Median income is not a better measure because it is blind to changes in population composition over time. Series of median income figures doesn't actually track

Median income is not a better measure because it is blind to changes in population composition over time. Series of median income figures doesn't actually track anything. For instance, a country that accepts more lower-skilled immigrants will see its median income figures grow less than countries that accept fewer of those immigrants. Is the immigrant-accepting country poorer as a result? The only way that median income would be a valid measure of wealth or QoL would be if you isolated the cohort of those considered "median" in 2008 and tracked their wealth over time.