Just remember that divvying up money doesn't have the effect of ensuring a decent standard of living. If you go to some person living in a slum of some under-developed city in an under-developed country, and you gave them 11K USD, they would be able to buy some consumption goods, rennovate their apartment etc. - but they would not be able to buy decent education for their children (let alone themselves); nor decent health care services (they would be able to afford a few visits to an overpriced doctor); etc.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017)
by willcipriano on Friday June 24, 2022 @11:36AM
(#31863853)
11k probably isn't enough to provide much by way of public health or education anyway once you buy all the essentials, I was just making the point that the number includes government spending so if you increase that you lower the amount of income each person will get.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017)
by towaway15463 on Friday June 24, 2022 @04:50PM
(#31869131)
Also, giving one person 11k is very different from giving everyone 11k.
We could absolutely give everyone on earth the median standard of living. If we divided everything up equally (84.71 trillion [global GDP] / 7.753 billion [world population]) we are talking about something like 11 grand per person, per year, total overall spending. That's housing, food, healthcare, fire, police, roads, schooling, etc.
For most people on earth that would be a big raise[0], although virtually everyone in the west would be dramatically poorer.
[0]https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-inc...