In a static system, I'd agree with you.
My point is that the choices for Joe and Molly don't matter much: either status quo or lose ground. Although, I'll concede that insofar as status quo is better than losing ground, it may make a difference yet who is in charge.If the system were static, then maintaining the staus quo would be adequate (far better than dropping behind).
But we go through cycles of different administrations. Maintaining for 8 years and then losing for 8 years still results in a net lose.
Not to mention that this pattern doesn't have much flexibility to handle unexpected emergencies. Such as our current recession (on a national scale) or extended unemployment (on a personal scale).
To really maintain the status quo, Joe and Molly would have to go through periods of real gain to counter the periods of real loss. This would, hopefully, level out some of the more drastic economic swings (savings to fall back on in this recession).