I wouldn't say we'd have gotten it. Being president doesn't mean you control Congress.

On the whole.... how would you define that? The mean? The median? If it's mean, he may have a point because the richest people don't have to work for many thousands of years each. But the median person is likely under poverty level.

And better..... also what is the definition of that? More money? More free time? Less crime/risk of injury? Etc.

And then there's the case that it doesn't matter if it's "better" than it was however arbitrary time ago, it matters that it could be better for a massively greater percentage of people. But in the current state it is only insanely better for only a select few, and nearly the same for the vast majority of people.

Living longer: technology has improved childhood and old-aged mortality, but how is this relevant if we are expected to work for a larger portion of our lives? Retirement age continues to increase, while the increase in life expectancy provides relatively marginal improvements to quality of life in old age while the years we have the most energy are spent toiling away doing work that we are coerced into by way of the threat of homelessness and death.

Luxuries: technology has improved and many of what were considered luxuries in the past are now commonplace. As our definition of luxuries has changed, has our access to the contemporary luxuries expanded? Relative to someone 100 years ago, can you afford access to a different amount of luxuries than past generations could? Compared to even a couple generations ago, younger generations have less access to necessities such as housing and food security than previous generations. We do not own necessities any more. What good is having access to 500 different brands of wine when you struggle to keep a room over your head and food on the table? Maybe this access is different for your boss than for you.

How we define how society is doing is subjective without clearly-defined goals. Is our goal to improve the living conditions of the people? On average, this has been decreasing for decades. Is our goal to grow the wealth of our people? When adjusted for inflation, most people have less money relative to what we had a few generations ago with the exception of those who own to make money instead of working to make money.

I would argue that most countries do not have clearly defined goals, so they are, in essence, floundering along with no roadmap for our progress. Regardless of how this relates to the past, this is not a good place to be in.

If your boss is the owner, remember that even if he is nice, you are working to produce value and he is taking a portion of that for himself based on owning the company. A manager is not useless, but an owner is. You could own the company. You and your coworkers could all own the company together. An owner brings no value to the table that could not be achieved by other means. The owner does not create anything of value by owning, they just benefit more than the people working to create value. You trade your work and time for payment that is not 100% of the value you produce. Maybe that's fine by you, but chances are you could take more of that value home without a single boss. Maybe you don't see this as theft now, I don't know, but when life drives home the fact that you can never regain lost time and health, maybe you'll see your relationship with your boss for what it really is. I promise you that he is well aware whether he's a middle manager or an owner.