Funny how his time horizon stretches out to 150 years, where the vast majority of people don't live past 100, and have probably, what 25-35 or so years of investing time in their lives? The insanely long term is a simplified look at the stock market as some money-multiplication machine, but I don't think it is really that to most people.
Given a normal person's time horizon, the difference between "did I start investing in 2007 or in 2009" is significant.
Ahh, you're right. My comment is directly addressed in the article--that's what I get for skimming it. My only nit then would be that I don't know too many people in their 20s putting money into the stock market. Most people that age are spending every dollar they make on rent and their student loans. You're probably not in the position to "invest" until you have a professional job, well into your thirties.
Typical federal student debt payment is ~$300/mon assuming 6% interest, 10 year repayment, and >$30k of debt. With less than $35k income, that payment drops.
You have to make some really poor decisions about where you live to be spending every dollar on rent and student loans assuming you have a job that does not pay minimum wage.
Making investing a priority can be hard, but it is far from impossible at that age. Even a small amount early on will far out weigh a much larger amount invested later. It is important to communicate that instead of telling people they probably can't do it.
I'm usally more worried about having a long term investment, say for 30 years and on the 25th year another 2008 takes place, I might not have 20 years to wait by then.
In the 25 years leading up to 2008 you will probably find that you already gained more than the drop. Also worth noting that the markets were fully recovered within 5 years (and usually sooner).
Given a normal person's time horizon, the difference between "did I start investing in 2007 or in 2009" is significant.