You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]



Stocks are up but 80% of the value is held by the richest 10% - elberto34
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/perspective-on-the-stock-market-rally-80-of-stock-value-held-by-top-10/
======
nodesocket
I've come to realize that Hacker News for the most part is not a good forum
for discussing the market. There seems to be a lot of disdain and calling it a
"rigged" system that makes the rich richer. Just look at the comments at the
bottom of this thread. That sort of mentality is ill-informed of finance and
the market.

The market is not only for millionaires and billionaires. You can trade $6.95
on ETRADE now and can even trade for free with Robinhood. I actually hold
about 80% of my holdings in ETRADE and 20% in Robinhood. I use Robinhood for
buying smaller chunks of shares (lowering dollar cost average) or more risky
smaller trades.

Savings accounts are stupid! They offer fractions of percent interest. Look at
exchange-traded funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq
Composite. My personal favorite ETFs are the tried-and-true SPY and QQQ.

I wrote a blog post on Robinhood and leveraging capital using margin on my
blog for those interested:

[https://justink.svbtle.com/leveraging-capital-using-
robinhoo...](https://justink.svbtle.com/leveraging-capital-using-robinhood-
gold)

~~~
roystonvassey
>There seems to be a lot of disdain and calling it a "rigged" system that
makes the rich richer

Based on current evidence world over, it does appear the case. I know of no
one either famous or even within my social circles who's become rich solely by
investing in the markets alone. Unless one has deep domain expertise within a
sector or has information to which they're privy, it is unlikely one will earn
returns that significantly outweigh the market in the medium to long term. So,
yes, it is not hard to imagine that equity wealth is concentrated among an
elite few who also have an incentive to not let newer members in to improve
their own returns.

~~~
nugget
> it is unlikely one will earn returns that significantly outweigh the market
> in the medium to long term

Do you need to beat the market to become rich? What about just earning the
market return (SPY, VTI, or similar), over a 30 or 40 year time period? I know
plenty of older folks who 'got rich slow' this way. Granted, historical
returns might not be there for millennials in the next few decades, but it's
still the best bet there is.

~~~
kurthr
You need to be in the market to maintain buying power with stagnant wages and
increasing costs. Most people do not have $400 for an emergency so they aren't
participating in the market.

And if you have to borrow to buy a house/car or buy health insurance, then you
are paying those richer than you to exist, their rate of return will continue
to be higher than yours, and wealth inequality will continue to rise.

~~~
briandear
People don't have $400 for an emergency but they have smartphones, Jeezy shoes
or various other random unnecessary crap. People don't have $400 for
emergencies because they choose not to. Look at Black Friday sales -- people
seem to have $400 to fight over TVs or game consoles. Even the really poor in
the US seem to find money to buy TVs or subscribe to cable/satellite TV. Visit
any public housing complex in America and there is a large number of homes
with Satelite dishes. I am not saying there's anything wrong with that but I
am also saying that people do make choices.

I am not a particular fan of Warren Buffet, but he's a billionaire and lives
far more discretely than your typical 5 figure "millionaire" who's driving a
leased BMW and drinking Grey Goose at the club.

Certainly there are actual poor; that's not in dispute, but the middle classes
typically just prioritize things differently -- which contributes to their
station.

~~~
sacado2
This. We (especially you US citizens) have never be that rich ever in the
whole history of mankind. Yet people keep complaining life is tough. I don't
get it. But who wants to live his grandparents' life ?

------
cletus
Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been
revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the
world now.

We've lived through a relatively peaceful and, more importantly, politically
stable period in the developed world since WW2. And inequality continues to
grow.

The problem now is twofold:

1\. Capital is essentially beyond borders; and

2\. The diminishing loyalty to the nation state.

(1) is the real problem with modern "trade" treaties like the TPP (that and
they're used to enforce policies on smaller countries like the US stance on
IP). They're not really about trade anymore. It's about freeing the movement
of capital, which is a huge problem.

To put (2) in context, you have to remember that income taxes in the US 100
years ago were essentially done on the honour system. There were no computers.
There was no accountability. Now we live in an age where the wealthiest
people, who owe their wealth to the political stability in the countries
they've made their wealth, are essentially unwilling to contribute to funding
those same states.

What's more, the wealthiest individuals and corporations play off states
against each other, demanding ever-more concessions to attract business. And
when those concessions go away they move onto the next sucker.

It all just feels like something will have to give in the next century or so.
We do have crumbling infrastructure in the developed world. Someone or
something has to pay for it.

Look at places like Puerto Rico, which spent like crazy (way beyond its
means). The wealthy have abandoned it and what's left to do? Bail it out by
the Federal government?

Unfortunately it just seems like capital is _too_ mobile.

