> How do they have index funds?

Sometimes your employer gives you a list of a couple dozen funds run by the same manager, and if you want your employer to contribute to your retirement savings, those are the options.

And if you invested in those index funds in the past 15 years, the return would be superb.

Banning these super-voting companies from 401(k) and index funds would have deprived many low- and middle-income people of those superb returns.

But hey less competition for the houses and stuff, right? We don't want more average people to enter the upper middle class.

The parent comment isn't about dual-class companies, it's about the fact that many shareholders effectively don't get a choice in how the votes for their shares are cost.

Exactly.

I'm not against forbidding index/401K funds from investing in those companies since many people deem those companies as "bad".

Many average people don't actively manage their funds. Based on the past data, they would've missed out on the benefits, but that's okay.

Having shareholder voting power is more important for them, I suppose. While I disagree, I might have voted for the ban. Because this would've translated to less competition for house and stuff.

Both things can be true. Airlines can be miserly rip-off artists, and we can start seeing lengthy waits at screening points because people had agents make their bookings and weren’t reminded about the things they aren’t allowed to pack.

> This is why many companies outright refuse to participate in sales outside of damaged / opened goods.

Do “many”? The companies I’m familiar with who used to do this have largely abandoned the practice due to consumer expectations of sales.

By some definition!

I agree, a lot of them give it up and "many" is overly generous. I think I remember that Thursday Boot Company still does it?

Should be? Like, it's effectively forced on people because you can't effectively fund a middle-class retirement without relying on stock-market-like gains, but there's no intrinsic reason that corporate shares should be a core part of modern life.

Isn’t “external motivation” good enough of a reason to buy stocks? (Or index funds)

"Investment" is just an abstraction that we've created to manage resource allocation. If people with wealth didn't "invest" in a way that's productive to society, society can choose a different method of resource allocation that doesn't involve those people having the ability to invest.

> Meta somehow ends up in a shamelessly evil sociopaths hands

It's not clear that it isn't already, but you know, lawful evil rather than chaotic evil.

> It had the same problem as the MS Answers forum.

I had the exact same thought when I saw the headline. For their purported use, both forums have bafflingly low signal-to-noise.

> If Slate can make a $25,000 EV truck I don’t see why Ford can’t do the same.

The Ford Fathom isn't that far off.

Exactly. $25k isn't what I would call cheap, and Ford has probably decided that at that price (or near it) people rightfully want basic amenities in their truck, like a back seat. I hope Slate succeeds but they have a tough row to hoe.

It tends to be more economical to adjust in advance so that you don't have to use non-regen brakes. (Or any brakes, in a pure ICE.)

It’s not always required. I rarely brake at all on an open road, except for stops and if something else is physically in my way.

If if the conditions actually require it, that’s when I brake. Not because a sign told me too when I may not actually need to. I feel that’s probably the most economical option.