To the extent my superannuation fund (401k, ROTH, IRA, hard to know what people call this in other economies) is invested in oil, it goes to .. me.
Super funds in Australia, Canada, the US, are now a massive component of capital investment both in the public market and in private equity. Australia's GDP is 2.5T and the super funds are up to 4T or 5T. Thats $trillion. The super funds are bigger than the GDP of the economy they reside in!
Some funds are just venal machines in the for profit sector. Some are run by boards aligned to union sectors, I am in the tertiary education union backed fund in Australia and it's been in the top 5 performing funds for my entire working lifetime, and given me a comfortable retirement. Most of the injection of funds was from me: I paid between 9 and 12% and on occasion up to 15% of my income into this fund over a 35 year working lifetime. Its accrual is all down to my fund manager, and if they invested in oil and have secured a windfall, at the cost of the future climate risk, thats on me, albiet indirectly. 35 years at the 150+ year 6-7% return in the market, (some say this trend is even older) is several doublings over my working lifetime. Those doublings were driven in .. the market.
Me here, is 75% or more of Australia. It's not some amorphous unknown nasty corporate investor in a sharp suit, its ordinary people. Oh, the article even points out that they pay out on insurance and capital costs rebuilding the exploded ships and production facilities. Guess who makes money? Thats right, the superannuation funds invested in the re-insurance market (Warren Buffett's favourite!) or in construction companies, public or private. So.. thats me again.
The money comes to us. Some of us may be in Saud. Sure. The Saudi state pays a huge stipend to its citizens. Some of us may be in Norway. That national investment fund is amazing. Why do you think Norway is now almost completely cut over to private EV drivers?
I'd love to ideate the hateful oil companies as the victors here but the thing is, they don't simply act like Smaug and sit on a pile of gold coins. Thats not held to be useful by them and their peers. They do shave off FAR TOO MUCH to swan about in those aforementioned sharp suits, but enough of the fat trickles into my hands, to keep me in the manner to which I am accustomed, as a retiree.
I'm as complicit, and so are "you" for many people reading this.
I wish I could downvote this, because what a bunch of baloney! Unless you have hundreds of thousands, and to be precise millions, invested in oil already, you're not going to see any significant changes to your portfolio. The rich will get richer playing the market, the regular folk are left out as always paying the price.
Big US oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, et al are mostly owned by mutual funds and index funds. So it really is "regular folk", though of course not everyone has the same size 401k.
Superannuation in Australia is most typically a not-for-profit mutual fund. So .. yes. Most Australians invest in "industry super" which means the union backed nfp model.
> So it really is "regular folk", though of course not everyone has the same size 401k.
Depends on how you define "regular folk".
40% of American adults don't have any retirement savings account at all. And entirely unsurprisingly whether they do or not correlates extremely strongly with income/wealth.
So one could easily claim that the further from actual "regular folk" you are the more likely you are to benefit.
Thats a percentage, not statistics. Statistics would guide you that "regular folk" wouldn't describe the 60% most well-off, but rather the 60% in the middle. Also 'any retirement savings at all' ≠ mutual funds or stock market ownership.
What you said makes no sense. The fact is that most Americans have retirement accounts, and most of that money is invested in stocks. In particular, large cap stocks like Exxon and Chevron.
Any definition of "regular folk" that excludes more than half the population is nonsense.
I mean, when the figures are 60%-40% you (generic you) can totally use any of them to make a point about "regular folks" because the absolute number is already so big to have a weight behind.
And going back to the original topic, these figures should help us realize two things that are both true:
1. a big part of the population is gaining from the gas price raising via funds growth.
2. a big part of the population, the one with less resources already, just pay the consequences of the gas raises because they don't own funds at all, so they cannot reap any growth there.
Anyone can decide to put their spare cash or retirement funds into oil stocks, but I don't think that it's a recipe for getting rich. Renewable energy is rapidly replacing oil, and if the Strait of Hormuz opened and the Ukraine war ended, oil prices would sink and you would end up with huge losses.
Nobody really gets rich by playing the market. You get rich by working hard and/or starting your own business, and investing in a diversified portfolio of index funds and dividend paying blue chips.
the large in the "owning a large amount of..." is relative. you could think you're rich and i could think you're poor, or i could think you're rich and you could think you're poor.
