Good attempt to use semantic confusion to distract from the point, but his main thesis that 'the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer' stands up to your points.
Thats not what the graphs show, though. It shows the rich getting quite a bit richer, the middle getting a little bit richer, and the poor remaining approximately as poor.
If two sub groups of a distribution get a net positive in % that necessarily means the other part went net negative in the same proportion, seems a bit too far to argue against math just to defend the rich.
