5 ms·
Yeah, but this is literally a rich-get-richer kind of thing. Labor doesn't have that privilege.
by vore 4y ago
Yeah, but this is literally a rich-get-richer kind of thing. Labor doesn't have that privilege.
- WalterBright 4y ago> Labor doesn't have that privilege robinhood.com says you're incorrect.
- nerdponx 4y agoHow many Robinhood users have made more than pocket change without losing it all in a subsequent gamble? And of those who did, how many are not already at an upper income bracket?
- WalterBright 4y agoObviously you realize that investing in stocks is risky. Risk is the flip side of making investment gains. Anyone who invests in stocks takes a risk that it tanks. No risk => no gains
- nerdponx 4y agoYou asserted that Robinhood is evidence that "labor" in general has access to "rich-get-richer" mechanisms. My assertion is that this assertion is not valid. The rich-get-richer mechanism in question is investing pre-existing large amounts of money in investments that are more or less zero risk, specifically from the perspective of the investor's personal livelihood and well-being. This is simply not available to most people, even if they do have access to zero-commission fractional-share trading on Robinhood. Also, "labor" covers a large amount of people, of whom a very small subset are Robinhood users, and of whom an even smaller subset are legitimately successful traders, as opposed to one-off financial market lottery winners (who are themselves a small subset of all users).
- jujube3 4y agoInvesting in Google is not zero-risk.
- WalterBright 4y agoMany poor people trading cryptocurrencies made a pile of money. The newspaper was filled with their stories for a couple years. Of course, many lost money, too. No risk => no gain The point is, they could invest in the markets, despite being poor.
- komali2 4y agoOff of whom did they make that money?