Sorry, I did generalize quite a bit. But your right, they did not keep their money in cash. Much worse, they converted their excess cash to illiquid and/or depr

Sorry, I did generalize quite a bit. But your right, they did not keep their money in cash. Much worse, they converted their excess cash to illiquid and/or depreciating assets. Also, many people do not have access to a 401k: 50.6% of Americans work for an employer that sponsors a retirement savings plan. 40.4% of employees utilized a 401(k) or pension in 2008. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_11-2009_No336_Ret-Part.pdf http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_11-2009_No336_Ret-... If they do have a 401k plan, it really depends what assets you can buy. If the plan offered only allows you to purchase mutual funds with high load and yearly fees, your wealth is being transferred to others. Over time, you will lose money vs the index. There are also penalties for early withdrawals. Also, people are not forced to put money in a 401k or to buy a house or car. They could save that money and do something productive with it. On that link you posted, the wealthy DID NOT have most of their wealth in a 401k, it was in equities, equity in their business, rental properties, and other assets. So, the point I was making was - the wealthy put the money to work for them rather than other way around. Imagine if you had excess money during the 2008 recession, you could have had many opportunities to make money. Most had their money (as you mentioned) tied up in their house or car. So, really it is about the wealthy being in a position to advantage of all available opportunities.