3 ms·

Right, ability to buy stock is predicated on having the money to do it, after paying for basic necessities. People who work for a living have less money than th

Right, ability to buy stock is predicated on having the money to do it, after paying for basic necessities. People who work for a living have less money than those who don’t. So when stock prices rise, even workers who can save see less absolute benefit than owners.

WalterBright 1y ago
You can buy fractional shares from robinhood for $10. The internet has brought a great democratization of access to the stock market. If you don't have an investment program, the best time to start is right now.
- grafmax 1y ago
  The point is that workers have far less money to save. Therefore when stocks go up due to increased productivity, even workers who have enough money to save still don’t benefit, in absolute terms, as much as owners.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Becoming an owner by founding a company is the way to reach the top tier. Jobs, Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc. BTW, I know a person who worked as a fruit picker as a young man, he's now a multimillionaire. And a woman who grew up in a mobile home who is now worth 9 figures. America is a great country. P.S. my first business was selling greeting cards door to door.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      Unfortunately our society’s structure is such that only a small number of people can ever be wealthy. They do this by belonging to the ownership class. There is not enough room there for everyone, because owners make money simply through owning, because others do the work for them, while the owners pay themselves with the profits these workers generate for them.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        > Unfortunately our society’s structure is such that only a small number of people can ever be wealthy. History says otherwise. The mass immigration to the US in the 1800s was all poor people arriving with nothing but a suitcase. They moved up into the middle class and beyond en masse. Middle class people live better than medieval kings.
        TFYS 1y ago
        That's not the definition of wealthy. Wealthy is a relative term. It's meaningless to say that a lower middle class person today is wealthy just because people 500 years ago could only dream of the things they have. If other people in the society they currently live in have a million times more, they are not wealthy. I'm sure you understand how capitalism works. If you do, you should understand that not everyone can be an owner, someone has to do the actual work.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        > not everyone can be an owner Anyone with $10 and a phone can be an owner of the means of production (by buying stock). > It's meaningless to say The meaning is the massive improvement in the standard of living due to free markets. BTW, if being "poor" means being in the bottom quintile of income, there will always be "poor" people, regardless of how well they live.
        TFYS 1y ago
        That's like saying anyone with legs can be a professional runner. In theory yes, but not in practice, not in a meaningful way. Defining poverty as bottom quintile is also useless, yes. Defining poverty by comparing to the average or median income is the most useful definition. Someone earning less than half of average, for example. That tells you how well they can afford the limited resources of any society, as those track the average purchasing power.
        grafmax 1y ago
- cool_dude85 1y ago
  But this is not meaningful. If I buy 10 dollars of stock, at 10% return I am earning 1 dollar per year. This amount is not relevant to my life in any way and is probably dwarfed by variation in the amount of cash I find lying on the ground annually. It's like saying everyone has access to clean water, look over there, there's a drop.

WalterBright 1y ago

You can buy fractional shares from robinhood for $10. The internet has brought a great democratization of access to the stock market. If you don't have an investment program, the best time to start is right now.

grafmax 1y ago
The point is that workers have far less money to save. Therefore when stocks go up due to increased productivity, even workers who have enough money to save still don’t benefit, in absolute terms, as much as owners.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Becoming an owner by founding a company is the way to reach the top tier. Jobs, Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc. BTW, I know a person who worked as a fruit picker as a young man, he's now a multimillionaire. And a woman who grew up in a mobile home who is now worth 9 figures. America is a great country. P.S. my first business was selling greeting cards door to door.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    Unfortunately our society’s structure is such that only a small number of people can ever be wealthy. They do this by belonging to the ownership class. There is not enough room there for everyone, because owners make money simply through owning, because others do the work for them, while the owners pay themselves with the profits these workers generate for them.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > Unfortunately our society’s structure is such that only a small number of people can ever be wealthy. History says otherwise. The mass immigration to the US in the 1800s was all poor people arriving with nothing but a suitcase. They moved up into the middle class and beyond en masse. Middle class people live better than medieval kings.
      - TFYS 1y ago
        That's not the definition of wealthy. Wealthy is a relative term. It's meaningless to say that a lower middle class person today is wealthy just because people 500 years ago could only dream of the things they have. If other people in the society they currently live in have a million times more, they are not wealthy. I'm sure you understand how capitalism works. If you do, you should understand that not everyone can be an owner, someone has to do the actual work.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        > not everyone can be an owner Anyone with $10 and a phone can be an owner of the means of production (by buying stock). > It's meaningless to say The meaning is the massive improvement in the standard of living due to free markets. BTW, if being "poor" means being in the bottom quintile of income, there will always be "poor" people, regardless of how well they live.
        TFYS 1y ago
        That's like saying anyone with legs can be a professional runner. In theory yes, but not in practice, not in a meaningful way. Defining poverty as bottom quintile is also useless, yes. Defining poverty by comparing to the average or median income is the most useful definition. Someone earning less than half of average, for example. That tells you how well they can afford the limited resources of any society, as those track the average purchasing power.
      - grafmax 1y ago
cool_dude85 1y ago
But this is not meaningful. If I buy 10 dollars of stock, at 10% return I am earning 1 dollar per year. This amount is not relevant to my life in any way and is probably dwarfed by variation in the amount of cash I find lying on the ground annually. It's like saying everyone has access to clean water, look over there, there's a drop.