Why are stagnant wages adjusted for inflation a bad thing? People x years ago managed to live fine, we manage to live fine, why do we suddenly decide that we _deserve_ more than they had? What did we did to _deserve_ more pay? Work harder? Work smarter? Sure, we're more productive, but that's hardly something we did -- that's something someone else did for us, then taught us how to use what they made. (Unless, of course, you're one of the people working to automate and improve efficiency. In which case, you're probably getting paid just fine.)
So a company can do more using the same number of workers, which all sounds like they're hogging all the profits, except that if your company can do it, so can its competitors. Everyone got more productive, which means nobody's really earning more money, we're just better at doing things. That opens up new industries, new ideas, that previously were unaffordable.
But all that productivity had to go somewhere, and it did. The people whose average/median wage actually went up are the ones in developing/largely undeveloped countries, who were earning fifty cents a day and now earn two dollars. People love to shit on Apple/Foxconn for underpaying manufacturing workers, but aren't the Foxconn workers earning 4x median wage? That's where the extra money is going - to people who make the things you buy - which are no longer you and me. And again, that's fine. We can't expect that our pay will be 100x that of the people making our things forever.
Now some think, well I would hate it if I only got cost-of-living adjustments. That's true, but remember that the average/median is not comparing 50-year-old-you against 20-year-old-you, it's comparing 50-year-old-you against 50-year-old-that-guy. Individuals see their pay go up as they gain skills and responsibilities. Why should you get paid more than the guy who did similar work similarly well, back then?
In short - there's nothing wrong with earning the same as before, fixed in real terms / adjusted for inflation. Especially since we might earn the same, but we have access to infinitely more toys and experiences at a much lower price - often, in fact, lower in absolute terms and not in inflation adjusted terms. My insanely kick-ass PC cost less than a PC 30 years ago that I can pretty much design and manufacture myself in a month with the tools and space I already own. We have computers, phones, tablets, televisions, navigation systems, audio players... radios of every variety; and we have them for significantly less than they used to cost. We have cars which have never been better, or as reliable, or as fuel-efficient, which cost not terribly much. We have a huge variety of food delivered just in time for us to buy it, again, not costing very much. Wages may be stagnant but we're able to pay our way through our needs, and then many of our wants, and a few of our why-the-hell-nots. How is this a problem?
Honestly, as long as people at the bottom aren't starving, I see inequality as proof that some people are ambitious and successful.