> It's true to say that we are all relatively less well off than we were in 2000. This is bad because wealth begets more wealth, so the inequality grows. Remem

> It's true to say that we are all relatively less well off than we were in 2000. This is bad because wealth begets more wealth, so the inequality grows. Remember one of the last times you went for listening to your favourite band or purchasing their latest album. At that moment, something bad had happened - they got relatively wealthier while you became poorer. Given you were not the only one who paid them for their performance that day, those bastards could actually become rich, while a lot more people became poorer. So the inequality gap grew bigger and, according to your reasoning, you had become relatively less well off that day. But did you? And should we do something with that band regarding them becoming closer to the top 1% (maybe we should redistribute their income among visitors of the venue?) Or, how about measuring the value of your emotional/spiritual state of mind before and after that event? Does it account for a relative/absolute well-being? The point is, while economic stats are good at showing you the monetary part of your wealth, they are insufficient for drawing a wast conclusion on people's wealth and well-being. So is the "relative to TopN" argument.