[wufufufu]

4 out of 5 of your examples are about income inequality, which isn't the same as how strong the economy is IMO. Everyone could be living in a shack and the poverty line = no shack and by your definition the economy would be strong if everyone could afford a new shack if their current one collapsed.

[wiz21c]

if you separate income inequality and economy, then you basically say that economy's goal is not to improve everybody's life. Benefits of successful economy should be shared by everyone.

[manfredo]

If 9 out of 10 people's wages increase by 10% and the remaining one out of 10 sees their income go up by 1,000% did the economy get worse (assuming cost of living remains stating)? How so, given everyone's real incomes rose?

This is why I'm usually skeptical of most claims that point to inequality as proof the economy is doing poorly. In absolute metrics, people's lives are usually getting better. The Economist ran an article a while ago that measured standards of living in absolute metrics (% of households without electricity or plumbing, whithout an automobile, that sort of thing). Almost across the board, everyone's situations are better. The main downturn is home ownership and apartment situations - but that's more to do with cities' housing restrictions rather than the economy.

[lovich]

If you live in a society where money == power, then rising inequality does make your life worse.

Maybe today you get the benefits of new tech and it's and improvement, but tomorrow is a vote on if you get healthcare or not and you have less influence in society so you have less say in your destiny and things that affect you directly

[wufufufu]

The economy doesn't have a goal. Our economic policies have goals.