And if I was a fetus in the early 80s? Or if I got sick and needed to sell that stock early to pay for treatment?

Your point still is predicated on the "already having money" part.

Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not sidelined by disastrous health problems.

The point is invest early in your working life, and you'll have the needed results when you're ready to retire.

$1,000 is not what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000 is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than $1,000.

A car is a necessity in most of America for getting around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

And depending on who you're talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is "having money".

> Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around.

True enough. Because they spend it, like the person who bought a new car. How much do they spend on beer/cigarettes/weed in a year?

> And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

That's true. Apparently investing is more than "doing nothing", and one is taking a risk. But it is within the means of the vast majority of adults.

> And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

For the record; knowing what to invest in is easy: a broad based low cost index fund. The research in "A Random Walk Down Wallstreet" statistically shows that actively choosing specific companies has a less than 50% success rate and often comes with higher fees. For the record, most public libraries have a copy of "A Random Walk" and its conclusions are well shared.

What if I invested in Blockbuster instead of Boeing? How much would my $1000 be worth today?

If you're not willing to invest because it's risky, that's fair, but if you're also going to complain that those who do are getting something for nothing, then it isn't so fair.

I wasn't the original commenter, but I don't think when they said "owner class" they meant passive minority shareholders with $200K portfolios or people with some money in their 401Ks.

While some of the richest are certainly entrepreneurs, the largest percentage of Forbes 400 are people who got there with OPM, other people's money, like hedge fund managers. Another chunk are heirs like Waltons or Kochs. Did Waltons get something for nothing without any risk? I would say yes, they did.

Check this on Sam Walton before assuming he got something for nothing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton

More accurately he made something from nothing.

You and anyone else could have made a little something, too, if you'd bought Walmart stock. Lots of people did.

Also, you could be a millionaire by retirement if you adhered to a regular investment program rather than only one investment of $1,000.

Sam Walton is dead, I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about his children, they're in top 20 richest people or something like that. Each one.

And if I didn't have the money to buy that stock?

Also, the Walton kids most assuredly got something for nothing.

> And if I didn't have the money to buy that stock?

But you do.

> the Walton kids most assuredly got something for nothing.

85% of American millionaires are self-made. See "The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley.