"In the West, it's just all gone to the very wealthy" is also a claim that is broad, hard to define, and is empty without evidence.
Of course those who pay attention to these sorts of things know that the reality is more complex than that, even if you limit your analysis to "The West," which isn't a unified bloc. See the differences exhibited by the change in income inequality by these nations: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/07/Top-Incomes.png . You can't make a generalized statement about "wealth in the West," because it has exhibited different patterns in different countries over different timeframes. You have to specify all of those parameters before an intelligent conversation can even be started.
Even if the grandparent was worded too vaguely to communicate the poster's actual point, the grandparent turned out to be making a statement that was too low resolution to actually communicate anything beyond hand-waving anti-Capital rhetorical sentiment.
> those who pay attention to these sorts of things know that the reality is more complex than that
Kind of, but the trends are similar if the magnitudes are somewhat different. States with more distributive policies have less inequality, surprise surprise.
> Even if the grandparent was worded too vaguely to communicate the poster's actual point, the grandparent turned out to be making a statement that was too low resolution to actually communicate anything beyond hand-waving anti-Capital rhetorical sentiment.
I guess technically that's true, but it's also not far off. Because the West is back into relatively low growth, capital's influence is growing [2]. When you consider the only way to get capital is income or returns on capital, this is a simple recipe for inequality growing. And it indeed is the likely trend without (again surprise surprise) more redistribution policies [3].
"In the West, it's just all gone to the very wealthy" is the intent. Not "All the growth in the world has gone to the wealthy in the West."