I mean those charts don’t pass the sniff test. Being healthy (or sick for that matter!) was basically free, now it costs over a thousand dollars a month in insurance. A huge chunk of most people’s income.

Same with housing (and education): https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-...

Is it fair to say that you're more interested in discussing wealth inequality than environmental policy?

Degrowth touches both subjects. Billionaires for instance are top polluters. Leveling resource distribution would prevent that.

good luck making that happen. They are rich because they are highly capable (or their ancestor was and they have enough money to hire as many highly skilled poors as they need to enact their goals). They will find a way to push your attempts at degrowing them mostly onto the poors without structural changes to the market place. This doesnt mean what you think either. It means breaking up the companies they control that have large market power until they are small enough to not have much market power and there is an opening for more entrants to diffuse the market power causing market shares they held previously. Degrowth is a seperate, stupid idea, that will shrink the pie making everyone worse off. Even if manages to decrease the wealth gap slightly, the massive drop in quality of life from the pie being smaller will overwhelm that benefit.