I think Stan hit the nail on the head. It's not so much that FX is improving less than DX - given that FX is in the higher price bands and there is more cost room for innovation, I think the next FX is likely to be a shocker. Possibly more than the D7k, which is definitely rocking a lot of people's world. (Try looking at the Pentax, Olympus and Sony forums over on dpreview...)
Stan's point - and mine - and I think Jon's are all that we're getting to the point that the DX cameras can do very nearly everything that most of us need to do. Shoot in available darkness? Check. Pro shutter life? Check. Complete range of optics? Check. Lower price? Yep. What's the point of FX?
Nikon is making the point of FX to be the top models. To Jon's point, when FX gets to the point of, say, 32mp, its DX crop will be 14mp or better than a D300 and equal to a D3100 on a pixel-for-pixel basis. That's good enough for most purposes, and even if it's not as good as 32mp, if you want to shoot with a DX lens, go ahead. You'll "only" be able to make a 30x45 print if you're careful... None of this 60x90 stuff that you might be able to do with the whole sensor...
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!