest in stocks. On the TV news a couple weeks ago was a 6 year old kid whose mom gave him $60 worth of Gamestock stock. He cashed it in for $3,000. Besides, the article wasn't about some people. It was about the majority of people.
- matmatmatmat 6y ago
  ... access that they used to YOLO some savings on some GME trade, which pretty quickly went to nearly worthless. I'm not arguing that access in itself is bad. I'm arguing that new money speculating in the equities market often doesn't go well.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    I didn't say they should invest in GME. I said it was proved they could invest in stocks. > new money speculating in the equities market often doesn't go well. It goes better than lottery tickets, which target the poor and the mathematically challenged. Stocks at least have an upward bias, while lottery tickets have a strong downward bias. BTW, wealthy people lose money in the stock market, too. Stocks do not come with guarantees for anybody.

> and those smart enough to have invested in them. Correction: Wealthy enough to be able to invest in them.

undefined1 6y ago

or early enough $1,000 invested in AMZN is now worth over $1M. or $10 in Bitcoin would have done the trick.

TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago
Do you understand how poor some people are?
- unishark 6y ago
  This is a different goalpost. The story is about the top 1 percent versus the bottom 90 percent.
  - wyre 6y ago
    The bottom 90% contains people that are too poor to invest in stocks.
  - TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cover-a-surprise-400-expense/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cov...
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I've known many people like that. They weren't poor, they just overspent their income. It's common to be middle class and have no money.
      - unishark 6y ago
        I think the headline is misleading. Only 12 percent flatly said they couldn't pay for the expense. The 40 percent includes everyone who would take on debt and pay it off over time (i.e. not immediately in the next cc statement), or else sell something. People who choose to live right at their level of income would included, regardless how high that income is, and even when it is possible for them to make adjustments when surprises come along. The survey also found 75 percent of people responded they were living comfortably or "doing ok".
mike00632 6y ago
A lot of people did invest early in tech stocks... Pets.com, Webvan, Boo.com. And then there is crypto: "144 ICOs Launched During 2017 Failed Last Year" https://news.bitcoin.com/144-icos-2017-failed/ https://news.bitcoin.com/144-icos-2017-failed/ Do I really need to illustrate how dumb it is, the idea that the stock market and cryptocurrency are the cure to poverty?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  It's far more likely to work than investing in lottery tickets. Besides, you can just invest in the S&P500 via SPY.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kamaal 6y ago
The thing is there are were a lot of dot coms back then and no one really knew which one would have been the next Amazon. The entire push behind diversifying one's income is to ensure that people who don't have lots of $1000's to spare don't lose $1000s investing it behind few stocks. If you know the future. Tells us a few stocks where investing $1000 today would give you a million in 2 decades.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  If you invest $1000 per year at 7%, you'll have $45,000 after 20 years. After 40 years (age 25 to 65), $215,000. https://www.calculator.net/investment-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/investment-calculator.html For $5,000 per year, you'll have $1,073,000 after 40 years. 7% is the average stock market return, adjusted for inflation. If you invest $0.00, you'll have $0.00 after 40 years.
- wyre 6y ago
  I feel as if this opportunity is past us. Any company with the potential for that amount of growth is going to get bought out by multi-billion $ corps to further increase their already out of reach stock prices.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > out of reach stock prices Robinhood enables buying fractional shares.

WalterBright 6y ago

Robinhood has conclusively shown in the last month that ordinary Americans, even poor ones, have access to investing in stocks. This includes access to margin and sophisticated options trading.

TrinaryWorksToo 6y ago
Access does not mean they have $10k to invest.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  If you can buy video games, beer, pot, lottery tickets, you can invest in stocks. On the TV news a couple weeks ago was a 6 year old kid whose mom gave him $60 worth of Gamestock stock. He cashed it in for $3,000. Besides, the article wasn't about some people. It was about the majority of people.
matmatmatmat 6y ago
... access that they used to YOLO some savings on some GME trade, which pretty quickly went to nearly worthless. I'm not arguing that access in itself is bad. I'm arguing that new money speculating in the equities market often doesn't go well.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I didn't say they should invest in GME. I said it was proved they could invest in stocks. > new money speculating in the equities market often doesn't go well. It goes better than lottery tickets, which target the poor and the mathematically challenged. Stocks at least have an upward bias, while lottery tickets have a strong downward bias. BTW, wealthy people lose money in the stock market, too. Stocks do not come with guarantees for anybody.