So, let's take two types of investments, both with risk, and pretend there is no risk with one type, tell me which is better? That's an invalid pretext. There is risk there, regardless of your bad assumption.
This is a valid counter argument. But then: If you've never learned to swim, should you still go deep into the lake or should you just stay closer to the shore where you feel comfortable?
That's how I view dividend companies (wading) vs. growth companies (going into deep water).
The LT success of S&P500 is thanks to reinvestment of dividends. Speaking of investing in individual stocks only, even though dividend investing is considered risky like any investing in the stock market, I view it more conservative than looking for the next growth gem. The comfort for me comes from reading history that some companies have paid dividends for many years, but I am sure I would have sold Apple or Amazon if I invested in them from the beginning. I wouldn't be able to hold through their historical drastic jumps. My former boss bought 200-300 Apple shares when it went public and sold it a year before its bad fortune turned onto its success journey. He doesn't even want to look at it...
OTOH, I am OK with index investing and that's where the majority of our investments are in the 401k's and Roth IRA's.
I personally think that investment choices stem from the beliefs an individual has. It's similar to car selection: some swear by American brands and I swear by Japanese.
When I constantly sat on BH forums, I was 'married' to the index investing, but when I learned about dividend stocks, I wanted a little bit of spice. I don't know if I'll change my mind about them, hence my questions to this board to learn from their real life experience where and how much this 'spice' might hurt us in the long run and whether it's warranted to change our choices going forward.
Is it better to pay a success tax or let the tax tail wag the investment dog and claim I was successful in that way?