> We also just passed what in hindsight will likely be seen as a historic buying opportunity.

Almost as likely to be a historic selling opportunity. The 35%-ish bottom isn't close to the bottom of the really huge recessions (and every non-stock-price signal is saying "really huge recession"). And the volatility we just saw resembles the movements from early 2008 to summer 2008.

Of course, the market can stay up in defiance of any bad news for years at a time, too, if the participants want. We won't have the hindsight until we have the hindsight.

Historically, the optimistic people do better in the market than the doomsayers.

Besides, it doesn't make much sense to claim that it's unfair people are making money in the market, while saying it's too risky to invest in it.

$100 in stocks is a meaningless "investment"

e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-americans-have-enough-sa...

> Only 39% of Americans have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency

So you're part of the 61% of americans with less than $1k on hand, but you put it into the stock market, congrats! At the end of the year you have $999 + 6% roi = $1059. Best case scenario you're looking at less than $10k for retirement after 30 years of this.

> $100 in stocks is a meaningless "investment"

Actually, buying $100 in stocks on a regular basis is the foundation for good investing.

A career spans 45 years. $1000 at 6% ROI compounded annually yields $13,747. Now consider adding $1000 to that each year.

If you only have $1000 in the bank, it’s not because you can save $1000 / year - it’s because that’s all you can save.

And I used 30 years because 61% of americans aren’t 20 years old right now.

And this is still the scenario where you don’t have a >$1000 emergency any time during that 45 years.

My point is not that investing doesn’t work, my point is that most people don’t have enough capital to be a part of that system.

> If you only have $1000 in the bank, it’s not because you can save $1000 / year - it’s because that’s all you can save.

But at least we all have our big screen TV's and iPhones, right?

Massive eye roll. Yes let's blame the poor for their bad purchasing decisions, instead of idk not getting paid enough?

Like, ok... an entry-level iPhone ($20/month) and a big screen tv ($500, lasts ten years)

That's $50/year + $240/year, call it $300 a year to get an iphone and a big screen tv. Amazing. Are you really here trying to tell me that $300/year is going to make the difference between crushing poverty and a healthy life and retirement?

Now compare that with a $2/hour raise, which amounts to somewhere north of $300/month extra. $3600/year. Yeah, THAT is getting a lot closer to the difference between crushing poverty and a reasonable retirement.

Yes, I see that eye roll. This is a stereotype that comes up regularly specifically because it is such a prolific problem.

I guarantee that a single iPhone purchase and a single big screen TV purchase are not the only poor purchasing decisions being made here.

Yes, lets consider a $2/hour raise. That gets wiped out with a daily trip to take-out instead of regular meals at home, or even by a 750/mo car payment.

Compare it to burning calories. It's much easier to not eat that 500 calorie hamburger than it is to run 5 miles.

Our society should be giving our kids financial literacy instead of bombarding them with advertisements.

"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks." - Jeff Hammerbacher.

> most people don’t have enough capital to be a part of that system.

Most people are not in the bottom quintile of income.

Where are you getting bottom quintile? If you don't have $1000 for an emergency, it doesn't matter what quintile you're in you're still not going to be maximizing the profitability of your excess capital using the stock market

If you are not poor and yet choose to spend all your money, yes you can have nothing left to invest. If this is happening to you, you might consider counseling from a financial advisor.

Ok so let’s slice it up. 25% of the pop is, in your view, legitimately poor... lowest quintile. Which leaves 61-25 = 36% of the population of the US is just bad at money and it’s their own fault?

I would be very hesitant to make an uncharitable assumption about that many millions of people - their situations are likely more complex than you or I understand.

Best case scenario, you are right, and we are failing massive swaths of the population by not teaching good money management as part of the core education everybody receives. Either way, things are broken right now!

A quintile would be 20%, not 25%.

I've advocated many times on HN that public schools teach basic accounting and how a free market economy works.

Inequality is huge, just because you can buy 0.0000001% of IBM doesn't make that fair/democratic.

If you buy stocks, you'll have the same proportionate gains/losses as everyone else who buys the same stocks.

Sounds fair to me.

I'm pretty sure the top executives and management don't pay 30% dividend tax, if they pay any at all.

If they receive dividends, they pay income tax on it.

Note that poor people pay 0% income taxes on capital gains and dividends.

No, because workers are underpaid to get stocks to rise. Capitalists get to have their cake and eat it.

So, become a Capitalist. You can start with $100