> the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving
I understand this perspective, but I still think inequality is important. Inequality is a measure of how good the low standards are Vs how good they could be.
I suppose that's true, but I don't think that's how it's used.
Also, that's only useful where it's helpful. We don't live in a world where everyone can eat expensive meals every night, because those require work from other people.
What is actually helpful is the rich buying a load of stuff, some of which is crazy, and the useful things are identified by entrepreneurs as being worthy of trying to bring to mass market, and then suddenly (almost) everyone can afford them, and they can even be sold in other countries for a lower price that couldn't make them in the next 500 years. E.g. reading glasses were once for the rich, and now are so prevalent that we don't realise what a privilege being able to access them is.
But none of that requires knowledge of inequality. Simple market forces will do that.
I understand this perspective, but I still think inequality is important. Inequality is a measure of how good the low standards are Vs how good they could be.