~~~
PeterisP
> descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now

While Roman times are a bit too far, the richest families in Florence in 1427
are still the richest families in Florence [https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-
families-in-florence-in-14...](https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-
florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/)

And research
([https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/fulltext.html))
shows that family’s social status in England can persist for more than eight
centuries, or more than 28 whole generations. [https://qz.com/301150/this-is-
the-proof-that-the-1-have-been...](https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-
that-the-1-have-been-running-the-show-for-800-years/)

While recent times has had many additions to the list of richest people in the
world with newly created wealth, there's no reason to assume that something
will change to the fact that the wealth divide will (in general) stay for
generations onwards; if both world wars didn't mess it up, then nothing short
of an apocalypsis will.

~~~
cletus
I remember reading that some months ago. It's interesting but I take a
different message from it.

And that is: wealth is ephemeral. Social status is far more enduring.

The Florence data looks at the surnames of top taxpayers. The truly wealthy
are somewhat beyond individual earnings. But social status is a useful
(arguably essential) advantage in securing certain work and opportunities.

This is true in England too as England has had a fairly rigid and enduring
class system for a thousand years.

The 19th century was an impressib era for wealth creation with the
industrialization of the United States. Look at the likes of Rockefeller,
Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Astor and th like. Most of those families survive today
in some form. They are probably rich still but nowhere near the likes of
Rockefeller who was the richest man in the world when he died. I'd say the
larger legacy is again the enduring social status.

Primate social structure is fascinating in comparison. Alpha males and females
tend to beget more of the same. Why is that? Is it strictly environment or is
there more to it? I don't know.

------
AKifer
Maybe we should ask everyone claiming about the rigged system what they really
want: income evenly distributed to all workers ? More taxation for those who
earn more than the average ? Central economic planning so everyone get's the
same information regarding where the profits are ? Frankly, sometimes some
people need to take a refreshing trip into North Korea instead of perpetually
complaining about the downsides of capitalism.

~~~
Taek
Elimination of rent-seeking and all sibling offenses.

Someone can buy a property in a growing region and then sit on it and do
nothing while it gains value. The fact that it is doing nothing may even drive
the price up more, because it reduces supply in that region by not making
itself available.

The owner is allowed to refuse to sell at any price, which again means they
can make money just by sitting on their scarce asset.

Same for corporate stock really. And for things like gold and bitcoin.

A better system imo would require active bidding on scarce resources. If you
are not generating wealth with your resource, someone can take it from you by
outbidding the amount of taxes you are paying for it. This forces people to
apply their capital and makes it harder to just sit on scarce resources and
accumulate wealth.

~~~
RestlessMind
> A better system imo would require active bidding on scarce resources. If you
> are not generating wealth with your resource, someone can take it from you
> by outbidding the amount of taxes you are paying for it.

But its easy to game this system by generating token wealth. For example, if
you make it mandatory to keep your houses non-empty, then all you need to do
is register a token business and rent your house to that business for a token
amount. All you stand to lose is a few hundred dollars of registration fees
etc.

In some cases, its hard to even know how to generate wealth from the assets
(gold, rare paintings...). How will you force people to ensure that they
generate wealth from gold, so that its price won't skyrocket during
inflationary times?

Finally, wealth generation is relative. How can you measure wealth generated
in non-monetary terms? Sure, you can "develop" your one acre plot by building
more apartments there, but what about the wealth lost by losing a great scenic
view of the bay? Why should everything be measured in terms of money?