Rich is just a word that is over-used to push political agendas. It is a relative term. I am rich compared to a huge segment of the world's population. I am poor compared to the top .1% of people.
'Tax the Rich' politicians will never give you a number when you ask just who they are talking about. It has to be fluid. Bernie Sanders used to rail on millionaires until he became one. Now he only says billionaires.
With regards to Senator Sanders, inflation is a thing. Also the massive increase in the cost of housing that increased the middle class net worth. He has been remarkably consistent about the segment of the population he wants to tax.
I'm also poor relative to the to 0.1% of people, but I still make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the minimum wage worker. If were better able to provide for everyone by taxing me more then I'd be all for it.
> Rich is just a word that is over-used to push political agendas. It is a relative term. I am rich compared to a huge segment of the world's population. I am poor compared to the top .1% of people.
i agree. "capitalist" is the word for what people really mean when they talk about "the rich"
Let’s assume you work longer and harder and smarter than 99% of people in the USA at $450k a year.
Let’s also assume you save every penny, you don’t buy a single thing, from food to shelter.
Let’s assume that inflation is zero, and you work for 50 years at this level from 20 to 70.
You will have earned $22.5 million.
Not bad. Remember this is without spending a single cent.
Now how do you think you get to a net worth of $220m? Or $2200 million? By working ten or one hundred times harder
You don’t get rich from working hard. You get rich by being rich and letting it snowball. $40k a year in an 8% return for 50 years gets you about the same.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to have that kind of money. I would retire immediately if that was in my bank account.
But we're comparing to people who have 100x that. Or nowadays apparently literal trillionaires.
Like there's rich and then there's rich
Keep in mind that the situation that the OP suggested is a sort of spherical cow. Substantially more people earn <40k per year than earn 450k per year. It is extremely unlikely to earn that kind of money over that kind of timeframe, nevermind being able to save every single cent of it
This is someone who managed to work in one to the highest paid jobs in the country for 50 years straight without spending a penny on food, education, travel, rent, medical bills, etc, and somehow avoid paying any taxes.
And there are people 1000 times richer.
The way to may 22m isn’t working this crazy way, it’s to invest in the stock market and try to have a larger slice of everyone else’s work.
ggm · · focus · HN ↗
Super funds in Australia, Canada, the US, are now a massive component of capital investment both in the public market and in private equity. Australia's GDP is 2.5T and the super funds are up to 4T or 5T. Thats $trillion. The super funds are bigger than the GDP of the economy they reside in!
Some funds are just venal machines in the for profit sector. Some are run by boards aligned to union sectors, I am in the tertiary education union backed fund in Australia and it's been in the top 5 performing funds for my entire working lifetime, and given me a comfortable retirement. Most of the injection of funds was from me: I paid between 9 and 12% and on occasion up to 15% of my income into this fund over a 35 year working lifetime. Its accrual is all down to my fund manager, and if they invested in oil and have secured a windfall, at the cost of the future climate risk, thats on me, albiet indirectly. 35 years at the 150+ year 6-7% return in the market, (some say this trend is even older) is several doublings over my working lifetime. Those doublings were driven in .. the market.
Me here, is 75% or more of Australia. It's not some amorphous unknown nasty corporate investor in a sharp suit, its ordinary people. Oh, the article even points out that they pay out on insurance and capital costs rebuilding the exploded ships and production facilities. Guess who makes money? Thats right, the superannuation funds invested in the re-insurance market (Warren Buffett's favourite!) or in construction companies, public or private. So.. thats me again.
The money comes to us. Some of us may be in Saud. Sure. The Saudi state pays a huge stipend to its citizens. Some of us may be in Norway. That national investment fund is amazing. Why do you think Norway is now almost completely cut over to private EV drivers?
I'd love to ideate the hateful oil companies as the victors here but the thing is, they don't simply act like Smaug and sit on a pile of gold coins. Thats not held to be useful by them and their peers. They do shave off FAR TOO MUCH to swan about in those aforementioned sharp suits, but enough of the fat trickles into my hands, to keep me in the manner to which I am accustomed, as a retiree.
