[slgeorge]

> [... ]but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument.

The comment at top of thread was that relative to the ultra-rich (top 1%), things had got worse for the rest (the other 99%). The commentator expressly accepted that s/he was in a traditionally privileged position - yet it was still difficult.

There are many improvements required to help groups within the other 95%, whether that be by country, ethnic group, gender or anything else. But, you're simply having a different argument, when point of consideration is the much biggest gains that the top 1% is making relative to ALL other groups. This both includes the group you define as privileged and underprivileged.

Even to engage with your argument - the "trade-offs" you're citing that have led to 'cultural and technological improvements' for disadvantaged groups are social movement that weren't created or aided by the ultra-wealthy or large corporates. Quite the reverse. Using the principle of charity, the only 'improvement' I think you could put in this category would be globalisation - and honestly it's too big a change for us to know the outcome on that one.