~~~
notahacker
I think you're completely missing the OP's point, which is a hypothetical
scenario in which all scarce resources like land are effectively leased from
the government to the highest bidder, in which case you can keep your houses
as empty or full as you like (or bay views as pretty as you like), but if
someone is willing to pay the government higher annual fees for the use of the
land (or oil, or spectrum) then they get the use of it instead of you.

This system comes with its own problems (no incentive to invest in developing
a resource if someone can slightly outbid you for its use _after_ you've
invested all that cash in improving its potential yields in the long term) but
ease of evasion though fake companies and difficulty of establishing how much
a resource should yield aren't amongst them.

~~~
Taek
Yes exactly. I'd rather the entity doing the leading not be the government,
but I do not know what other entity could. For purely digital resources you
could use a blockchain. But digital resources tend not to be scarce.

------
imron
And according to the article, it's been this way since the late 1980's...

So, basically, all that's changed recently is that stocks have been going up.

And when they eventually go down, 80% of the losses will be held by the
richest 10% also.

~~~
gech
No they won't. The losses will be sure to actually "trickle down". Think
pension funds

~~~
chimeracoder
> No they won't. The losses will be sure to actually "trickle down". Think
> pension funds

Well, in that sense, the gains already have trickled down, because more than
50% of the gains are held by IRAs and the like (including pension funds).

------
WalterBright
It's not just about who has money to invest. Investors who have better
investment strategies make a LOT more money in the long term:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/forgetful-investors-
performed...](http://www.businessinsider.com/forgetful-investors-performed-
best-2014-9)

and because of that the people with better strategies will accumulate a much
larger share of the market.

Most investors have poor returns because they defer to their self-defeating
cognitive biases, they don't take the time to understand investing, and they
often naively believe they have a simple "system" which will outsmart the
market.

~~~
massysett
All that article is saying is that the best strategy is buy and hold. That's
nice but nobody is going to get rich off that advice or accumulate any
significant share of the market.

~~~
dperfect
Except for a lucky few (who get all the attention as if they've cracked a
secret code to producing wealth), _no one_ really gets rich from investing.

There are two ways to get rich: (1) be smart and work your tail off, or (2)
get lucky.

Path #1 involves a bit of #2, but not as much as some people might believe.
Also, "working hard" doesn't mean going to work and putting in a lot of
time/effort day after day; it has more to do with constantly seeking to
improve skills that are of value to the world, expanding your network, and
doing more with less.

That last bit is important: too many people _do_ improve their earning
potential significantly over time, but never feel "rich" because they
imperceptibly scale their lifestyle and spending patterns to match (or
surpass) their increased earnings.

At the end of the day, investing should be regarded as a way to simply stretch
the money you do make farther (on a long-term scale). That's not to say it
can't significantly contribute to one's wealth over time, but without
extraordinary luck, investment returns are usually more of a slow and steady
multiplier to your own earnings.

If you're investing to become rich, you might as well play the lottery.

~~~
pyrrhotech
You can get rich from investing without being lucky, just not quickly. 7%
returns become very big money over time if you let them ride for a few
decades. Of course you have to have some primary income source to be able to
save to invest money, but if you can earn 50k per year and save 10k per year
in your 401k, you can easily retire a millionaire.

~~~
charlesdm
I know several wealthy people making 5-10% on net worths in excess of $25 to
50m. 10% on $50m is $5m. That's a lot (and plenty to live well).

~~~
plandis
I literally don't think I've ever spoken with an individual that has $50m in
net worth it's certainly not the norm.

~~~
dpark
Honestly, how would you know? Most people don't talk about their wealth. I'm
not aware of ever having spoken with anyone worth $50MM, but it's possible
that it's happened.

Of course, you're absolutely right that net worth that high is exceedingly
rare. This is much smaller than "the 1%".

