It is all relative.
It has nothing to do with morals, civil rights, saving the planet in any way or identity as is the fashion creating the current unjust distribution. I'm going to tell you about a law of nature if you like. Something that will happen anyway no matter what the social fiat commands.
As always, both sides in any unjust duality will immediately see this observation as the enemy. This is a signal they would not pass The Orwell Test. This may sound trivial, but it is of the essence in understanding.
Let us go... here is the 'golden rule of wealth':
The more justice there is in the distribution of a community's wealth, the more the population will tend toward a sustainable level.
Apart from it being an inherently homeostatic effect, what else does this law of nature say to you?
It means there's no truth which nature understands that just because one community is in decline and another booming there is inherent danger or good news. Size does not matter. Justice is the active component.
It also means the more unjust a community is, the more it will grow in size in a viral positive feedback loop, out of control and possibly destroy itself. A bit like an unsuccessful virus. Some people cite this as a form of suicide which is understandable but a poor metaphor because the suicide is not real - the unjust community are trying to grow, just unjustly. They are not trying to kill themselves.
Finally and most importantly, the more just community will become more powerful relatively (per capita) even if declining in absolute size. So a tiny community could become all powerful, it all depends on how just it has decided to be in the distribution of wealth. I cannot stress it more, that you must not confuse justice, with equality or equity. These latter two are merely political tools, unjust in their own right.
What breaks the golden rule is when just and unjust communities are deliberately mixed without a plan targeting justice. Then the benefits of justice will be negated and all bets are off. Today this is the strategy of all nations, even the ones who claim they are doing something about it but are not really making way.
There is the good news: the more just community always succeeds in bringing the rest of the community back to earth when it decides it's time to fight for it. It has nothing to do with democracy - the proportion making the decision might be as low as 5% or one twentieth of the total community. Neither does it have anything to do with government - who are merely a proxy for the community anyway. And everything to do with the will of the community, its wisdom and it's desire for justice on the whole.
If you've read this far without melting down, by justice in the distribution of wealth I do not mean equality in the distribution of wealth which would be inherently unjust and too ironic. What I mean by justice is that those who created the wealth get to keep it and those who have created nothing do not. By natural right.
A flourishing welfare state is a red flag strongly signalling injustice in the distribution. It maintains itself by taxing gifts which otherwise would mitigate the needy quite easily. What the planet saver is refusing to accept point blank, is justice herself. Gifting stands right in the way of injustice. That is all.
As a citizen of a community, if your leadership is breaking this golden rule, you are obliged and it is your first duty to remove them immediately by all means. Even if your leader is trying hard in the right direction, if they're still allowing this golden rule to be broken, they are not enough and must be replaced with whomsoever is ready to act decisively for justice in the community.
If you do not remove them immediately so be it. You will meet your fate and must complain no longer. You will have created your own slavery.
It's all relative, not binary. Those once part of an unjust community can adapt immediately if they so choose, toward the just community and visa versa. Identity, morals, saving the world and so on and so on are not relevant nor required to take that significant personal development or regression action.
I remain in the hope that a threshold or breakpoint is reached were enough people in the totality of the community have chosen justice, over injustice, in the distribution of wealth.
For then it will be possible for even just 2 people to save the world and conquer space, their cooperation in the justice of distribution will be so great that it overwhelms all else.
Yes, I hear you, this is my imagination using the extreme case to make my point with obvious clarity. So where do you think is the breakpoint where enough people in our community have chosen justice - are we there yet already?