[rosser]

How does that help people who don't even have that $100 to spare? They'd benefit far more from meaningful access to an economy's growth, wouldn't they? The people who can afford to do that in a way that truly pays off already have plenty of money.

The stock market is open to more people, but it still biases disproportionately for those that have more money.

[skookumchuck]

> people who don't even have that $100 to spare?

This country does not consist of 1% super rich and 99% who do not have even $100.

[rosser]

I don't see where I said it did. You didn't answer my question.

EDIT: Forty-some percent of Americans don't have the cash on hand or free credit to handle an unexpected $400 expense. [0] That statistic is almost 3 years old. I doubt it's gone down in that time.

[0] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/09/...

[skookumchuck]

I am addressing the income inequality issue. It doesn't need to apply to 100% of the population to be effective.

[rosser]

How is a thing which half the population doesn't have the disposable income to participate in "effective" in addressing income inequality?

[skookumchuck]

The survey is classic selection bias.

Anyhow, it does not distinguish between "has no discretionary income" from "spent every dime they have". The latter is a common problem even among higher income folks.

People seem to be able to find the funds to buy iphones/booze/drugs/airjordans even down to the lowest levels.