6 ms·

> You are not owed anything. He is owed whatever the price someone is willing to pay for his shares which for now seems to be around $300k. He is not owed anyt

> You are not owed anything. He is owed whatever the price someone is willing to pay for his shares which for now seems to be around $300k. He is not owed anything else though. > Putting money in a company is not work. He did work for that money, and he did take a risk investing it in these shares, a risk many were not willing to take. This is what he is being rewarded for now. Doesn't make him a hero or whatever of course.

ohgodplsno 6y ago
>a risk many were not willing to take. A risk many _cannot_ take. For a company as large as NVidia, the risk of it collapsing is basically nil. The risk of itsInvesting at random in the stock market gives you a pretty much guaranteed growth on average. However, many of us cannot blow 20k. We can't blow 10k. We can barely blow 1k. Once again, OP ought to have a little bit of humility and recognize his incredibly privileged position.
- teitoklien 6y ago
  Many don’t , but that’s mostly on them , stop blaming others for misfortune. And dragging them down too. Humility is a good thing Tiptoeing near snowflakes is not, He never mistreated or harped at anyone He just said his opinion that he likes the stock. He wasn’t shitting on poor people.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    "This is not just for the elite few" "I have a modest 300k position" When you look at these two statements in close proximity, you feel that there's perfect humility to the fortune of that position?
    - literallycancer 6y ago
      What are you doing on a software board then? California houses cost at least 2-3 mil. What's the home ownership rate? Are you implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite?
      - FireBeyond 6y ago
        I struggle to see this is a good faith argument. My income is in the "2%". I also entirely understand that that makes me in "the elite few". > California houses cost at least 2-3 mil. You mean "houses in a few select neighborhoods and locations", such as SF, more prestigious areas in LA. Also, they don't. Median SF house price: $1.4M. Sunnyvale, $1.6M. Not "at least 2-3M". And certainly not in conjunction with this: > implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite The median Californian home price is $700K. So no. But since you seem to imply that California is somehow defined as "places where homes cost $2-3M" then yes, absolutely. If you own a home worth $2M+ you are unequivocally "one of the elite". You may not be buying a new private jet every five years, but you are also entirely capable of a lifestyle that the VERY VAST majority of Americans have no chance of attaining. For reference, a $3M mortgage with a substantial downpayment results in a mortgage payment of nearly $14,000/month, which with Jumbo loans requires an annual income in the region of $800K/year. Please don't try to continue an argument that says that someone making just shy of a million dollars a year is somehow neither privileged nor elite.
      - pixelpoet 6y ago
        I am stunned that people don't know that Americans are far and away outliers on the programming pay scale. Please tell me you're aware that not all programmers are in America making those crazy amounts.
      - astrange 6y ago
        > Are you implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite? This is certainly a true statement.
    - xwdv 6y ago
      I have a 300k position as a result of a modest investment of about $20k I made 5 years ago. Christ, I never said $300k was the modest investment and on a forum filled with software developers making 6 figures I’m sure more than a handful can invest $20k toward their future retirement. Of course now I’ve been pelted with downvotes and no one will remember what I actually said.
      - FireBeyond 6y ago
        Even then... "60% of Americans could not come up with $400 for an unexpected expense". Based on that, what proportion of Americans could afford to put even $20k into the stock market, _let alone call it a MODEST $20k_?
      - sgtnoodle 6y ago
        I suspect that there's a relatively large body of folk that read your comment and understood your intended meaning without offence, either agreed or disagreed with it, and adjusted their personal opinion on the subject appropriately without feeling the need to argue with you about it. Good on you for investing smartly and/or getting lucky. Hopefully you use your good fortune to somehow make the world a better place, and find personal happiness in the process. It's seemingly a non-sequitur, but I just remembered reading a short story in primary school English class years ago. It was about a distopian society where attractive, athletic folk had to wear ugly masks and weights to encumber them. Did anyone else read that?
- foobarian 6y ago
  > "blow" Implying this is some frivolous expense akin to gambling your savings away at a casino or buying an expensive car is the wrong mindset. This is not entertainment; saving for your future and retirement is a life impacting matter that people need to take seriously. Yes I can't afford to and won't blow $3k on a fancy new TV. But I can afford to set aside $100 a month to put into a stock account even if I skip eating out or having a fancy phone plan.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Having a good phone plan is a more important investment than retirement if you're using it for work.
- literallycancer 6y ago
  Here's an idea. Don't buy shit you don't need and you'll have more to spend on stock plays.
  - Banana699 6y ago
    username checks out
bluefirebrand 6y ago
> He did work for that money How do you know that? People who have lots of money often did not work for it, it's inherited. > he did take a risk investing it in these shares People often talk about investment risk like it's a real thing, but it's not. You can either afford it or you can't. If you can afford the loss its not risky, it's just gambling. "I'm taking all the risk, I deserve most of the benefit" is just bullshit rich people talk to avoid the fact that the people who actually do all of the work deserve more of the upside.
- literallycancer 6y ago
  Most people in the highest net worth lists are self made. Inheritance doesn't help you that much if you are retarded. Mostly it's gone in one or two generations.
  - bluefirebrand 6y ago
    This is basically just rich people propaganda, and it's straight up not true. The majority of the top 400 richest inherited at least 1 million. And of the ones who did not inherit that much, often they were given that kind of money as seed money from family. Straight up 20% of the top 400 richest were literally born in the top 400. Knock it off with this self-made malarkey. It's just not true.

