It's not "irritatingly misleading", it just needs to be contextualized — which ironically was missing in your "precisely worded" statistic.
I provided that context in the elucidation:
> While it's true that the top 5% owns a disproportionate amount of stocks, that's just a function of the wealth distribution. If everyone in the US had half of their personal wealth in the stock market, the top 5% would still own a large % of the stock market just by virtue of what it means to be in the "top 5%" today. This fact doesn't change the fact that a stock market crash would still be devastating to the middle American that owns stocks (directly or indirectly).
> In fact, when the stock market crashes, it's median stock holders that are the worst off, because the wealthiest stock owners will still largely remain millionaires even if the stock market plunged.
Just because the top 5% owns a highly concentrated amount of the stock market by nominal value, does not mean that the median American is immune to shocks in the stock market, and arguably the latter is impacted more adversely than the former.
> Moreover the stock market is inversely correlated with wages as a % of GDP. If wages go up and the stock market goes down that DEFINITELY helps the median citizen.
Stock market being inversely correlated with wages as a % of GDP does not imply that when the stock market falls, wages will rise, there is 0 evidence of that having ever happened in history. When the stock market falls, unemployment increases, so average wages fall.
The reason why a healthy stock market inversely correlates with wages as a % of GDP is because stock market increase as a % of GDP can be much higher than wages as a % of GDP. You can't take that observation then conclude that if you tank the stock market, wages will magically rise. As a % of GDP, they may stay the same, but that's just because GDP dramatically falls.