I've had a copies of the 10K report for several large tech companies (Google/Alphabet, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.) in the S.F. area and that vast majority of their stock (about 60% to 80%) is owned by a relatively small number of principals (like about 25 to 40) rather than the public.

Furthermore, their stock is sold in a minimum quantity (like 1000 shares) and that's beyond what your Average Joe small investor can afford. There are also broker's fees to buy or sell.

So buying stock in a large corporation is not an option for most people including the rank and file workers. Unless you're a major shareholder, management is not going to listen to anything you've got to say. That's where unions got rooted in big industry.

That is factually inaccurate. If the total float is large enough to make a market, then the amount of stock closely held is irrelevant. If I can execute an online trade in the amounts I need at the price I want, then the float is adequate. Today, a retail investor can purchase small quantities of any listed stock for an online commission of $4.95 flat irrespective of the share price. In 23 years of self directed investing, all of my trades have been for a minimum of 5 shares and a maximum of 200 shares on both the buy side and the sell side. I can tell you that the total commission costs ranged from a high of $29.95 per trade (ca. 1994) to a low of $4.95 per trade ( ca. 2017). These costs are like fly specks in the pepper.

When I started my IRA in 1976, it was true that commissions were quite a bit more. I made maybe one trade per year and it was always a buy. At the beginning it was Intel, then Oracle, then Texas Instruments. My memories are imprecise but those commissions were in the $80-$180 range. Don't get me wrong, I am no Warren Buffett. But like Buffett and other great investors I was never fearful about investing because I had a day job, and a long time horizon. My day job is long gone and my time horizon has shrunk to near zero so the risks I am willing to take have changed. Getting rich quickly is incredibly hard, getting rich slowly is eminently doable.

 

Getting rich quickly is incredibly hard, getting rich slowly is eminently doable

I would argue that getting rich quick is not incredibly hard, in most cases, it is incredibly lucky.

 

I would argue that getting rich quick is not incredibly hard, in most cases, it is incredibly lucky.

And it's incredibly hard to reliably manufacture luck. It is why I have never purchased a lottery ticket. Have you read the horror stories of the winners? It is quit simply hazardous to your health and well being to win the lottery.

 

And it incredibly hard to reliably manufacture luck. It is why I have never purchased a lottery ticket. Have you read the horror stories of the winners? It is quit simply hazardous to your health and well being to win the lottery.

A coworker did a research project for his PhD in Economics. He studied the decision-making process of winners. I have a copy of his dissertation around here somewhere. From what I remember, At the time, there were no multi-state lotteries. He knew someone at the state lottery and they were going to work together using public records and PA lottery records to do a "look how the lottery changed their lives" advertisement. After the 10th interview, the state lottery pulled their support from the project. He had the list of names so he continued on his own.

90% of winners never had more than $1500 in their checking account before winning.
More than half of winners had declaimed bankruptcy within 5 years.

 

And it incredibly hard to reliably manufacture luck. It is why I have never purchased a lottery ticket. Have you read the horror stories of the winners? It is quit simply hazardous to your health and well being to win the lottery.

Very true... alas, most people don't have the emotional maturity to handle prosperity...

 

They can do what others cant because they do what others wont

 

When the lottery gets high enough some, and by that I mean a pool of investors buy every conceivable number to guarantee a win.

 

Actually, there is a floor on how much anyone in the middle class can reduce their spending without creating a serious hardship like going without health care.

Of course there's a floor! I allowed for that. But most people are not at that at floor -- including most of the ones that claim they are. Yes, as I said, exceptions exist and some people ARE at that floor. But the fraction of people that are truly at that floor is extremely low.

However, most people wouldn't want to live my restrictive life style so I can't blame them for not being a "tightwad".

And therein lies a big part of the problem. They don't WANT to live a restrictive lifestyle, regardless of whether their income can sustain the lifestyle that they do want and choose to live. Pretty much by definition, all of those people that you aren't blaming for being tightwads and living your restrictive lifestyle are NOT at the floor or anywhere particularly close to it.

