&gt;  [... ]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.<p>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&#x2F;he was in a traditionally privileged position - yet it was still difficult.<p>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&#x27;re simply having a <i>different</i> 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.<p>Even to engage with your argument - the &quot;trade-offs&quot; you&#x27;re citing that have led to &#x27;cultural and technological improvements&#x27; for disadvantaged groups are social movement that weren&#x27;t created or aided by the ultra-wealthy or large corporates. Quite the reverse.  Using the principle of charity, the only &#x27;improvement&#x27; I think you could put in this category would be globalisation - and honestly it&#x27;s too big a change for us to know the outcome on that one.