~~~
chillwaves
Not only is it rare, but they do not mingle with peons.

~~~
lordnacho
They absolutely do mingle with peons, they just don't tell the peons.

One anecdote was when one of these guys went on a UK game show. People in the
market who knew him were laughing their heads off at the thought of him doing
word and number puzzles.

Also, I think they can be approachable. Often they're looking for investments
to make, or charities to donate to. Or they have political opinions they want
heard.

What they don't want so much though is yet another guy who wants their money,
so if you do have something to bring to them, it had better be good.

------
5ersi
Majority is owned by retirement accounts: [http://www.businessinsider.com/who-
actually-owns-the-stock-m...](http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-
owns-the-stock-market-2016-5)

------
orasis
Diving into the article one sees that these ratios are largely unchanged since
the 1980s.

~~~
hasbot
And in the 80's people were still getting pensions too. I got my first tech
job in '86 and it featured a stock purchase plan and a pension. No tech job
I've had since had a pension.

------
imgabe
Do they own 80% of the value because they're the richest 10% or are they the
richest 10% because they own 80% of the value?

~~~
AKifer
Good reflexion, it's a virtuous circle, once you get an opportunity to enter
that top percentage, the money machine is rolling faster and faster.

------
riskqueau
The problem with richest having a lot of stock is that if the market goes down
they will look for a way for other to pay for the broken dishes. In Spain we
see that the person responsible for the security of our financial system CNMV
is under investigation for not taking the measures for protecting people from
false information, see for example [http://wolfstreet.com/2017/02/18/spain-
central-bankers-finan...](http://wolfstreet.com/2017/02/18/spain-central-
bankers-financial-regulator-in-court-bankia-ipo/)

------
nshelly
Same claim can be made about land appreciation in major metropolitan areas
(e.g. NYC, SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc). We need to figure out how
to balance out gains in this recovery.

~~~
hkmurakami
Aren't tech salaries close to 2x compared to 10 years ago?

Capital vs labor is a big issue but the non knowledge worker vs knowledge
worker divide shouldn't be ignored either. Knowledge workers also employ
similar capital leverage compared to the capital class through its employment.

~~~
psyc
Where are tech salaries 2x 10 years ago? Mine is nowhere close to that.

~~~
hkmurakami
Comparing new grad compensation packages from the elite (sought after by the
big employers) schools suggests close to 2x.

------
JabavuAdams
> The median net worth (income + assets including homeownership – debt) of
> white households was about $117,000 in 2013. For African American
> households, the comparable figure is just under $2,000.

This is astonishing to me. That's _median_ , not _mean_!

------
anovikov
A question i have been largely fruitlessly asking in several such threads
before: How do i invest in U.S. stock market being a non-American (Russian
living in EU)? Without paying too much in taxes, that is.

~~~
skrause
There are a lot of index funds (especially ETFs) domiciled in EU countries
that buy US stocks. Here is a list of EU-domiciled US stock market ETFs sorted
by size:

[https://www.justetf.com/uk/find-
etf.html?groupField=none&sor...](https://www.justetf.com/uk/find-
etf.html?groupField=none&sortField=fundSize&assetClass=class-
equity&country=US&sortOrder=desc)

You can (and should) generally buy these using a local broker in the country
you live in. For tax reasons it's generally better to buy a EU-domiciled fund
instead of a US-based one, but that depends on the country you live in. Here
in Germany buying a US-domiciled Vanguard fund would be tax hell, but the
Irish ETFs are usually very good for the US stock market.

~~~
gaza3g
Any advice for someone who wants to accomplish the same thing but lives in
Singapore?

------
AKifer
And in 2017 the world rediscovers Pareto Principle, and the people are scared,
like they have always been anyway.

