6 ms·

What is wrong with this approach is that not everyone has disposable income to buy stock. I suggest that you come and visit Poland and live on the median salar

What is wrong with this approach is that not everyone has disposable income to buy stock. I suggest that you come and visit Poland and live on the median salary for a year or two. How about we start building society for the 99.99% of us?

prepend 3y ago
61% of Americans own stock [0] so it’s certainly of more interest than 0.01%. I don’t think owning stock is about disposable income, it’s about saving. I would expect many people have a savings plan, if at least for retirement. So the majority of people directly own stock and there are more who indirectly do through pensions and other instruments that own stock for beneficiary purposes. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The world exists beyond the US. Purchasing power is also a thing. Median gross salary in Poland is $18000, and about $14000 net. They earn less than 1200 per month, of which 300-400 is spent on rent excluding utilities, add another 50-100 utilities, 200 for food, then gas and transport and you quickly see that the savings are minuscule. How can you buy stock on 200 (at best) after all expenses?
  - prepend 3y ago
    You’re proposing a simple problem to solve. Select a percentage that you want to save (say 5-10%) and save that. So if you have $200/month put $10-20 into an index fund and retire in 40 years. This is the same way Americans do it. Purchasing stock hasn’t been difficult for decades and there are many zero fee index funds that you can put small amounts into each month. I can’t find percent Polish people who own stock but I will bet you $1000 that it’s greater than 0.01%.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      The difference is that for the average Polander, cutting 10% of their income means substantial significantly less purchasing power without lots to gain.
      - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
        What do you mean, without lots to gain? You were just arguing that the shareholders were gonna benefit so much from new productivity gains. I don't get your obsession with Poland. It's a country I have a soft spot for, even though it's not my country of origin, but most importantly my argument is entirely orthogonal to that.
robertlagrant 3y ago
There's no one global society, nor one global problem. Countries are the right level to look at this at. There's, say, "Poland". Why aren't its salaries higher?
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  They are getting higher; Poland's economy is growing, there's no doubt about that, but you also need to understand that an economically weak country doesn't have a lot of bargaining power in the grand scheme of things and is easily influenced by other countries. Let's take Cuba, US said don't trade with Cuba if you want to be okay with us, and the world complied. Similarly for all socialist countries, and every country in which the US intervened directly or otherwise. Countries are not independent islands, and the American government, and the Russian and Chinese regimes sure know how to stick their fingers in every pie available.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Of course - if countries were independent islands less developed countries couldn't sell them stuff they could never develop themselves, for example. That's a good thing according to every country but North Korea, who have deliberately isolated themselves, to their detriment. The question is: is it better to be a weaker economy in a world where other countries interact with it, or not? If it is, then said economy has to make do with what it has, and while there are geopolitical factors at play, they aren't all bad (indeed if they were even just "more bad than good" then more countries would be like North Korea). Your case of Cuba is a good one: the embargo means that Cuba is more like an independent island, and less like a weaker economy participating in a global economy. But to relate geopolitics to "society" is still wrong, I think. A society is a smaller thing than "everyone on earth". Inherited familial, political, and institutional norms are roughly at the society level, and they play a large part in how law-abiding, productive and welcoming that society is. A lot of that is bounded at country, although sometimes countries will share cultural lineages that mean they are similar. P.s. fantastic news on the Polish economy front. Great to hear salaries are on the rise.
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
I'm actually visiting later this month.

prepend 3y ago

61% of Americans own stock [0] so it’s certainly of more interest than 0.01%. I don’t think owning stock is about disposable income, it’s about saving. I would expect many people have a savings plan, if at least for retirement. So the majority of people directly own stock and there are more who indirectly do through pensions and other instruments that own stock for beneficiary purposes. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
The world exists beyond the US. Purchasing power is also a thing. Median gross salary in Poland is $18000, and about $14000 net. They earn less than 1200 per month, of which 300-400 is spent on rent excluding utilities, add another 50-100 utilities, 200 for food, then gas and transport and you quickly see that the savings are minuscule. How can you buy stock on 200 (at best) after all expenses?
- prepend 3y ago
  You’re proposing a simple problem to solve. Select a percentage that you want to save (say 5-10%) and save that. So if you have $200/month put $10-20 into an index fund and retire in 40 years. This is the same way Americans do it. Purchasing stock hasn’t been difficult for decades and there are many zero fee index funds that you can put small amounts into each month. I can’t find percent Polish people who own stock but I will bet you $1000 that it’s greater than 0.01%.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    The difference is that for the average Polander, cutting 10% of their income means substantial significantly less purchasing power without lots to gain.
    - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
      What do you mean, without lots to gain? You were just arguing that the shareholders were gonna benefit so much from new productivity gains. I don't get your obsession with Poland. It's a country I have a soft spot for, even though it's not my country of origin, but most importantly my argument is entirely orthogonal to that.

robertlagrant 3y ago

There's no one global society, nor one global problem. Countries are the right level to look at this at. There's, say, "Poland". Why aren't its salaries higher?

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
They are getting higher; Poland's economy is growing, there's no doubt about that, but you also need to understand that an economically weak country doesn't have a lot of bargaining power in the grand scheme of things and is easily influenced by other countries. Let's take Cuba, US said don't trade with Cuba if you want to be okay with us, and the world complied. Similarly for all socialist countries, and every country in which the US intervened directly or otherwise. Countries are not independent islands, and the American government, and the Russian and Chinese regimes sure know how to stick their fingers in every pie available.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Of course - if countries were independent islands less developed countries couldn't sell them stuff they could never develop themselves, for example. That's a good thing according to every country but North Korea, who have deliberately isolated themselves, to their detriment. The question is: is it better to be a weaker economy in a world where other countries interact with it, or not? If it is, then said economy has to make do with what it has, and while there are geopolitical factors at play, they aren't all bad (indeed if they were even just "more bad than good" then more countries would be like North Korea). Your case of Cuba is a good one: the embargo means that Cuba is more like an independent island, and less like a weaker economy participating in a global economy. But to relate geopolitics to "society" is still wrong, I think. A society is a smaller thing than "everyone on earth". Inherited familial, political, and institutional norms are roughly at the society level, and they play a large part in how law-abiding, productive and welcoming that society is. A lot of that is bounded at country, although sometimes countries will share cultural lineages that mean they are similar. P.s. fantastic news on the Polish economy front. Great to hear salaries are on the rise.

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago

I'm actually visiting later this month.