I am not going to play devil's advocate, I'm going to obfuscate, lol:

You're absolutely right, I *think* that a lot of what you've said means that there is a divide between 'winners' and 'losers' on lots of fronts:

Some stocks are in 'depression' mode (oil, and related energy), some in 'vague' mode (housing) and some 'en fuego' - forward looking tech companies.

Some people who were obscenely rich are now Porn XXXXXX rated rich. A younger, more moble, educated by academia or apprenticeship to be in the right place for jobs expands that  1% to.......even if it were 50%, that's 51% - a majority. And younger workers are used to a workplace without benefits or security. Mobility is the standard.

If we measure 'quality of life', and tie it to 'condition of the economy', one could make an argument that the majority of people, companies, the market, and the numbers that measure them would probably say the majority of all are doing just fine, and the future looks reasonably bright. As you intimate if wages rise, housing booms, good cycles grow, on and on.

But there's a large 'underclass' (I've said this too many times before - I apologize in advance) - consisting of some of the young who didn't get trained in useable skills, to the late middle age (50-55 and upward) who got 'downsized' but either their skills aren't as valuable, or employers can hire 2 people 25 years their junior rather than pay their previous wages), to retirement - a huge class of baby boomers who haven't sufficiently saved for retirement, are going to live longer (80 is the new 60) and whose needs will increase as they age, with not enough adequate places for them to live with the assistance they'll need. And the young don't want to pay huge taxes on wages to pay for these 'strange' people - why should they shoulder those burdens?

The question becomes, I think, do we have a viable society with an under-class and an over-class. Can we effectively say to the untrained, the aged (both working and retired), to the obsolete auto workers replaced by robots, "Hey - Piss off - Not my problem you've got yourself in a mess."

I think I agree that there may be schizms that run through society and its institutions - companies, people, and commodites (incl. housing)  who are in the catbird's seat, and those who aren't. Is the glass half full or half empty? 

Half full for some. Half empty for others. Broken for the truly screwed.

Societies of haves and have nots have more been the rule than the exception throughout history and in world-territory. So it's possible these have-nots can be ignored, and when they die-off, society will be the better for it. (Europe, having *created* an underclass of emigrated Arab and African 'worker bees', who are isolated and alienated from the culture they live in.....)

OTOH, the have-nots have sometimes become worryingly agitated - and those who said "Let them eat cake" (Or, "Let them shoot dope", "Let them play Candy Crush"), were finding their heads in a basket beneath a guillotine. I'm beginning to think that there may be enough methods, economic, law enforcement, and otherwise, to keep revolution out of the equation. But I do think with all the things you noted or considered, things are good or bad depending on what side of the societal 'schism' you are on.

I find it ironic that even the liberals are starting to push for a 'controlled' society - Obama said let's make it illegal for terrorists to buy guns. Is the Postal Worker who got laid off and cursed his boss a candidate to label a 'terror threat' and have his/her movements/phone calls/personal info/ on and on monitored (you *can't* 'live off the grid' - Google knows exactly where you are, and for even a low price (economy of scale) will sell the govt. all your information - part of the NSA 'secret budget'.) Yes, I sound like a paranoid fruitcake - and it's hard to believe 'Skynet' could happen. But I found Obama not defining who exactly is a 'terrorist', but that their civil rights ought to be compromised, a bit chilling. (And I'm not a gun nut either - if it were up to me, our gun laws would be similar to most civilized first-world democracies.) My point is, with minute monitoring of just about everyone, you probably can't have a lot of terrorist cells. But you also probably can't have a coordinated, legal opposition to the powers that be, either. They know not only where you live, but what you're doing right now. (Ack..something.....someone.....just..cut..off..my..oxygen supply. Must...cough.. chip.....implant.....out ....of......my lungs. (gasp gasp).