• Aurix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bruh, if you had invested your school lunch money instead of literally eating it and thus draining it down the toilet, you would have been a millionaire by now. Subscribe for more of my finance tips for just $20 a month.

  • the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well of course they do. That’s the whole point of the legal scam of investing. If it benefits regular people it wouldn’t exist.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is an important thing to note when someone claims that you should be eager about stock market performance because of your [comparative handful of] shares in your retirement account. Accounts such as the 401k were probably devised to tie up regular people’s money into the stock market, injecting more money into it and making it seem more important (and thus worth bailing out).

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They were devised to get rid of pensions so companies didn’t need to care for their employees, they could just have the option to match input, but retirement was made to be 100% on us.

      More bullshit to benefit corporations, but to be honest there are so many scumbags out there and so many pension plans that were stolen from, I don’t know how to feel about it.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was also devised so that when a crash occurs, the lower classes get wiped out, the rich still have piles of cash, and they get to buy up everything at fractions of a penny on the dollar.

      • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You know exactly how to feel about it. Douchebag MBA’s who think they’re Masters of the Universe gamble with other people’s retirement money. And all those sweet sweet fees…

        We should invest in guillotines.

      • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This point is huge and seemingly overlooked by most people? Once a majority of boomers start pulling their 401k money I don’t think millennials and gen x will be putting as much money back in.

      • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They really cooked up such a great Ponzi with 401k. I’m sure it’ll get rugged right when we come of age to cash out.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Accounts such as the 401k were probably devised to tie up regular people’s money into the stock market

      Aren’t pensions also tied up in the stock market. Yes there’s a difference of who manages and how the contributions are made, but both plans put the security of your retirement in the market in some capacity, right?

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pensions also allocate some funds in stocks, but overall they invest conservatively. By default, most 401k funds are set to a target retirement date fund and early on those are mostly stocks. These funds also often have significant annual fees. Instead of a single large fund managed conservatively, you have many individual funds that are managed all over the place. The common advice is to invest more aggressively when you’re younger, there has also been a huge push toward ETFs which are their own tangled mess and have a potential for trouble in the future, but that’s a different topic.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Vanguard is good with fees. That 0.44% is an average so there are also funds that charge more. I think fees have come down as 1) more attention was brought to them 2) Such funds became more computerized and straightforward to manage. Still, a 0.44% average fee each year is a significant chunk of change.

            • Copernican@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I fully agree on .44% being high. I raise an eyebrow on anything over .10%. But if you follow the old reddit personal finance prime directive… You should max out your 401k inso far as you maximize the employer match. Then max out your Roth IRA where you hopefully have access to better expense ratio target funds. I have been trying out the 0% Fidelity index mutual funds as opposed to older S&P500 funds to maximize potential there.

              I haven’t really looked at the robo brokers though. What are fees like for betterment and the like?

              Either way, I think people are shooting themselves in the foot for not investing in index funds or target funds out of moral principle. Unfortunately there isn’t much other safety net for your retirement, and you’re probably going to be forced to spend cash for everyday goods from major corporations. Might as well try to secure some value of those same corporations at the same time instead of letting your savings constantly depreciate over time.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems weird to make this assertion, and fail to provide what the total holdings cutoff is to be in the top 10%.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Almost like it’s clickbait designed for echo chambers like eattherich.

        Don’t get me wrong, fuck the rich. But bold claims like this need to show their methodology. Hiding it is sus.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “The 1%” is the catchphrase, but that’s only a net worth of about $10 Million. The people they are really mad at are the 0.01% or lower. This article uses 10% which is about $850,000 in net worth.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        154k is middle class. And everyone in this thread is trying to figure out how to fuck them the hardest.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Then you don’t understand the statistical definition of middle class. According to PEW the bounds in 2021 were 43,000 and 130,000.

          If that sounds like it’s not enough to be financially secure in the modern day… All I have to say is people have been trying to tell everyone.

          That said, yeah of course we’re not trying to eat the merely rich. However the stock market is hardly some big equalizer if it effectively only serves the top ten percent.

  • pensivepangolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    No no you guys all don’t understand that this is a good thing because… (let me check my notes…) ….uh…hm…derrr…communism.

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Historical data would be great. How was that figure in each previous decade? Isn’t it true that at the peaks this tends to happen, and when we get a stock market downturn, the rich get poor faster then anyone else?

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even when the stock market crashes the rich don’t get poor. They can seemingly lose ungodly amounts of money exceptionally quickly but even after all that they’ll still be rich because being rich is a comparison: If everyone on a mountain falls down the ones at the top will still be there.

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean if we’re talking about top 1% you’re probably right, but I believe in the top 10% there’s a bit of movement. Out from it and in to it from below.

        And there are plenty of examples of people going from being extremely rich to being bankrupt and never recovering. It’s not impossible, but probably requires quite a lot of effort and/or stupidity. For instance, when Iceland went based and let its banks fall, this guy went from being worth $1B to -$750m. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björgólfur_Guðmundsson

        • Copernican@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think I crack the top 10 percent income earner I agree (not sure where I am in the USA net worth wise). I don’t consider myself rich, but that is very much in part because I live in NYC, but if I didn’t live there I probably wouldn’t be 10% earner. A big market change could have very significant impacts on my life, housing, etc. Fuck the 1% percent though.

          One thing I have noticed about folks that talk about income and wealth in my bracket is that they talk about Stock benefits like options, RSU’s, and ESPP as income. When I was making salary and around folks under 75k no one really talked about those types of benefits as income meaningfully (partially because they didn’t get it or didn’t get a significant amount of it). But for those high income earners in the top 10% that factor their stock as part of their income lifestyle, that puts them more at risk for greater income swings in the event of market crashes to a certain degree (assuming job loss doesn’t occur).

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No shit. If someone does not have money they don’t need then they can not buy stocks or any investment.