I totally agree with your points, but only when talking about the traditional/entrepreneurial sense of "business owner." The article is talking more about owning equity in a business, whether that's real estate (which is his example), or just investing in businesses. He even explicitly states that:

> Owners do not have to be entrepreneurs. They don’t even have to be competent. They can hire competent people to manage their money for them. The amount of 'entrepreneurship' in my story was miniscule.

In other words, if you're very wealthy, you can invest in diversified REITs and have exposure to the real estate market. You do not (and cannot, really) work on these projects, and your investments -- ownership of real estate through REITs -- will keep making money. That's not to say it's without risk, of course: the market could crash, the funds could fail to return on investment, the business could collapse.

Again, I think that for the HN crowd, your critiques are totally valid and I agree 100%. I just think this article is more about "hey, if you're really wealthy, your money can work for you!"

Not that that's particularly groundbreaking.