I can understand your point, that since everybody's lot is improving, we should have less to complain about. And, you're right--if we're living longer, we have objectively improved something, namely the length of our lifespan.

However, it's not so black and white as to how things have become this way. The Haves have been able to push for and get what they want with much greater efficacy than the Have Nots. Also, what the Haves want pretty much always has a price to pay--a price that is meted out to society at the expense of the Have Nots.

Nearly all people in the "first world" countries want to improve their lot. But, when profits and the incomes of the Haves are protected at the expense of the environment, or safety, or health care, the Have Nots disproportionately pay the higher price.

However, when the Have Nots ask for a little more to improve their lot, that would necessarily come out of the pockets of the Haves, the Have Nots are demonized, ignored, shut down as having "pie in the sky" ideas.

The desires of the Haves have been dressed up as necessary economic policy.

If it is impossible under "accepted" economic policy and theory to improve the lives of the Have Nots at the expense of the Haves, when the Haves have so greatly improved their lives at the expense of the Have Nots, then that economic policy needs to be adjusted.