You're still not getting it. I explicitly said we invested in the total stock market, not specific stocks. That's not a casino, much as you think it to be. There are also ways to ameliorate market downturns for retirement, it's not an unsolved problem. See guides over at /r/personalfinance or /r/financialindependence if you want examples of how.
Again, if you're not investing, that's your problem, but don't blame it on the stock market itself. Thinking it's just another casino where you have to get "lucky" will cost you a lot of money in the future.
Edit: I just took a look at your links, they literally contradict the retirement doom and gloom you're referring to. From [1]:
> Historically Speaking, You Shouldn't Panic When the Market Crashes
> Nevertheless, history says that most well-diversified portfolios can and do recover over time.
> What Retirement Savers Can Do
> Even though the situation may seem dire given the long time horizon to recovery, there are multiple ways to guard against asset depletion. For example, investors can avoid selling off assets in a down market by holding one to two years' worth of planned withdrawals in cash. Worldwide, high-net-worth individuals often keep 21-28% of their assets in cash or cash equivalents, with the percentage leaning towards the higher end of the range during times of market crisis. This also opens an opportunity for better buys when the market eventually improves.
> Being flexible with withdrawal rates is also key to mitigating sequence risk. Morningstar analysts recommend: withdrawing a fixed percentage of your portfolio's value every year, not adjusting your withdrawal rate for inflation (i.e. not increasing your withdrawal percentage when inflation is high) or using a so-called guardrail approach where you reduce your withdrawal rate if it surpasses a set threshold.
Yeah there's strategies to help ease a bad pull at the slot machine, but it's still a slot machine. Remember the 2008 crash? Lots of people got rich in the lead-up to that, and the people who paid for their gains were the people who had to cash out their chips during the following decade for whatever reason. The people running the market won, as they always will.
The actual data of what's happened historically contradicts what you're claiming because you keep comparing poor strategy (eg individual or narrow stock selection and/or limited time periods) with correct strategy which demonstrably delivers the results claimed within the quantified risk parameters. It's just math and it is objectively correct.
That doesn't mean that there are no risks. There are always risks but the math allows us to quantify those risks to make informed choices. Executing an effective strategy requires understanding the data, identifying an approach that fits your goals and then, most of all, the financial discipline to rigorously stick to the plan over many years despite emotional ups and downs (eg fear in downturns, exuberance in upswings).
Personally, I've been executing such a plan for decades now and I can assure you it feels nothing like a "casino" or gambling. Instead, it's downright boring. Once a year I make a predetermined algorithmic rebalance to the broad portfolio and otherwise I do nothing and don't even think about it. When the portfolio was way up a couple years ago, I didn't cash in any extra nor even 'celebrate'. Now that the portfolio is down this year, I'm not selling or thinking about cutting "losses." Why? Because they aren't losses unless I need to sell and I don't need to sell now because those prior "winnings" from a few years ago are more than enough to cover several more years of downturn if necessary. I'm not worried. The same thing happened in 2001 and 2009 and both times the plan worked. So far, the overall multi-decade results are so far ahead of plan it would take a substantially larger and longer global crash than has ever happened to go negative (just as the article predicted at >20 years).
It's working, as predicted, and within parameters. What I'm doing isn't even complicated much less clever. It's just the standard "Bogglehead"-type strategy that's been studied forever, used by millions and freely available all over the web (eg buy and hold a balanced and broadly diversified self-managed portfolio of very low cost ETFs (VTI etc)). I have no stock broker, financial planner or advisor, I'm no financial guru and I only spend about 90 minutes once a year on my investment portfolio. Hell, I've never even bought an individual stock.
Again, if you're not investing, that's your problem, but don't blame it on the stock market itself. Thinking it's just another casino where you have to get "lucky" will cost you a lot of money in the future.
Edit: I just took a look at your links, they literally contradict the retirement doom and gloom you're referring to. From [1]:
> Historically Speaking, You Shouldn't Panic When the Market Crashes
> Nevertheless, history says that most well-diversified portfolios can and do recover over time.
> What Retirement Savers Can Do
> Even though the situation may seem dire given the long time horizon to recovery, there are multiple ways to guard against asset depletion. For example, investors can avoid selling off assets in a down market by holding one to two years' worth of planned withdrawals in cash. Worldwide, high-net-worth individuals often keep 21-28% of their assets in cash or cash equivalents, with the percentage leaning towards the higher end of the range during times of market crisis. This also opens an opportunity for better buys when the market eventually improves.
> Being flexible with withdrawal rates is also key to mitigating sequence risk. Morningstar analysts recommend: withdrawing a fixed percentage of your portfolio's value every year, not adjusting your withdrawal rate for inflation (i.e. not increasing your withdrawal percentage when inflation is high) or using a so-called guardrail approach where you reduce your withdrawal rate if it surpasses a set threshold.