------
dgellow
I think I will get downvotes for this but I have an honest question. Why does
it matter if the rich become richer? I am by no mean a rich guy, I just don't
see how it can impact my life or be bad for other people if a few of us have a
lot of money (doesn't matter how they get it. I'm not talking about money from
illegal activities). They still have to use it, thus contribute back to the
economy.

~~~
carlob
The problems start when the rich get richer faster than what it takes for the
poor to get a little less poor. This is what is described as 'divergent
behavior'. In the long term there is no equilibrium to this, and we revert to
pre WWI Europe levels of inequality.

What happens then to reduce inequality is anyone's guess, but in the XX
century the Russian Revolution, World Wars, and the Great Depression have been
very effective.

Other than that one could make the point that for someone who is already very
rich, getting marginally richer doesn't do much while lifting someone from
abject poverty is something that has a great effect on that person's life (in
other words utility is probably sub-logarithmic).

------
known
Buffett's secretary Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while
Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent on profit. [http://news.yahoo.com/warren-
buffett-secretary-talk-taxes-22...](http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-
secretary-talk-taxes-221442297--abc-news.html)

------
microcolonel
_Breaking News:_ People who have money know how to make money.

~~~
rullelito
Maybe if we create some system to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor
all will be well?

~~~
massysett
That's called progressive taxation.

~~~
Consultant32452
Great, so we're done then!

~~~
ant6n
Given how capital is taxed, no.

~~~
deepsun
Biggest tech companies don't pay taxes from foreign earnings.

Even some said-to-be-rich presidents filed for bankruptcies 4-6 times to avoid
that annoying "tax" thing.

~~~
prostoalex
Would you tax foreign entities (Samsung, Toyota, Huawei) on foreign earnings
or just the domestic entities (Apple, Ford, Cisco)?

------
pottersbasilisk
Arent people 401k's and pensions part of the market ?

~~~
Spooky23
They are, but most people don't have pensions and fewer people contribute to
retirement funds than you may think.

This is a feature of this low inflation market. There's no incentive to do
anything but hoard cash.

~~~
hueving
Except that's precisely the opposite of a rational market participant
position. Hoarding cash is almost always a losing position, even now. As long
as we don't have deflation, any cash is losing value.

~~~
Spooky23
Cash was the wrong choice of words.

Usually really rich people have more known downside risk from taxes. Lots of
municipal bonds, treasury stuff and cash. If the money is tied up in company
stock they often live off lines of credit.

Remember that top X% of wealth isn't the same as income.

------
suyash
Last I checked Stock Market it open to all for trading and investing. This is
another article that has twisted the facts to basically hating on Donald
Trump's success so far.

~~~
carlob
Sure, let's repeal Obamacare and tell the poor to invest in the stock market
to get enough money to get medical treatment, I'm sure that's gonna work out
great for them.

------
KboPAacDA3
The rich will always be among us.

------
NicoJuicy
I love to see more stocks interest here. It's the only thing that hasn't been
discussed much.

------
lsjdfkljdfwkwdf
In many parts of the worls it's the top 0.1%, in contrast we seem to be doing
quite well.

~~~
badsock
This attitude drives me crazy. Just because some people have it worse than you
doesn't mean you have to accept your own less-worse situation.

------
rebootthesystem
I don't understand this ideology. In a country like the US, who cares what the
riches n percent own, pay, use, etc.? Really.

Mark Zuckerberg was just a kid in a dorm. Look where he is now.

OK, don't like that example? Here:

[https://goo.gl/uEUtKE](https://goo.gl/uEUtKE)

Don't complain about what others have achieved. In the US you have the
opportunity to reach for the stars (literally). If you want it bad enough,
with a little luck and hard work you can get there.

There will always be far more wealthy people than poor or middle class. Why?
Because, outside of inheriting wealth, making money is very hard. Some get
lucky and it seems to happen easily. That's not the norm. Becoming wealthy is
hard perilous work. It requires incredible focus, dedication and discipline.
In some cases it can cost people their family and health.

I don't like a culture that vilifies the wealthy or creates divisions along
these lines. In a country like the US most people aren't rich due to a lack of
opportunity, oppression or some grand plan to keep people down. No, most
people are not rich because they either don't have what it takes or are not
willing to invest the time, effort and sacrifice required to get there.

