This isn't necessarily a solution. Investing lets one multiply the disposable wealth they already have - but wealthy people have more, and can invest a larger percentage of their assets. I would've be surprised if the share of capital gains income is even more unequal than all income.

> but wealthy people have more

You'll need some data to back that up!

> share of capital gains income

Low income people have an advantage because they don't pay capital gains taxes.

So gambling is your solution? It's easy to identify Amazon after the fact just like it's easy to identify the winner of a horse race. Go back to the dawn of Amazon and invest $100 in some of the other startups that look just as likely to be big and now your $100 is $0

> So gambling is your solution?

Gambling has a mathematical downward bias. Investing has a mathematical upward bias. (That's my definition of the difference.)

I find it rather unfair to argue that wealthy people make money off of investments, but that non-wealthy people shouldn't invest because positive returns are not guaranteed. Well, they aren't guaranteed for wealthy people, either, but they invest anyway.

Everything in life is gambling and probability. Take a job? You might get fired tomorrow. Start a business? It might fail. Invest in a company? It might turn out to be worth a billion, or $0. Borrow money from a bank? They might try to screw you over at some point, or not. The economy might tank tomorrow. The market might tank tomorrow. An astroid might hit the world in six months.

Seems like a strawman argument. Sure, metaphorically "everything" might be gambling, but the point is to play games with better odds for everybody except the casino.

How does that help people who don't even have that $100 to spare? They'd benefit far more from meaningful access to an economy's growth, wouldn't they? The people who can afford to do that in a way that truly pays off already have plenty of money.

The stock market is open to more people, but it still biases disproportionately for those that have more money.

> people who don't even have that $100 to spare?

This country does not consist of 1% super rich and 99% who do not have even $100.

I don't see where I said it did. You didn't answer my question.

EDIT: Forty-some percent of Americans don't have the cash on hand or free credit to handle an unexpected $400 expense. [0] That statistic is almost 3 years old. I doubt it's gone down in that time.

[0] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/09/...

I am addressing the income inequality issue. It doesn't need to apply to 100% of the population to be effective.

How is a thing which half the population doesn't have the disposable income to participate in "effective" in addressing income inequality?

The survey is classic selection bias.

Anyhow, it does not distinguish between "has no discretionary income" from "spent every dime they have". The latter is a common problem even among higher income folks.

People seem to be able to find the funds to buy iphones/booze/drugs/airjordans even down to the lowest levels.

Has investing in the stock market become democratized? Sure you could invest in Amazon at a low market cap back in the 90's, but what about Uber, Stripe, Dropbox, or any recent breakout 'unicorn'?

The privatization that has happened in financing high-growth startups is not great news for Joe Q Public

The market has gone up 30% in just the last year, and that has nothing to do with high-growth startups.

Amazon has doubled in just the last two years. So did Netflix, Apple, etc., all long past their IPOs.

This was all available to John Q Public. Yet all I hear are complaints.

So, to paraphrase, the market in it's infinite generosity allows paupers to invest in stocks as well as billionaires?