> What, do only the ultra-wealthy have smartphones?
Everybody seems to cite smartphones as raising our standard of living, but as someone who lived a long time before smartphones existed, I'm not seeing it. In fact, I would argue that smartphones have overall made us worse off. We're like slaves to those little devices, unable to put them away, always with our heads down in subservience.
> fact is that most of the damage was done by policies people were out there vocally supporting.
Agreed. I wasn't "blaming" the ultra-wealthy, and neither was the linked article. It's merely an empirical observation that the system isn't benefitting most people. And the article discusses what to do: "High earners have two options. The first is to stockpile every possible advantage for themselves and their children. The second is to contribute to a common safety net that benefits everyone. While the latter looks highly unlikely in the current political climate, high earners won’t be able to isolate themselves from mounting inequality for much longer." Obviously, the authors favor the latter option: "Making our social services – our schools, housing and health – more efficient and equitable will help all of us through predictable and unpredictable phases of our life and in turn prevent inequality from continuing to exert such a huge drag on our productivity and well-being."