The danger is where inequality in rates of improvement in material outcomes leads to inequality in moral outcomes. To borrow some rather loaded language, the more the 1% can buy themselves legal advantage, the more unjust the world becomes. If the rate of legal advantage is affected by the absolute difference between the 1% and the 99% (which I'd argue is demonstrably true - beyond a certain point you've got regulatory capture, but even before then, paid legal representation is the lever that matters here), then it's trivially true that a more materially unequal world is more morally imbalanced in the absence of a somewhat socialist government.
Yes, the poorest and the average now are doing better than they were. That doesn't make defensible the disparity in gains between the richest and the rest.
Yes, the poorest and the average now are doing better than they were. That doesn't make defensible the disparity in gains between the richest and the rest.