This is complete nonsense.
The worker has received $100k for their time and keeps that money. The investor has nothing.
If you try to argue that the workers wage doesn't count for some reason, then you also should argue that the investor's time counts the same as the workers did. Either way the investors is worse off.
That is, the investor, effectively, gets 2x the time they otherwise would have, because they traded some of their money for someone else's time.
Whereas the worker has now lost 1 year, though they did gain 100k for the time they spent.
If you do not believe that the investor is trading their 100k for something of equal value, then please demonstrate this. For it is this equality that underpins my argument.
Saying the investor "has nothing" is naive, since, as with others, you are ignoring what they traded their dollars for.
Investor A puts in 100k of dollars, the company fails they've lost 100k worth of dollars. Worker B puts in 100k of time, the company fails, they've lost 100k worth of years.
The point is, they are both risking equally, when compared in the same units, time or dollars, but not both. The investor is investing 100k worth of time, and the worker is also investing 100k worth of time. If the company fails, they have both lost that invested time.