I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least by the most common measure of inequality, the Gini index. It's scale invariant. Doubling everyone's income wouldn't be

I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least by the most common measure of inequality, the Gini index. It's scale invariant. Doubling everyone's income wouldn't be reflected in it one way or another. More to your actual point, the imagined choice isn't between doubling incomes for everyone or stagnation. It's between shared growth and the top 1% quadrupling their income, the next 50% growing slowly, and the rest dog paddling or getting poorer.