I’m going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there. What you are describing is a logical fallacy. By redefining winners and losers to be an arbitrary condition instead of a fixed set of attributes (homeless, hungry, lack of class mobility, poor health), you can claim some notion of relativism but it’s not helpful for understanding anything. It’s a bit of circular reasoning.
it's a quote from a movie. the premise being that as long as humans compete with each other for resources, there will be some they take most of the pie, and others that struggle for the remaining scraps. it's more a philosophical take on the human condition. the take is just that - winners and losers is arbitrary because humans will always view their successes and failures in direct comparison with others, regardless of whether from an absolute perspective their general condition or their share of the pie or the degree of wealth equality has improved. it's definitely helpful for understanding the human psyche. calling it circular reasoning misses the point.
My first sentence, the one you quoted is actually a quote from Office Space.
It’s useless rhetoric because after we agree humans will always see winners and losers, there are no further conclusions to draw. Does that mean humans will always expect a certain portion of people to be homeless, hungry, unhealthy, depressed, etc? Or does that mean that even once humans are all homed, fed, heathy and in good spirits that there will be some other metric to decide people are winning or losing life at?
This solipsistic relativism can’t be applied in any particular way.
