It could be a problem if, using your example, society is 3 times richer but that comes from 10% being a lot richer and 90% being somewhat poorer.

Inequality, it seems, is rising over time.

I suppose that what surprise me is the contradiction between the optimism about the future of HN crowd and their pessimism in this issue, as if nothing could be done (in the case that you think something should be done, of course).

The inequality thing is far from unavoidable. In a democracy, at least, a society perceived as more fair for the majority should be attainable.

> The inequality thing is far from unavoidable. In a democracy, at least, a society perceived as more fair for the majority should be attainable.

This is a nice thought in theory, but not really true as long as campaigns themselves are funded by private capital. And any attempt to change that leads to private capital (cough Koch brothers cough) funding candidates to stop it.

I'm not super optimistic this will change without some kind of dramatic event (revolution, war, SS being defunded and lots of old people starve, etc.).

> but not really true as long as campaigns themselves are funded by private capital

As long as funding correlates strongly with winning, or at least appears to correlate strongly with winning. If that ever goes away, legislators are going to look at lobbyists with a more skeptical eye.