As with all economic metrics, it's only relevant in context. If you define a living wage standard that others agree is useful - it's useful to understand what p

As with all economic metrics, it's only relevant in context. If you define a living wage standard that others agree is useful - it's useful to understand what portion of your population fits this category. Alternately, it's useful to assess a static standard over time to see if equality problems are getting worse or better. Having seen both sides of this equation, It's increasingly unclear to me whether wealth inequality has crossed the takeoff threshold where outcomes no longer correlate with Merit. Observationally, I encounter many in high status fields who got their due to familial wealth + guidance on pathway. I worry that we are seeing more people who are wealthy because their parents were wealthy, potentially to the point where labor is no longer required beyond perception maintenance. Such an arrangement is fundamentally anti-productive to the economy. It removes capital from skilled individuals to support leisure. It reshapes the economy to support the leisurely whims of a few individuals. I don't think its a coincidence that as wages and inflation rose GDP growth rose. It's a reallocation of capital from unproductive sectors to productive sectors.