There's also more total dollars invested than in '87. I was simply pointing out that that particular event was not so significant as it's being reported. If someone making $1000 a month takes a 20% hit ($200) it's of more overall significance than someone making $10,000 a month taking a 10% loss ($1000), even though the "dollars" are greater.
What I was trying to get across is that, although it's a large drop, it isn't as though the market hasn't taken, and recovered from, drops as or more statistically significant. Trying to point out that the media, in their choice of what to report and how to report it, can influence the story and people's reaction to it.
People's reaction and confidence in the economy, already low and justifiably so, is going to be different to hearing "almost as bad as 1987" than to hearing "worst in history".
This same irresponsible journalism permeates much of the reporting about the current situation. Congress is being flooded with calls to oppose the plan because it's being reported as $700 billion or more cost. Few are reporting that much of what that money would go to would be to take on the high-risk securities -- much of which consists of real-estate. It isn't being reported that the government would then own that real-estate and would recoup some of the initial cost.
None of this means that I don't think there's a problem or that something shouldn't be done, just that it's typically best to assess the actual facts instead of reacting in a panic.
You may be taking all of your money out of the bank; I, today, moved all of my cash and bond money to stocks. I'll probably show a loss tomorrow and the next day and even next week, but I'm thirty years from retirement and someone who bought a shitload the day after Black Monday and held it is in a pretty good position today, even after the drop. If I have no confidence that the value of a diversified portfolio of stocks will be much, much higher twenty years from now, then the alternative vehicle isn't cash -- it's guns and bullets.