Take a look at a graph of the the distribution of financial assets by net worth percentile. The typical share of stock is owned by a person or organization hundreds or thousands of times wealthier than you*. The bottom 90% of investors own together own less than a fifth of all equities, and less than 6% of other financial assets. Your competition in the stock market is not your neighbor -- it's a family office managing $200 million.
If a retail investor with $50K puts in the time and effort to beat the market by 5%, he can make an extra $2,500 per year. If a retiree with $10 million puts in the time and effort to beat the market by 5%, she can make an extra $500k per year. Beating the market's a zero sum game. Who do you expect to win -- the person who can hire two full time $200k-salaried money managers, or the person investing in their spare time?
*For the purposes of this comment, I'm assuming you live in the US and do not own more than a few hundred thousand dollars of stock.
Beating the market's a zero sum game
No, not in general. Some markets are more or less zero-sum games (e.g. futures), some are not (e.g. equities).
Your competition in the stock market is not your neighbor -- it's a family office managing $200 million.
First, there are many more markets than just the (US) stock market.
Second, if you want to go in that direction, that family office is small fry. The behemoths of the market are institutional money managers -- pension funds, for example. They, notably, have different success criteria and different incenti...
P/S/A: There are single sentences which can create life-changing amounts of difference.