This is an excellent point. America does an exceptional job of making rich people richer, but it also ranks poorly in many quality of life metrics. It is now #25 on the social progress index (https://www.socialprogress.org/). If people are richer but their children are more likely to die in child birth (U.S. ranks #50), or be murdered (U.S. ranks #137 in homicide), is that really better?
My point is the USA has a very different distribution that’s relevant.
As for a “social progress index”, who cares whatever that made up thing is. How about a better indicator like how many millions of people are lined up trying to live here? I think that’s a better measurement.
Our system isn’t perfect and some people have had unfortunate luck by not having insurance when a medical emergency came up. But that has nothing to do with what the conversation was.
Building quickly and creating good, reliable jobs don’t have to conflict.
Like, is it winning to have the option of starting a company that produces generational wealth for yourself, while living in a city unable to solve its homelessness problem? Is it winning to be a 1%-er but have no safety net so that you're always precarious, at risk of being wiped out by factors you have no control over? Is it winning to have a school system so dysfunctional that you send your kids to private schools that most of your neighbors can't afford?
I expect that from a perspective that prioritizes stability, safety, and sustainability, a model where it's hard to be fired and companies are encouraged to take long term responsibility for their employees (and therefore grow slowly) makes a lot of sense.