"
High dividend stocks are almost by definition risky stocks."
Pardon me, but that is more or less the opposite of the traditional received wisdom.
High dividend stocks come in two varieties:
* Low-growth, mature, typically capital-intensive companies, especially those in highly-regulated industries. Think power generation, some real estate investments, and so on. Since stock price appreciation is not in the cards, dividends are the only returns an investor can expect and thus are higher. These are typically the safest stocks, although "safety" is relative; stocks are more risky than most other investments.
* A dividend-paying company whose stock price has been depressed, typically due to specific events: poor management decisions, a bad environment, competition, or what have you. These are typically considered "value" investments; the stock price has been pushed down, usually for good reasons, but also usually, too far. The dividend on these is unlikely to be maintainable---management will usually reduce it as part of doing something to get the company back on its feet or whatever. However, the investment itself is not particularly unsafe, in my personal opinion. See Buffet's "The Superinvestors of Graham-Doddsville" for some other people who feel likewise.
The second group is probably not what the poster wants and I would be uncomfortable focusing solely on the first since those kinds of industries are typically economically linked.
On the other hand, you do have to know what you mean by "high dividend". Thanks to the "dividends are doubly-taxed" lunacy, and double thanks to the "growth is everything" mentality, dividends are very low or non-existent. Anything above, say, 4% (to pull a number out of my flying monkeys) is probably a return of capital, not a return on capital; the money you get as dividends includes a partial payment of your original investment and you cannot expect to get your original investment back when you sell it. In fact, it will disappear entirely over time. And anything over 1.5% to 2% (again with the flying-monkey-numbers) probably represents the value investment situation rather than something sustainable. The 6% mentioned by the grandparent probably is indeed pretty risky.
Also, the bond market is usually considered safer than stocks, with a higher interest "dividend". But I don't really know much about that.
This should not be considered financial advice, I'm some random dude on the internet. Look carefully before you leap, try to learn what you're doing before you try to do it, and try to stick with reputable instruction. There is a crap-ton of bad information out there.
[Did I write something particularly controversial?]