I'm as complicit, and so are "you" for many people reading this.
aleksandrm · · focus · HN ↗
stickfigure · · focus · HN ↗
ggm · · focus · HN ↗
georgemcbay · · focus · HN ↗
Depends on how you define "regular folk".
40% of American adults don't have any retirement savings account at all. And entirely unsurprisingly whether they do or not correlates extremely strongly with income/wealth.
So one could easily claim that the further from actual "regular folk" you are the more likely you are to benefit.
darkwater · · focus · HN ↗
> 40% of American adults don't have any retirement savings account at all.
So, 60% have, 60% is more than half, so it takes the value of "regular folk". Ah, statistics.
wyre · · focus · HN ↗
stickfigure · · focus · HN ↗
Any definition of "regular folk" that excludes more than half the population is nonsense.
wyre · · focus · HN ↗
There is overlap, but there is also a large portion of regular people that do not hold stock in oil companies.
darkwater · · focus · HN ↗
And going back to the original topic, these figures should help us realize two things that are both true:
1. a big part of the population is gaining from the gas price raising via funds growth.
2. a big part of the population, the one with less resources already, just pay the consequences of the gas raises because they don't own funds at all, so they cannot reap any growth there.
MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
cpncrunch · · focus · HN ↗
Nobody really gets rich by playing the market. You get rich by working hard and/or starting your own business, and investing in a diversified portfolio of index funds and dividend paying blue chips.
lesuorac · · focus · HN ↗
Exxon is up 40% year-to-date (YTD), BP is up 20% YTD while SNP500 is up 12% YTD.
So I'm not even sure the premise of this tangent is correct; oil stocks aren't shown to be the recipient of the current price spike.
cpncrunch · · focus · HN ↗
But it's not sustainable in the medium term.
ggm · · focus · HN ↗
You think this is the only basis of investment in a large fund? You think they don't make plays which respect this fact, in their risk profile?
cpncrunch · · focus · HN ↗
inkcapmushroom · · focus · HN ↗
SturgeonsLaw · · focus · HN ↗
Come on now
cpncrunch · · focus · HN ↗
pasquinelli · · focus · HN ↗
cpncrunch · · focus · HN ↗
pasquinelli · · focus · HN ↗
didgetmaster · · focus · HN ↗
'Tax the Rich' politicians will never give you a number when you ask just who they are talking about. It has to be fluid. Bernie Sanders used to rail on millionaires until he became one. Now he only says billionaires.
IX-103 · · focus · HN ↗
I'm also poor relative to the to 0.1% of people, but I still make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the minimum wage worker. If were better able to provide for everyone by taxing me more then I'd be all for it.
pasquinelli · · focus · HN ↗
i agree. "capitalist" is the word for what people really mean when they talk about "the rich"
hdgvhicv · · focus · HN ↗
Let’s also assume you save every penny, you don’t buy a single thing, from food to shelter.
Let’s assume that inflation is zero, and you work for 50 years at this level from 20 to 70.
You will have earned $22.5 million.
Not bad. Remember this is without spending a single cent.
Now how do you think you get to a net worth of $220m? Or $2200 million? By working ten or one hundred times harder
You don’t get rich from working hard. You get rich by being rich and letting it snowball. $40k a year in an 8% return for 50 years gets you about the same.
cpncrunch · · focus · HN ↗
Which is rich.
bluefirebrand · · focus · HN ↗
Don't get me wrong. I would love to have that kind of money. I would retire immediately if that was in my bank account.
But we're comparing to people who have 100x that. Or nowadays apparently literal trillionaires.
Like there's rich and then there's rich
Keep in mind that the situation that the OP suggested is a sort of spherical cow. Substantially more people earn <40k per year than earn 450k per year. It is extremely unlikely to earn that kind of money over that kind of timeframe, nevermind being able to save every single cent of it
IX-103 · · focus · HN ↗
hdgvhicv · · focus · HN ↗
And there are people 1000 times richer.
The way to may 22m isn’t working this crazy way, it’s to invest in the stock market and try to have a larger slice of everyone else’s work.
well_ackshually · · focus · HN ↗
marcusverus · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
vinyl7 · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah, right