There are some aspects of wealth that basic economic concepts and models don&#x27;t capture.  Here for example, diminishing marginal utility doesn&#x27;t seem to play as big a part as it did.<p>My guess is that competitive dynamics dominate this issue. Within a career&#x2F;job it is hard to progress with less than full effort because of competition, for example. On the consumption side, by working less an individual becomes poor relative to his peers. This in itself is meaningful. Where 4 kids in a small 2 bedroom was normal and middle class throughout Europe  in Keynes&#x27; time,  it is hardship today. Living without smartphones or Internet is hard because they are normal,  both psychologically and practically.<p>Second,  inflation is unevenly distributed.  The average salary&#x2F;price ratio for bread and cheese and cutlery sets improved miraculously but the ratio for a tennis lesson did not.<p>Then, there are many markets that are zero sum or reduced sum. The price of real estate in many limited supply areas like cities rises to the limit of affordability for the corresponding percentile of the population.  IE the median house corresponds to the maximal borrowing amount for a median household.<p>I also think &quot;you make what you measure&quot; applies.  Our governments&#x27; highest measurable priorities are usually gdp and employment. Then there&#x27;s wealth distribution.  Will the median person&#x27;s wealth increase 8 fold?<p>All that said.  I think number of working years is a place to look for any changes that did occur.  College,  travel retirement.  People had longer working lives back the, especially considering life expectancy.