As long as gains in total wealth (and thus absolute wealth gains for all parts of society) occur as they always have (ie a 10% wealth increase at all levels of

As long as gains in total wealth (and thus absolute wealth gains for all parts of society) occur as they always have (ie a 10% wealth increase at all levels of wealth), income inequality will always have a strong tendency to rise. The important question is whether it is better to focus on absolute rise in wealth (Is the bottom 20% of the world today in better shape than 100 years ago, if only because that bottom 20% would likely not have survived then?) or on income inequality (is the absolute wealth gain of the bottom 20% irrelevant if there is now a greater distance between them and the top 20%?). I lean towards the former, but have never been absolutely convinced to the point of becoming dogmatic. I really haven't seen anything substantially convincing about the latter, though.