krispolle

Yeah the richest part of society may hold a larger share of the wealth today than before, but I am pretty sure it sucked way more to be in the "middle" or "lower" portion of society only a hundred years ago and more so in say medieval Europe or ancient Europe.

I'd rather be working nine to five today than be a slave at the whim of a Roman or viking master. So in numbers the inequality might be greater, but in human experience the gap may not feel as bad as it did earlier in history one might argue.

The question isn't whether it's better to live now or then for the median person

I am not so sure. I would argue that this is the first time in human history where the middle to lower-middle section of humanity do not have reason to fear starvation and are reasonably well educated.

The question is - is it a good use of those resources to build superyachts and mega-mansions and private islands for a few dozen people?

No I'm sure most would agree that it's not, even in the super rich class. But I don't think that is an important question either. As long as people are well fed, happy etc. then I don't think people in general care too much about this.

Remember, money is an expression of society's resources.

Yes money is an expression of society's resources but it's not a null sum game, and even less than it used to be. People in the middle classes of the west today can live better lives than princes and emperors of old used too. I don't think we can extrapolate from past times inequality like that. The share of the total "pie" matters, but the pie has become so huge and fat it seems that in many parts of the world the "share" does not matter as much I would hold.