Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the interests as a nation and as a globe are different and sometimes antagonistic, but it pokes a massive hole in the idea that the rich are stealing and from the poor: if the rich are richer, and the poorer richer, the ones complaining are the ones in the middle. It would change the rhetoric from "poor vs rich" to "middle vs rich and poor".
Why aren't they? They're not doing it from altruistic reasons, they've just found people willing to work for less pay. Surely a king upon conquering even worse off subjects, which enables him to maintain and expand his wealthy lifestyle cheaper, can still be charged as an exploiter?
The middle class is not asking for progressive taxation of the rich for altruistic reasons either: they want the benefit of that taxation: access to housing, health, government jobs, college education, etc.
Its a much more morally and factually confusing narrative to say that the middle 50% wants to take fro mthe top 25% and bottom 25%, than the top 50% is taking from the bottom 50%. Particularly because in the utilitarian view, taking from the middle and giving to the bottom is still redistribution of wealth the 'right direction'.
The case in the united states is a lot simpler than people think tho. I believe the single most important reversal of real wages stagnation is to fix healthcare. If insurance cost half of what it costs today (or even less), then real wages would get a massive bump, specially at the lower echelons, where insurance costs disproportionately more than at the top.