One of the key points made in the book, which is full of wonderful data and is a GREAT read if you’re into that sort of thing, was the idea that *wealth is much more unequal than income*.

From Vox’s coverage of the book:

> You hear a lot about income inequality, but as this chart makes clear wealth inequality is much more severe. In the United States, just 1 percent of the population owns about 35 percent of all the wealth. Even in relatively egalitarian Europe, the top 1 percent owns around 25 percent of the wealth. In both continents, the top 10 percent owns over half the wealth.

It’s hugely important to understand that point, which gets lost frequently.

Wealth inequality > Income inequality.

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/5561608/9-charts-that-explain-...

You can’t argue about the benefits of the system — they are material. You can try to argue about global incomes rising. But it’s a hard argument to win when it comes to global wealth distribution.

None of what were treatable at the 1800.

> People don't have basic necessities like shelter or food or water.

In relative terms, almost none. I'm not sure how they compare in absolute terms, but just the answer not being obvious while the population increased by an order of magnitude already makes your claim quite bad.

> People live with very little prospect of escaping a life of drudgery.

And nobody had no prospect back them.

You can complain that there are some people living almost as badly as people lived in the 1800s. But it's not the majority by far, and you can't claim they are currently living worse.

And, of course, none of that is reason to not demand better things.

Almost every single one of us does. The great, huge, gigantic majority of us does. Few realize it though.