I guess I'm saying it is relative. If you stand to lose your child's college fund, your home, or the ability to eat next week I'd classify that as, "more to lose" than 100 million dollars.

I understand why this isn't practicable. Those who have large investments have a large incentive to educate themselves on how the market works and how corporate governance will impact overall success for the company.

Sometimes hard and unpopular decisions are necessary in order to keep the company profitable.

I do, however, see real value in having input from a sector that's focused more on long term success than short term profits.

They're giving their time -- literally the one non-fungible resource any human being has -- in exchange for money. Money comes and goes. You never get your 20s or 30s back.

Literally everyone does, it's the definition of work, and you may or may not have to give more of it to get a desired standard of living. (Unless you don't have to work because you're filthy rich or connected.)

The question is, how well can you sell it and whether the conditions are otherwise acceptable.

Anyone who draws income via rent-seeking does not trade time for money.

Your landlord, most of the time (i.e. when they're not repairing or maintaining their properties), is not trading money for time; they are charging you for access to materials which, moment to moment, costs them nothing.

Patent trolls make money without trading away their time -- you work to pay for access to an idea, which costs them nothing to maintain.

One could go on and on with examples of widespread rent-seeking fields of work and industry; but in general, no, it isn't literally everyone who trades time for money.

Only through one perspective. If you have a billion dollars, losing a few 100 million dollars isn’t as bad as losing a job or a black mark on your resume if you’re living paycheck to paycheck.