I think at least some psychologists and economists will disagree with you that relative wealth/income is irrelevant. It seems at least somewhat relevant, actually, though the literature, as always, is inconclusive.
Not to get hung up on details, but in this case it might matter. A few Chinese officials and several economists have expressed concerns that Chiense GDP numbers just aren't very reliable and other measures merit more attention.
Where does China stand on those?
And how much below 7.6% does "actual" GDP growth need to be to merit a change of course?
I think at least some do not accept it because of (1) skepticism towards the extent to which people actually consume out of current income vs. permanent income and (2) because government spending via borrowing would reduce future income via taxes (this is related to (1) in a fairly obvious way I guess).
Then of course we have all the more unique considerations of the present, including hysterisis, the decline in collateralizable assets (which the gov't can alleviate by selling more Treasuries, ceteris paribus, although I still don't at all understand how this would work in theory), the liquidity trap and all the other factors that change the arithmetic in ways I haven't yet fully understood.
Hmmm, I suspect actually that income inequality in North Korea is absolutely monstrous. Based purely on intuition, I'd imagine that almost all the wealth in that country belongs to maybe 10 or 20 people.
If anything, then, North Korea is a terrifying example of how unfair rent extraction and wealth redistribution by the few can decimate a society.