 

I've had a copies of the 10K report for several large tech companies (Google/Alphabet, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.) in the S.F. area and that vast majority of their stock (about 60% to 80%) is owned by a relatively small number of principals (like about 25 to 40) rather than the public.

Furthermore, their stock is sold in a minimum quantity (like 1000 shares) and that's beyond what your Average Joe small investor can afford. There are also broker's fees to buy or sell.

So buying stock in a large corporation is not an option for most people including the rank and file workers. Unless you're a major shareholder, management is not going to listen to anything you've got to say. That's where unions got rooted in big industry.

The Average Joe very much can invest in those companies.

First off, there are plenty of mutual funds that hold positions in all of those companies. The Average Joe investor should probably not be investing in single-stock purchases anyway -- they aren't in a position to accept the kind of risk that goes along with it. Pooled risk is a far better strategy for them.

Second, you most certainly can but their stock in less than 1000 shares. I just placed an order for 1 share of Google stock to prove this to myself (I then canceled it because I don't have any big desire to own any more single-company stocks).

The broker's fees are almost non-existent any more. I do all of my trading via TDAmeritrade. When I first set up my account (which was free), the cost to buy are sell stock was $11. It has been steadily dropping and now it is $4.95. Keep your orders at lead $1000 and your round trip cost to buy and sell a stock is under 1%. That is where I set up my Solo 401(k) and there are NO fees and costs associated with it other than the trading commissions.

 

A coworker did a research project for his PhD in Economics. He studied the decision-making process of winners. I have a copy of his dissertation around here somewhere. From what I remember, At the time, there were no multi-state lotteries. He knew someone at the state lottery and they were going to work together using public records and PA lottery records to do a "look how the lottery changed their lives" advertisement. After the 10th interview, the state lottery pulled their support from the project. He had the list of names so he continued on his own.

90% of winners never had more than $1500 in their checking account before winning.
More than half of winners had declaimed bankruptcy within 5 years.

That's a pattern that has been shown to be true over and over and over. It is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that someone is buying a lottery ticket is a strong indication that there is a high probability that they are not capable of thinking rationally about money. Yes, there are plenty of ticket purchasers that are playing for a bit of fun and never expect to win, but those people also tend to play sporadically and seldom buy very many tickets. A huge fraction of tickets are purchased by people that cannot afford to do so -- many of them are receiving public assistance. Furthermore, they buy significant numbers of tickets because they truly believe it is their best way up and out. So it's not surprising that those that do win aren't capable of managing their finances well -- the reason why so many of them were purchasing lottery tickets was because they weren't capable of managing their finances well.

 

When the lottery gets high enough some, and by that I mean a pool of investors buy every conceivable number to guarantee a win.

This has happened a few times, but I don't think it is common at all. Most of the time such a strategy will end up losing money because the ticket sales at those prize levels are high enough so as to produce multiple winners. By the time cash-value and taxes are taken into consideration, the expected return with just two winning tickets is almost never reached. Furthermore, the logistics of purchasing every single number are prohibitive in most lottery games because they have to be purchased a few at a time on the bubble-in forms. There are increasing numbers of online venues, but then you have their fees to take into account.

 

They can do what others cant because they do what others wont

As I said when I was working someone asked me to wrongly advise a close person. The person closest to me, if I had accepted to lie to, would have been probably homeless on the street.
The one who asked me to do this was a very close to the CEO.

I refused. With no connection at that time, the head of the department has gathered a group who were looking for what I did wrong.
They found it two years before I did not do a mechanical component.
in fact at that time the mechanical workers refused to do it for me.

Finally after many problems, I was fired. I have not finished my PhD
And so without PhD nobody wants me in science.

Is this financial intelligence?
I probably did not have financial intelligence.

To continue?
When he returned to my country, no one wanted him as CEO in my institute.

