Sort of. It seemed pretty knee jerk obvious to me upon reading your question that services create value and therefore wealth. Is there a different way I should think about it to better understand your point
take, for example, a not uncommon American household: four people, 1,500sf home, one car, basic energy usage for a refrigerator/lights/air conditioning, three decent meals a day, etc.
you cannot extrapolate that lifestyle to everyone in the world -- there simply aren't enough raw materials accessible to make that happen
thus, in a world where the people are steadily raising their wealth and material conditions, you come up on a limit where person X improving their wealth can only be done when person Y becomes materially worse
an example: as people in China have improved their wealth, they have driven up the demand (and price) for meat -- meat costs have risen across the globe as a result of increased demand
there is a finite amount of livestock this earth can support without destroying cropland or residential land; much of the earth's land cannot support livestock; not to mention the methane gas and environmental implications of meat and waste
all that to say, there is scarcity and the improved ability for some people to access meat has resulted in others not being able to access it -- an example of zero-sum distribution of material things
now, as I said, innovation can improve the amount of meat per acre, reduce the environmental harm of meat, grow it in a lab, etc. -- but at the end of the day, there are limits to this earth and what it can provide
services are fine and dandy, but they don't increase the food supply or energy supply or amount of clean water