If 80% of the value is held by the richest 10% it is because they made money
and continue to risk it in investments such as the stock market. I have
friends who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments in just a few
months. Nobody talks about them taking those kinds of risks. They do talk
about the new Ferrari they bought with the proceeds of the 1 out of 100
investments that actually panned out.

Funny how you never see articles during market crashes to highlight how much
wealth that same 10% lost.

Or how they pay the bulk of all taxes collected.

This ideology is not aligned with a sensible reality.

~~~
cporios
> In the US you have the opportunity to reach for the stars (literally). If
> you want it bad enough, with a little luck and hard work you can get there.

Not true. The US ranks very poorly compared to other advanced economies when
it comes to income inequality and social mobility [1].

Also most of the examples you give prove exactly this: Mark Zuckerberg was
just a kid in a _Harvard_ dorm, and so was Bill Gates (one of your
"examples"). Ted Turner went to Brown, and all almost every person in the list
you gave went to a very good school, if not Ivy League. And yet most Americans
claim that they can't afford college [2]. It is naive to claim that "most
people aren't rich due to a lack of opportunity", because that's exactly
what's happening.

[1]: "How to get rich in America", The Economist
-[http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2017/02/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2017/02/economist-explains-0)

[2]: "83% of Americans say they can't afford college", Edward Jones study
-[http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/05/13/83-of-americans-
say-t...](http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/05/13/83-of-americans-say-they-
cant-afford-college-edwar)

~~~
rebootthesystem
Not true at all. This is particularly interesting given the forum you are
posting to.

Let me describe it this way:

A high school kid can go out and buy any one of these computers:

[https://goo.gl/OPdbCK](https://goo.gl/OPdbCK)

Go through this free course:

[https://goo.gl/nInXeY](https://goo.gl/nInXeY)

Gain even greater skills and understanding through this:

[https://goo.gl/5DXZCI](https://goo.gl/5DXZCI)

And any number of these:

[https://goo.gl/lZF13U](https://goo.gl/lZF13U)

And then study this:

[https://goo.gl/Vyrzd6](https://goo.gl/Vyrzd6)

For a bright kid that's $200 and six months of a concerted effort to learn.

Now all he or she needs is some kind of an interesting idea.

Build a minimum viable product. Perhaps do all of this with a friend.

Apply to YC.

If all goes well, have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars and some of
the best business coaching anywhere on earth. And millions of dollars past
that if the idea generates interest. And hundreds of millions to billions of
dollars in revenue in the future if the idea turns into a product that gains
traction.

Please don't tell me there are no opportunities. All you need is a few hundred
dollars, time and dedication and a reasonable support structure from which to
explore (a friends couch or a bedroom at your parent's home). And, yes, a good
idea and some luck.

This has never been possible in the history of humanity until modern times. A
few hundred dollars, an idea and hard work.

Perhaps the reason the US ranks where it does is because people are not
interested in making the effort required to improve their station in life. I
know plenty of people like that. They talk, talk, talk and never take a risk
of any magnitude or make the effort to turn talk into action. And they never
go anywhere.

I'll give you a very concrete example: I have a good friend whom I've known
for thirty years. He is a gun enthusiast and knows the subject very, very
well. For as long as I've known him he has been talking about manufacturing
accessories for other gun enthusiast. This is an extremely lucrative segment
yet one I am not interested in. However, wanting to help him out I've offered
him full access to my entire CNC shop along with workstations with the
requisite CAD/CAM/FEA tools. Free of charge. All he has to do is buy raw
materials, steel and aluminum, design something and machine it. I'd even have
one of my machinists help him get started.

In other words, I am placing, at his feet, with no conditions whatsoever or
desire to take a piece of the action, hundreds of thousands of dollars in high
end manufacturing equipment, software, tools and support. No preconditions. A
complete factory. We can even do electronics assembly for him. For free.

He can make as much money as he wants and I don't take a dime. I'll even do
small production runs for him and not charge him a dime to run our machines
and use our tooling just so he can have an initial inventory to sell.

