Who really benefits from economic growth? In recent social protests, I have heard the claim that the economic growth benefits only the rich: they become richer while most people become poorer.

To check whether this claim is realistic, I looked for data relating economic growth (measured by the increase GDP) and real wages. I found this blog post, which shows that in the UK in 2008-2014, there has been positive economic growth while the real wages were declining. 

The writer offers several explanations to this phenomenon, but they may be specific to the UK. So, my question is: what are some other examples of economic growth that comes together with decreasing real wages?

In general, what are examples of economic growth periods, in which few people benefit while most people become poorer?
I suppose that it depends on the time scale you are considering. Over the very long run the poor seem to have benefited far more than the rich from growth. See for example Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post:


  By 1915, the United States was the world’s richest nation — and yet,
  most Americans were dirt poor by today’s standards. Adjusted for
  inflation, men’s average wages were about a third of what full-time
  workers now earn. The average workweek in manufacturing hovered around
  50 hours, and many employees worked a half day on Saturday. Less than
  a third of homes had electric lights. Less than a fifth of the adult
  population were high school graduates.


A hundred years ago leisure and electric lighting were luxuries. Now they are near ubiquitous in the west. Higher education used to be rare, now it is common. Heath-care was once dangerous and of limited efficacy for poor and rich alike, and now we use lasers, chemicals, and radiation to great curative effect. 

Billionaires All (Or Practically So) by Don Boudreaux  


  In 1916 even Rockefeller had little access to air conditioning; the
  range of cuisines from which he could choose his meals was drearily
  narrow; he was attached by wire to a wall or a floor whenever he spoke
  on the telephone; he could entertain and inform himself neither with
  radio nor television; forget about computers or tablets.  Every movie
  he watched was silent and in black and white.  Unlike us today, in
  1916 it took Rockefeller days, rather than hours, to get from New York
  to Europe – or even to California.  Although he was chauffeured in his
  (un-air-conditioned) limousine, the ride he experienced was bumpier
  and more perilous than is any ride enjoyed today by an ordinary
  American.  Rockefeller’s fine Swiss watch was far less accurate than
  is today’s cheapest Timex.  Were he to need the services of a fire and
  rescue team, it would have taken that team longer to reach
  Rockefeller, and the effectiveness of their efforts to save his life
  or his property were much less than is the effectiveness of such
  teams’ efforts today.
  
  If in 1916 Rockefeller or any of his children or grandchildren caught
  pneumonia or cut a finger on a rusty nail, the risk of death was much
  higher than it is today because antibiotics were unavailable.  Of
  course, Rockefeller also had no access to statins, hip- or
  knee-replacement surgeries, Lasik procedures, contact lenses,
  antihistamines, or even sunglasses that protected his eyes from
  ultraviolet rays.  Yet he was then one of the world’s richest men –
  deprived as he nevertheless was of many of the miraculous goods and
  services that we ordinary Americans today take for granted.