But he received money in the form of projects from other country with the right to put who he wants on that project.
In other words, he bought those who are decision-makers.
Now he has full power in that national institute.
He thinks he is respected, but in fact employees are afraid to contradict of him.
Is this financial intelligence?

 

Does it matter? It was ancient history. He is explaining the history. Why so hostile?

I think you know the answer to that one. JJ doesn't like it when anyone, especially me has an opinion, or a life experience that doesn't meet his expert opinions.

 

I think you know the answer to that one. JJ doesn't like it when anyone, especially me has an opinion, or a life experience that doesn't meet his expert opinions.

I've seen plenty of your opines that excluded bitterness where I didn't comment.

Complaining about an agreed upon situation is just being bitter. If you were so upset, why in the world did you stay in that line of work.

Wage is what you or your representative, and the employer agreed upon as a fair exchange of services. If the employer thought you were worth more, you would have received it. When you disagree, you move on to get you closer to your self-assessed service value. If your not going to take the risk, don't complain. You made your choices, live with them.

 

I've seen plenty of your opines that excluded bitterness where I didn't comment.

Complaining about an agreed upon situation is just being bitter. If you were so upset, why in the world did you stay in that line of work.

Joe,
It is clear to everyone that @shortbus has more life experiences than you and he sees through the BS way better than you. If you are hoping for some type of validation by putting him down - here it is, "Oh Joe, you are so smart". Now cut the crap.

-GT

 

And therein lies a big part of the problem. They don't WANT to live a restrictive lifestyle, regardless of whether their income can sustain the lifestyle that they do want and choose to live. Pretty much by definition, all of those people that you aren't blaming for being tightwads and living your restrictive lifestyle are NOT at the floor or anywhere particularly close to it.

So true. Day after day, my daughter (the one working in credit counseling) deals with people in financial situations you can only describe as desperate. Declaring bankruptcy is a "nuclear option" for anyone because of the damage it does to your credit for years into the future. But it's very much an option for many of these people, because they have dug (spent) themselves into such a deep hole and cannot find their way out. And yet, when my daughter suggests they try living without the $140 cable TV package and ditch their $150 cellphone plan, their eyes glaze over and they yell and howl that her advice is absurd and impractical. They cannot possibly do without these "essentials" that my daughter happily lives without.

Only a very few of her customers are genuine hardship cases suffering the death of the bread-winning spouse, a catastrophic medical issue, or that sort of thing.

 

A high school teacher has the 300E /month salary(full-time salary).
The rent of an apartment is 150-200E/ month.
Spending on winter with heating of apartment is 50E/month.
The rest of the clothes and food.

Boo hoo. Many people get by with far less than this. What I see in this example is an income that exceeds expenses and thus a path to progress in a financial sense.

As a senior in college, I earned $230/month teaching a class. My rent (1/3rd of the total, shared with roommates) consumed $200, leaving me about $1/day to eat, dress, drive my car to work and woo girlfriends. That was not sustainable for more than a year, but I got by because I had no choice. If I knew it would last longer, perhaps I would have sold my car and used a bike. Or looked for another roommate or cheaper housing option. I should add that I didn't feel sorry for myself at the time - well maybe a little, especially with the girls issue. It was just life and many around me were going through the same thing.

Your other posts recount situations where you learned that some people are ruthless, aggressive, and generally awful. Again, boo hoo. Dealing with horrible people is a part of everyone's life and something you have to both accept and learn to deal with.

Complaining about what others have done to you is a sign of potentially hazardous thought patterns, of blaming others for every obstacle in life. Imagine that I am a prospective employer reading your posts. From what you have described so far, and especially the ways you have described events, would make me extremely unlikely to risk hiring you. I've worked with people that had similar defensive attitudes and, given the choice, would not have them around.

