> You're still talking about wealth like it is relative and not an absolute. You're just comparing modern wealth to early 20th century wealth.
Nobody in this discussion is using "relative wealth" to mean comparisons over long periods of time. Everyone is using it to mean comparisons between different people's wealth at the same time. If what you're concerned about is the advantages that relative wealth gives you in competing for scarce resources, that makes sense; but nobody today is competing with people a century ago for scarce resources, so using the term "relative wealth" for that kind of comparison makes no sense.
Nobody in this discussion is using "relative wealth" to mean comparisons over long periods of time. Everyone is using it to mean comparisons between different people's wealth at the same time. If what you're concerned about is the advantages that relative wealth gives you in competing for scarce resources, that makes sense; but nobody today is competing with people a century ago for scarce resources, so using the term "relative wealth" for that kind of comparison makes no sense.