It sounds like you believe that if the ownership share of the top 10% went up, then the average wealth of the bottom 90% went down. The latter does not follow from the former. Both can have seen increases in wealth.
It's a simple question: Has the wealth of the lowest 90% gone up or down?
(And 90% is too coarse. Would be good to see it for every decile.)
> but that is nearly meaningless when the cost of living has increased much greater than any of those wealth increases.
Can we show that for each decile?
Here's the equivalent of your statement: If I throw a penny into a fountain at the mall, has the wealth of the fountain gone up or down?
Here's more realistic and relevant discussions on the relative gross of the lower classes:
* https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-guide-to-statistics-on-histo...
* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-a...
* https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/09/income-inequa...
This trend will continue until resources are no longer exploitable, or people trying to enrich themselves created artificial scarcity or restrict their trade.
This is false. The concentration of wealth directly correlates with increases of death, starvation, suffering, etc. Inequality is by far the most important measure. "Growth" of income is effectively meaningless on its own without relative comparisons to the other classes in your own country and the significantly higher increases in the cost of living. If you look for the narrative you'd like, you can certainly find a number in isolation supporting it. But that narrative falls down when you look at the whole picture.