"it’s better to have a society where most people are not poor and some are super-rich than a society" was essentially New Labour's stance in the UK priot to the credit crunch (see Peter Mandelson quote about not carng if a few folk got filthy rich if the tide raised all boats, or something like that). Except, for most gains were illusory; women returning to work after pregancy sooner boosted household incomes, cheap credit boosted house prices/wealth (until it didn't) and thanks to China lots of things got cheaper and higher spec, all masking the fact median real incomes were stagnating. Essentially your hypothetical replicates the rhetoric used to justify inequality while ignoring the latter's impact on the polity that being the rich buying (or at the very least disproportionately shaping) the tax, environmental or employment legislation they want. So no, I get your point arithmetically, kinda, it's crazy selective with the data points, assumes change over time is what registers the most, (also why not track say home ownership as a measure of wealth) and presents a strawman version of inequality as a subject.
"it’s better to have a society where most people are not poor and some are super-rich than a society" was essentially New Labour's stance in the UK priot to the credit crunch (see Peter Mandelson quote about not carng if a few folk got filthy rich if the tide raised all boats, or something like that). Except, for most gains were illusory; women returning to work after pregancy sooner boosted household incomes, cheap credit boosted house prices/wealth (until it didn't) and thanks to China lots of things got cheaper and higher spec, all masking the fact median real incomes were stagnating. Essentially your hypothetical replicates the rhetoric used to justify inequality while ignoring the latter's impact on the polity that being the rich buying (or at the very least disproportionately shaping) the tax, environmental or employment legislation they want. So no, I get your point arithmetically, kinda, it's crazy selective with the data points, assumes change over time is what registers the most, (also why not track say home ownership as a measure of wealth) and presents a strawman version of inequality as a subject.