Not only did she intentionally completely miss the main point, she CHERRY PICKED her numbers, even after accusing others of doing that.
For example, when she tried to show "you can't really get a long term average of 10%," she started at a market top in 1929 and ended at the market bottom in 2009.
Why did she choose 1929 to 2009, when the article was written in 2016? Because those dates gave the absolute worst possible return (9%). Had she chosen a more logical time period (say 1935-2015) the returns would have been well in excess of 10%- but that wouldn't have fit the narrative.
BTW, the author has NO FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS at all. She's not a financial expert, she just plays one on the internet.
She's just another liberal hack out there promoting Slate's left wing political agenda.
'Cause frugality, discipline, and succeeding on your own don't fit the liberal "you can't do it, you must rely on mother government" agenda...
And FWIW, you CAN cherry pick the numbers so so that one could reach a million dollars on lattes alone- though as I said, that wasn't really the big picture point that is being made.