It’s weird to the point I consider it deliberately misleading:

- Anybody wise enough to invest in the S&P 500 is likely also wise enough not to invest their entire nest egg in a single year, 20 years before retirement.

- The massive bulk of “ordinary American” 401(k) / IRA funds are in low-fee, no-tax-on-growth accounts. This chart has a nebulous “taxes and fees” component, which in this already artificial context makes even less sense to apply to annual returns.

- Counting only real growth without comparing to other investment options (real estate, bonds, cash under the mattress) fails to capture the relative value of diversified index funds. In short: Impossible to beat reliably no matter how you set the metric.

I’m not so sure.

It’s showing how much better or worse than inflation.

That’s not an apples-apples comparison.

Like if you don’t invest into say SNP500 then the money grows (or not) at what rate and is that rate better than the SNP500? It’s way better to get a 10% return when there’s 11% inflation if the alternative was 0%.