That has been a standing offer that I have repeated with some frequency for
the past fifteen years. What has he done so far? Talk. Just talk. He is a
great guy and a good friend but he simply does not have what it takes to take
that leap, even when everything is laid out for him.

BTW, I've had this discussion with him in person. I've asked him why it is
that given the opportunity in front of him he just won't pull the trigger an
try to turn his talk, his ideas, into a business. The response is always very
circular and fuzzy, it boils down to the difference between talking about
something and actually doing it. The latter is easy, the former is not.

Opportunities in the US have never been better. Blaming it on the rich is just
one of the myriad excuses out there to justify not making an effort.

BTW, most people would feel rich if they made somewhere between $10K and $25K
a year depending on where they live in the US. I am not necessarily talking
about creating a Facebook here. There are plenty of business opportunities out
there that can get someone to that $10K to $25K a month range without having
to have a Masters degree from Stanford and wealthy parents. In fact, most of
the very successful people I know ($1MM+ in income) never even went to college
and clawed their way to success from nothing.

I'll give you an example of the latter. Friend of mine, emigrated to the US
(legally) with very little to his name. Barely spoke the language. Barely
graduated high school in Israel.

He bought a beat-up piece of shit car. Slept in it for about six months. Got
himself a grunt job at an air conditioning installation company making shit
money. Worked that for about a year. Saved up some money. He worked for me for
a while doing electronics assembly work (which he learned with us, he knew
nothing coming in). Did that for a while and saved some more money.

He eventually decided to go off on his own and start a courier business
(letters and small parcel deliveries). This is before the internet, nothing
was easy.

He beat the pavement for a month until he landed a small client. He had to be
available 24/7\. He would do his day shift making deliveries. At night he'd
park his car in the parking log at his client's office with instructions to
wake him up if they needed a delivery. He did that for a few months. Got a
couple more clients. Continued to drive during the day and sleep in the car at
night in a client's parking lot. Months went by like this.

Fast forward to today: He owns a good size courier/logistics company. He
employs dozens of people. Has a small fleet of cars and trucks. They deliver
locally, nationally and internationally, handling everything from small
parcels to containers full of product. And yes, he makes millions.

Virtually no education. No money. Language challenges. And yet, today, he is
wealthier than most US natives who have all the opportunities laid out in
front of them.

If you want to blame the rich for everything, be my guest, it's a complete
fabrication but hey, free country and all that.

Live long and prosper.

~~~
djhworld
The example of your gun friend, maybe he doesn't feel confident about running
a business? Doing the manufacturing etc is only one part of the process.

~~~
rebootthesystem
Fair enough. You might be absolutely right. That's very much part of my point.

The top 10% are there because of a million reasons. You identified one of
them. Perhaps they are some of the most confident people out there.

Success is hard. I suck at so many things yet I have managed be have success
(after many failures and going bankrupt twice) because of grit, determination,
being open to taking stupid risks and a saint of a wife who put up with my
entrepreneurial bullshit for years. I'm not in that 10% but we do very well.

My trips up and down the scale (if such a scale exists) have taught me so much
about human nature. It is so much easier to blame everyone else for one's own
failures (or lack of motivation, risk taking, etc.). I've always said that in
business I am and will always be my own worst enemy. The psychology of
enduring the torture business can be is crazy.

The first time I lost everything I did not, for a minute, stop to blame
everyone. I licked my wounds and figured out how to start from scratch again.
Not a dollar to my name. Maybe that's why I don't appreciate victim mentality,
I see it as very weak and have nothing but contempt for it.

------
danjoc
"The richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of assets. The
bottom 50 percent of the world’s adults owned barely 1 per cent of global
wealth."

[http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/06/study-
richest-10-per...](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/06/study-
richest-10-percent-own-85-percent-world-assets.html)

Only 80%? Seems like they're giving up some of their lead. They... Who am I
kidding, _we_ are.

[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/050615...](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

Actually, to be completely correct _you_ are. I don't own stocks. I don't
gamble :)