My original post refuted the statement:

Moral progress proceeds from economic progress.

You interjected:

I think he's trying to say .... we need to pursue wealth if we want to pursue morality. .... economic progress can also result in bad moral outcomes depending on what we do with our wealth.

You do not like the questions, the Socratic? Ok, I asserted the basis of the argument and the point of the questions:

A clear, unbiased definition of moral or economic progress does not exist.

You present models for deciding both. There exists models where economic progress varies inversely with moral progress, such as possible outcomes from the utilitarian perspective that are covered in ethics 101 at most colleges, and the manifest reality of a system where economic progress has been used for justifying an abundance of atrocities. There also exist models in either category which define progress in entirely different directions and so any statement of progress is inherently biased.

There is a link between economic states/systems and moral conditions, and it appeared that the author of the statement: "Moral progress proceeds from economic progress." may have been oversimplifying the issue to a point of of making it unintelligible.

You mentioned wealth which implies an inherent bias also. I can personally assert a different version of wealth which excludes much of what most people consider wealth. If most people think wealth includes assets like cash or gold which I see as having an immoral nature and so their idea of accumulating wealth is immoral in my pov. (I do not include a lengthy moral case, but rather assert such a case exists). So if you see progress and wealth as interrelated then I would ask for a definition of wealth?

You also assert that economic progress is an increased ability to produce goods. I assert that there are many modes of production of which the current industrial mode finds value in quantity, as you state is the measure. Two biases arise:

1 - The bias inherent to the mode: quantity is not the only measure of progress. Competing values include quality in aesthetics, ergonomics, environmental impact, functionality, modular in use (consider open source values). I do not think having more stuff is a sign of economic progress and I am not alone in finding that the measure you have asserted says nothing of "progress" - you of course argue differently and thus we can say one measure or another of progress may differ and are thus inherently biased.

2- What mode of production is more progressed? I do not think industrialization is progress. I see many flaws in the results. Too much damage from that mode imho. I am not here to argue that position but rather to assert it exists.

Is my point about the bias inherent in describing progress clear, or do you think that there exists some definition we all agree upon as to what progress in any area is?