Bret Devereaux

One thing that always happens when there's stonk-related discourse is well-off media types who think owning stocks is normal getting very confused and irritated to discover most people on here think of the market as a gacha game for rich cokeheads

I think the normal figure is that about 55% of households hold some sort of stocks. But of course how much stock and how significant those holdings are for personal finance vary a lot.

That said, if one had money sitting around, the basic performance of stock index funds - not picking individual stocks, just index funds - has been fairly good. So it's not a bad bet assuming one recognizes at the outset that they don't have any special knowledge or skill and..

...also that you have, you know, liquid capital to put into the stock market. Which is a whole separate problem that no amount of market highs can fix.

I think 55% is probably a decent figure across the board for what percentage of the population has some access to the professional economy, with its assumptions about insurance, retirement funds, home ownership, etc., and the worldview gulf between them and the other 45% is wide

And also I think some of that 55% is only marginally invested. And also 45% is a lot! It makes it a pretty significant problem when returns to capital dwarf returns to labor.

I'd rather see a radical expansion of the EITC than an increase in the minimum wage (they have the same effect of boosting low incomes), but I think we are past the point that we have to be looking at ways to improve returns to labor.

My big worry with attacking the problem via minimum wage is the disparate impacts in different areas. $15 is a bit different in S. Dakota than it is in New York. EITC expansion would avoid that problem of potentially wrecking businesses in low-cost-of-living areas.