> You don't have to be wealthy to have access to growth in assets You have to be wealthy to see an appreciable growth in assets. Both the absolute and percenta

> You don't have to be wealthy to have access to growth in assets You have to be wealthy to see an appreciable growth in assets. Both the absolute and percentage amounts matter. Yes, anyone can get a 3% return on their investments over time, but that doesn't really matter when you can only invest $1. Living has a certain minimum set of fixed costs, those with sufficient capital can pay for those fixed costs through the growth of their capital and still see a net increase in wealth . Someone making $30k a year in wages will never achieve that, even if they see some growth in assets. > You're quoting an average and claiming it is steady but there are periods where your savings would have not seen that growth and even seen negative return. You are making a pedantic semantic argument. I acknowledged the presence of dips and bubbles. But on "average" you will see a return on capital, especially a diversified market. That analysis only looked at the S&P 500, which is a tiny share of the economy and not at all representative of the growth of capital over time. What about housing, bonds, precious metals, commodities, short positions, international funds, etc. Move up one level of abstraction and look at the forest, not the trees.