Please don't interpret all this as derision. I'm trying to share with you whatever wisdom I can muster that might help you change your situation for the better. I certainly don't have all the answers you need. One thing I can suggest is that you find a coach of some kind. There is such a thing as "life coaching" and I believe you would benefit from it. It's a surprisingly simple process where the coach helps you identify personal goals in life and establish a path to achieve them. That's simple to say but there's a lot of thought and work that goes into making it actually happen. The idea is to seize control of your own outcomes instead of being a pawn.

 

Joe,
It is clear to everyone that @shortbus has more life experiences than you and he sees through the BS way better than you. If you are hoping for some type of validation by putting him down - here it is, "Oh Joe, you are so smart". Now cut the crap.

-GT

Did I miss the poll you created that "everyone" stated that?

You only know what anyone states as their experience, and one doesn't know the whole story unless they are know the other personally for their whole life. So if he wants to share his bitterness, that is is right. He made his choices, just like you and I. He has to live with them just like you and I.

When the time comes that you and your employer can no longer agree, move on. It happens a lot in this country. If you feel management is unfair, start your own company and treat your workers how you wish you were treated.

Complaints on the internet fall on deaf ears. I suspect he is better than the bitterness he displayed recently.

And here is another military saying ... "A bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor." @shortbus and you must be happy sailors.

 

Did I miss the poll you created that "everyone" stated that?

You only know what anyone states as their experience, and one doesn't know the whole story unless they are know the other personally for their whole life. So if he wants to share his bitterness, that is is right. He made his choices, just like you and I. He has to live with them just like you and I.

When the time comes that you and your employer can no longer agree, move on. It happens a lot in this country. If you feel management is unfair, start your own company and treat your workers how you wish you were treated.

Complaints on the internet fall on deaf ears. I suspect he is better than the bitterness he displayed recently.

And here is another military saying ... "A bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor." @shortbus and you must be happy sailors.

Re-read his post. It sounded more like he was telling a story of facts. I didn't notice any attitude or bitterness. He did the work and the company gave him a paycheck. He is more than allowed to criticize the process and people. Why do you object to his criticism?

 

First, I dislike any ex post facto accusations, especially when the targets of such accusations can not address the issues. Like all stories, all we see is his one-sided version, as we should, as it is his story.

He asserted that GM made him give up 9 days of pay. You know damn well the union was involved and agreed, willingly or not, to accept that. His representatives agreed to it. I doubt he complained about the union agreeing to such a thing as his main focus was on management or actively work for electing new union leadership.

He asserted that all the blame stops at the workers. Another fallacy. In the world I worked in, the leadership is under the metaphorical gun. Your in charge, your responsible. They don't care if your asleep in your cabin or actively commanding the situation, your responsible. Your responsibility doesn't end when you walk out the door. The Admirals that were relieved "for cause" certainly wasn't aboard any of those naval ships during the accidents recently, they are however, removed from their positions. If you needed a civilian analogy, that would be akin to the CEO being ousted. I don't recall seeing many "VW" workers getting the boot for "cheating" and by his standards, since they installed it, shouldn't they get the blame? So my conclusion is the blame doesn't stop at the workers.

He asserted the engineers were unqualified. That may be true, yet, GM had a beneficial suggestions at the time, so I wondered if he submitted one about the items of his objections.

So, we have his story, with no actions by him to rectify or even bring attention to someone who could further address the issues. Absent a recourse action, it all appears like a "disgruntled" employee talking trash.

Do I think if he stood up at a share holders meeting and complained that everything would go his way? No. I do believe he would have his say, get it off his chest in front of other shareholders. There is a better than good chance NOTHING would happen as like in a democracy, the majority still "likes" the current CEO and want to compensate them.

So, while my experiences did not mirror his, he wants me to believe the he suffered these unbearable conditions and decided to endure them without addressing the causes or left because of those issues.

Everyone has a limit. When that limit is reached, there is a reaction. It could be as simple as being tired of putting up with some boss or issue as your reason for leaving the company. It happens. I've done it before as have thousands if not millions. Did I have "great" bosses in the military? No, not all, but the saving grace is the tour length. That would be the maximum time I would have to endure them or they enduring me.