If we evenly distributed all wealth the majority of people would end up in the exact same situation they are in now. amirite?

Yeah I don't agree. I know a lot of trust fund babies from private high school and college, and almost all of them are very well off today with their finance jobs that really anyone could do if they were given the same training and opportunity. I don't think most of them would be doing any better than their peers if they had been born in poverty. I don't mean to be overly mean to them, most of them are nice and friendly people, but they aren't particularly smarter or more hardworking than the average working class person.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I think you are mistaking nepotism for wealth influence

by Anonymous 2 days ago

If that's nepotism then most of the economy is nepotism lol. By far the biggest predictor of your future economic standing is your current economic standing.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

That's why I said the majority. Trust fund kids make up such a tiny little portion of the population.

by Negative_Prize4357 2 days ago

Its not a tiny portion of the wealthy population though

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Trust fund kids are a teeny tiny portion of the upper middle class for sure

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Not really, in that most people stay in the same socioeconomic status they were born in. Most people with rich parents stay rich. Most people without rich parents don't become rich.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I think people say this to make themselves feel better

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Thus ownership of the means of production.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Now show me one real world example where ownership to the means of production didn't belong to private business, or the state

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Co-operatives, which aren't uncommon in Europe for example, are companies organised with fairly equitable ownership, and they don't really look like any standard company within the usual capitalist framework Also, the state is meant to function as the intermediate step before ownership can transfer directly to the people (admittedly, this is a stretch, because we've seen the corrupting effects of this transition). But this was how it was sort of envisioned initially.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Majority? More like 99%

by padbergkathlyn 1 day ago

For this theory to be true, it needs to ignore that peoples situations are largely related to their starting point in life.

by rennerrandal 1 day ago

It's almost like the system is set up to funnel wealth to the existing wealthy classes.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Giving everyone an equal amount of money wouldn't change the flow of money, it would just reset it. That's why we as a society should change. Instead of going to big corporations, try to help small businesses. Rich people should spend money helping others, instead of hoarding it like dragons. And people should just be a bit kinder. It probably wouldn't fix everything, but it'd be a good starting point.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I don't think big corps are the issue so much as the state giving them breaks the average person doesn't is

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I forget where I read this but it goes like this. "If your ideology begins with "if people would just..." then it's going to fail." Any ideology that goes against what humans tend to do naturally is never going to work. People aren't "going to just" do whatever it is that is potentially better for everyone. It takes very few people to ruin a situation that's better for everyone and make it worse for everyone but themselves. Once people see a crack in the system they will want to be the one who exploits it before others do. Happened all throughout history every time a group of ideological people take over and implement a supposedly fair and just society where everything goes well if people just stick to the rules. People don't just do that though, because it's against what people are. Your ideology has to appeal to people who won't just do what you want if it's to succeed. On a small scale people might just do the thing, but the more people are introduced the exponentially higher chances that problems occur and it all falls apart.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Hoard money lol.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Yes. The system is designed to funnel wealth to a select few and extract it from the majority. You've described the system working as intended. The system is independent of individual decisions or merit and favours those with existing wealth and the lucky.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Naw

by Witty-Description-24 1 day ago

Pretty much. All you have to do is look at the number of people who win a massive amount of cash, like empire-building money, in the lottery only to declare bankruptcy a few years later. Now, the lazy, knee-jerk response will be that it's a privilege thing. But it doesn't require a bachelor's degree in finance to be prudent with money. It requires some basic skills such as thinking ahead, saving your excess money, seeking solid advice, and keeping an eye out for rough sledding.

by Itchy_Zombie_2131 1 day ago

Although these stories are fun to read, there's nothing to indicate that they're common amongst lottery winners. Most states have multiple lottery games each week so the annual number of winners is plenty while most articles on winners blowing the money recycle the same 5-10 examples.

by rennerrandal 1 day ago

If everyone is given the exact same amount, what is the systematic problem that still exists?

by Exotic_Shopping 1 day ago

Yeah, this is well studied and documented. People just don't like the truth.

by Samleuschke 1 day ago

Care to share the studies and documentation?

by Advanced_Tree 1 day ago

Those studies are only in his head

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Yes because of financial illiteracy and lack of accountability.

by mattfritsch 1 day ago

That's what happens when the whole system is created by old white men. I think this points out the systemic racism\sexism inherent in the US

by EarthOutside8571 1 day ago

Some would, but not most. I know plenty of people who are good with money, who just grew up poor. A good friend of mine is inheriting his father's business soon and that's not something most people have. If you gave everyone the same amount of money AND the same starting point, I'd disagree with your opinion.

by Ok-Dot 1 day ago

Well we'd see a lot less billioners at least because if you can't borrow few mil from your dad to start a business, it's quite difficult. Like imagine they'd have to actually work lmao

by Hamillherman 1 day ago

Actually most of us reading this would come out WORSE and most of the people in this world who have never accessed the Internet and might not even have electricity will come out better.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Someone has finally done the math. I expect the truth to be unpopular, so congrats. One quibble, ‘evenly distributing the wealth' means everyone gets an extra $100. So it's not 15-20 years, it's 15-20 minutes and everyone is back to regular programming. With a side of lower living standards from having destroyed the companies the wealthy built up that make our lives better.

by Sea-Life 1 day ago