(Note that with population growth, the boondocks have inevitably moved further out.)
Most of my ancestors had none of these. Most also lived relatively stress free lives, owned property, didn't work particularly long hours, and most lived into their 90's.
For most of my 'career', I've worked 60-80 hour weeks. Been stressed out as hell. Own no property. My wife and I's 'dream' involves retiring to a stress free place and yes, doesn't really involve technology. Even that is looking like a pipe dream. Recent studies state that retirement may not be possible for millenials, period. Most of my ancestors were able to stop working in their 60's, and still maintain their quality of life (which, as I stated before, lasted into their 90's).
Technological progress is not dependant on inequality. America and Europe were at one point more egalitarian. And society saw its fastest technological progress ever. Heck, most technology today is still built on the exact same foundations that were developed in the 1950s to 1970s.
The problem of inequality isn't necessarily a market-based economy. But rather the current set of laws that enable incumbents to make higher returns on capital than the rest of society. The problem really is - how do we properly allocate resources while also distributing wealth in a way that is most beneficial to all.
It's not a problem of capitalism vs. socialism vs. communism, or technological progress vs. no progress.
I was disputing the idea that we are worse off than some past period, not that we are worse than some hypothetical alternate reality where every single thing is better. So again, are you willing to give up technology and live in that past? Is your wife willing to accept a 1/1,000 risk of maternal mortality rather than a 2 or 3/100,000 risk?
Also, I have no idea why you are bringing up inequality. None of the things mentioned in mcphage's comment have anything to do with inequality. Neither does your 60-80 hour weeks, your stress, or changing demographic ratios which will make retirement (at future higher standards of living) more difficult.
They say that because the average 'poor' person has access to things rich people didn't have access to 100 years ago, that the poor person should accept that they're rich, and not complain.
I'm calling it what it is, a strawman. One that occurs in every discussion of inequality. One that's existed since time immemorial, when slaveowners claimed that their slaves were better off on the plantations than in primitive Africa.
As for why I brought up points that weren't in the parent post, I was agreeing, and then elaborating on the subject because it's an interesting subject.
And of course, inequality is completely relevant in a discussion about millenials relative wealth vs. previous generations.
That was the only point I was making. Glad we are in agreement.
But more technology.
It's up to you whether or not you think that's better.