ohgodplsno 6y ago

>a risk many were not willing to take. A risk many _cannot_ take. For a company as large as NVidia, the risk of it collapsing is basically nil. The risk of itsInvesting at random in the stock market gives you a pretty much guaranteed growth on average. However, many of us cannot blow 20k. We can't blow 10k. We can barely blow 1k. Once again, OP ought to have a little bit of humility and recognize his incredibly privileged position.

teitoklien 6y ago
Many don’t , but that’s mostly on them , stop blaming others for misfortune. And dragging them down too. Humility is a good thing Tiptoeing near snowflakes is not, He never mistreated or harped at anyone He just said his opinion that he likes the stock. He wasn’t shitting on poor people.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  "This is not just for the elite few" "I have a modest 300k position" When you look at these two statements in close proximity, you feel that there's perfect humility to the fortune of that position?
  - literallycancer 6y ago
    What are you doing on a software board then? California houses cost at least 2-3 mil. What's the home ownership rate? Are you implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite?
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      I struggle to see this is a good faith argument. My income is in the "2%". I also entirely understand that that makes me in "the elite few". > California houses cost at least 2-3 mil. You mean "houses in a few select neighborhoods and locations", such as SF, more prestigious areas in LA. Also, they don't. Median SF house price: $1.4M. Sunnyvale, $1.6M. Not "at least 2-3M". And certainly not in conjunction with this: > implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite The median Californian home price is $700K. So no. But since you seem to imply that California is somehow defined as "places where homes cost $2-3M" then yes, absolutely. If you own a home worth $2M+ you are unequivocally "one of the elite". You may not be buying a new private jet every five years, but you are also entirely capable of a lifestyle that the VERY VAST majority of Americans have no chance of attaining. For reference, a $3M mortgage with a substantial downpayment results in a mortgage payment of nearly $14,000/month, which with Jumbo loans requires an annual income in the region of $800K/year. Please don't try to continue an argument that says that someone making just shy of a million dollars a year is somehow neither privileged nor elite.
    - pixelpoet 6y ago
      I am stunned that people don't know that Americans are far and away outliers on the programming pay scale. Please tell me you're aware that not all programmers are in America making those crazy amounts.
    - astrange 6y ago
      > Are you implying that all Californian home owners are part of some elite? This is certainly a true statement.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    I have a 300k position as a result of a modest investment of about $20k I made 5 years ago. Christ, I never said $300k was the modest investment and on a forum filled with software developers making 6 figures I’m sure more than a handful can invest $20k toward their future retirement. Of course now I’ve been pelted with downvotes and no one will remember what I actually said.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      Even then... "60% of Americans could not come up with $400 for an unexpected expense". Based on that, what proportion of Americans could afford to put even $20k into the stock market, _let alone call it a MODEST $20k_?
    - sgtnoodle 6y ago
      I suspect that there's a relatively large body of folk that read your comment and understood your intended meaning without offence, either agreed or disagreed with it, and adjusted their personal opinion on the subject appropriately without feeling the need to argue with you about it. Good on you for investing smartly and/or getting lucky. Hopefully you use your good fortune to somehow make the world a better place, and find personal happiness in the process. It's seemingly a non-sequitur, but I just remembered reading a short story in primary school English class years ago. It was about a distopian society where attractive, athletic folk had to wear ugly masks and weights to encumber them. Did anyone else read that?
foobarian 6y ago
> "blow" Implying this is some frivolous expense akin to gambling your savings away at a casino or buying an expensive car is the wrong mindset. This is not entertainment; saving for your future and retirement is a life impacting matter that people need to take seriously. Yes I can't afford to and won't blow $3k on a fancy new TV. But I can afford to set aside $100 a month to put into a stock account even if I skip eating out or having a fancy phone plan.
- astrange 6y ago
  Having a good phone plan is a more important investment than retirement if you're using it for work.
literallycancer 6y ago
Here's an idea. Don't buy shit you don't need and you'll have more to spend on stock plays.
- Banana699 6y ago
  username checks out

bluefirebrand 6y ago

> He did work for that money How do you know that? People who have lots of money often did not work for it, it's inherited. > he did take a risk investing it in these shares People often talk about investment risk like it's a real thing, but it's not. You can either afford it or you can't. If you can afford the loss its not risky, it's just gambling. "I'm taking all the risk, I deserve most of the benefit" is just bullshit rich people talk to avoid the fact that the people who actually do all of the work deserve more of the upside.

literallycancer 6y ago
Most people in the highest net worth lists are self made. Inheritance doesn't help you that much if you are retarded. Mostly it's gone in one or two generations.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  This is basically just rich people propaganda, and it's straight up not true. The majority of the top 400 richest inherited at least 1 million. And of the ones who did not inherit that much, often they were given that kind of money as seed money from family. Straight up 20% of the top 400 richest were literally born in the top 400. Knock it off with this self-made malarkey. It's just not true.