First off, usually when a person resorts to insults, that’s a sign they’re losing the argument, but whatever.

I couldn’t elaborate on my point as much as I would’ve liked because I was on my phone at work.

But what I was trying to say is that you’re making the case that it’s not a zero-sum game based on statistics pertaining broadly to two groups that are unrelated in aggregate.

Saying that the one group’s wealth doesn’t come at the expense of the other seems true on its face but only if you ignore entirely the real material relations involved in how wealth is generated, which is to say the relationship between owner/shareholder and workers.

I tried to bring it from the abstract to the concrete by looking at a subset of those groups within one company (or at least the same supply chain), which is relevant to whether it’s a “zero-sum game.” Less wages means more profit. I don’t know how much more clear I can be about that.

You didn’t rebut anything I said. Instead, you just doubled down on your original argument. How is saying “Well China’s doing pretty good, so there” negate the fact that wealth in Apple is created through the exploitation of Foxconn workers?

Also, a massive rise in per capita income doesn’t mean squat in one of the most unequal countries in the world (Gini 0.47). Go to China and you’ll see there’s just the rich and everyone else. There’s hardly a middle class to speak of.

Anyways, since you like charts and metrics so much, here’s one for you:

Real wages have remained stagnant while productivity has skyrocketed.

And to whom have those gains accrued?

Not to the workers who produced them. It’s sophistry to look at these things in aggregate and not look at the relations within firms.

Yes, if you get a smaller share of a much bigger pie, it can work out in the end to more in absolute terms, but the distribution of the pie itself is by definition zero-sum.