You wouldn’t have your retirement 100% in equities though, you would be way more risk adverse. So in 2007-2009 you may have only took a 20% hit only to see that rebound by 120% within 2 years. In fact if you were paying attention in that time you likely would have loaded up on equities and rebounded a lot further. But you can see this is an edge case. Remove those years from the last 30 and you’ll see the 4% drawdown would have covered you perfectly through that time.

I think you are right $1m is becoming shallow these days, but that doesnt change the significance of my statement