I think so, because there's no proof that either cohort wouldn't have been better off under an alternative arrangement. To make things a little bit more concre

I think so, because there's no proof that either cohort wouldn't have been better off under an alternative arrangement. To make things a little bit more concrete -- I know the typical argument here is that the poorest are moved forward more by rapid expansion/growth/harnessing of greed, but the problem is that we do not consider the right tail trajectory of those below. Making life better at a rapid rate is great, but it seems to be at a tradeoff -- a cap is developing on the "better off" part (widening wealth disparity). If it always trended up then the problem would be easy (and people wouldn't be too worried). It's a problem because the graph seems to go up for the poorer cohort then level off yet continue growing for one cohort. The derivatives are the problem, essentially. Also I'd argue that what people are seeing is a future where quality of life for the poorer cohort actually goes off a cliff and starts to go lower. Since we have no idea if/how that will happen (robots/automation most likely), the only way to ensure trajectories for the both cohorts is for both cohorts to have similar influence/power/decision making input. [EDIT] - I should note, the current extent is not that bad. It could be much much worse, and I think that's what people should be tinkering/trying to prevent.