I meant everyone with a good tech job, not everyone in the country.

About a 1:1000 ratio I'd guess.

Sure, but there was nothing stopping people with $10k in savings in 2015 from buying Nvidia. If someone with $10k in savings had bought Nvidia in 2015, they’d have $2.5m today. But that only works for a relatively small number of people before the $2.5m is no longer $2.5m - they’re all drawing from the same $6 trillion pot. “Everyone with a good tech job” is accurate, but besides the point, it would work exactly the same if you limited it to “everyone who’s a plumber” or “everyone who’s a fedex driver”, but literally cannot work for everyone at the same time.

▲

fooker 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> it would work exactly the same if you limited it to “everyone who’s a plumber” or “everyone who’s a fedex driver”

Yes, "Everyone with a good tech job" has a significantly higher chance of keeping or holding tech RSUs, and have conviction that investing in tech is going to pay off.

> but literally cannot work for everyone at the same time

Yes, that is how the world works. Anything that makes you successful would not work for everyone at the same time.

▲

Marsymars 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yes, that is how the world works. Anything that makes you successful would not work for everyone at the same time.

To me this reads as a particularly misanthropic view of the world that only considers zero-sum (or less than zero sum) actions.

Any investments in yourself that aren’t at the expense of others (education, exercise, diet, therapy, living space improvements, etc., etc.) or investments in family and community, benefit both you and others and would work for everybody; indeed, many such investments would work better the more people undertook them, rather than the fewer.

	▲	fooker 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do you see the difference between > more and > everyone ? If more people bought Nvidia stocks, the value would be higher. If everyone bought, something would give (and that is exactly what we are starting to see).