taking your argument to its logical extreme, the goals of the system are met so long as the median and averages look favorable relative to other countries... an ultra wealthy 1% can offset the relative lack of wealth in the rest of the 99% and the median can still look good - I think this is the point you may have been missing above

> an ultra wealthy 1% can offset the relative lack of wealth in the rest of the 99%

Citizens of western nations (the US in particular, median income there puts you among the .3% globally) and the rest of the globe have a similar dynamic yet I have seen no westerners who proclaim the evils of income inequality attempt to resolve that disparity, in fact they seem set to increase their own income making the problem worse. Thus I don't take that argument on it's face as a serious one.