Not sure how the two statements are incompatible.
If it is possible for you to create wealth, by investing time and effort, rather than taking it from other people, then it is possible for other people to do so as well. Therefore, it is not correct to say that "there's no place it [new wealth held by wealthier people] can come from other than" poorer people.
I said: And: There's no logical inconsistency there. You're projecting.Money isn't necessarily a zero sum game...
If the amount of wealth held by the top is growing faster than the money supply (it is), then there's no place it can come from other than the bottom.
I don't think I understand the first sentence of your original comment. I am confused by the language of "wealth" and "money." Can we speak of wealth only without diminishing your point? A casual reading suggests that the fast rate of wealth accumulation among the wealthy implies that the new wealth of the wealthy was taken from poorer people. If that isn't accurate, can you clarify? The second sentence is also hard to parse. If it (the money supply? the total quantity of wealth?) is finite, how is it not a zero-sum game?