There was an economic experiment doing just that a couple of decades ago.
There was an isolated village in Africa. Economists took inventory of each household to determine its wealth and noted the distribution. They then gave money to everyone in the village so everyone had the same wealth. They then went away and let the experiment run for 10 years.
They went back and took inventory of each household to determine its wealth. What they found was the new distribution was "almost exactly" the same as the original by individual household. The richest before ended up being the richest. The poorest before ended up being the poorest.
The conclusion is that where one falls on the wealth distribution curve has to do with one's own decisions, talent, and industry, not so much where one starts out.
We see this with lottery winners, actors, and ball players all the time. People of modest and lower class means who get a large windfall and are too dumb to hand it over to a financial manager often end up dying broke.
Accumulation of wealth is the result of decisions, talent, and industry. You can't hand someone money and change any of those things.
u 1. No one would pick up the garbage.
2. Some people would waste their money and soon be poor again.
3. Leftists would again call for another redistribution of wealth.
The idea seems highly unlikely or impossible for it to occur outright.
The government would most likely discourage entrepreneurship for wealth to remain 'equal' among the constituencies. If this were to happen, then innovation would not take place, and this is to the detriment of civilization. Everyone's money would most likely be left idle and not utilized. Any exercise of utilizing money would decrease one's purchasing power, thereby resulting to 'inequality'.
There are different currencies adopted by each sovereign state. If everyone in the world were to have an 'equal' amount of money with a basis on monetary value, then its worth would be dependent on the exchange rates that fluctuate on a daily basis.
We'd find other things to worry about
Opinion
132Opinion
I guess it depends whether people start off with the same amount of money or consistently get the same amount of money.
If people started off with the same amount then within a few months, maybe a year, maybe even a few years, some people would be poor again, some would be rich and some would have about the same.
If people were all paid the same then society would collapse because generally people wouldn't want to do more work or more difficult jobs if they get paid the same as someone doing something simple.
People wouldn't rely on money anymore. Money usually reflects one's personal value. But if the same money is given to people who don't contribute as much, then money isn't reliable.
I would still follow my passions, as I do now.
China can hardly be called a communist country, even if they like to call themselves that way.
Let's say somebody finds a genie and actually pulled this off
*Poof* Everybody now has the same amount of money.
It wouldn't take long at all for those originally rich to become rich again, and those originally poor to become poor again.
The primary reason why most people get ahead, is because they were willing to do what others weren't. This could of course mean cheating, but it also means personal sacrifice, working longer hours, foregoing vacations, educating themselves, etc etc.
Everybody starts with the same amount of money in Monopoly right? Poker tournaments? Hell, MOST games start players in a level playing field. The competent will rise, the incompetent will fall. Inequality is not some great injustice, it's the natural result (Paretto Principle) of compounded wins or losses, along with luck, and larger gains possible at the top. So if you or I get a 10% return on investment it's not a whole lot. When a billionaire gets 10% that's millions of dollars.
So again, people wrongfully assume that if there's not equality of outcome then something wasn't fair. Granted many things in life aren't. But even if there were a system with no prejudice or discrimination, a few would rise astronomically. Inequality is NATURAL.
China is not communist its state socialism.
Equality of outcome is the idea that everyone makes the same and are free to their own devices and passions. Only problem is that everyone has different needs and wants. Certain passions are valued more by society such as techsperts, entertainers, athletes and food vendors. Equality of outcome doesn't allow for growth.
Life and the economy is like a race. Their are winners and losers, but each person gets a chance to enter the race and have a shot to move up. In a Nascar race you have two races start in the front and then that continues until the last car in the back of the pack. However, that 43rd spot isn't set and stone, he or she can move from 43rd to 40th, or 35th or wherever. As they get opportunities, they learn from them and grow eventually getting higher and higher. Maybe they were in 30th but wrecked and fell to 43rd again. Luckily for them they get to enter the next race and start over again.
The leaders who tend to average in the top 10 might start getting passed by others who once were not elite, as time went on they surpassed themselves and the elite to become a top contender themselves. However, you can't just put someone in a race. They have to have the ability to actually drive, adequate tires, a full gas tank and a pit crew. Without these its impossible to join the race and compete. This is where something like Universal Basic Income would come in, to provide equal opportunity for everyone to join the race.
There are always winners and losers, then there is the majority in the middle that move around (middle class). This is important to understand because those losers might not always be. And sometimes those that were once winners fall into the middle or worse. But they always have the possibility and aid to help get them back up. Equal outcome doesn't allow this because it prevents people from becoming their best and competing.
Rich and poor has little to do with money. Donald Trump once was $330M in debt, and remembered seeing homeless people and thinking "that guy is worth $330M more than me right now." But a decade later, he was a billionaire again.
If you gave everyone in the US a million dollars, 2 years later, most "poor" people would have nothing left, while the "rich" would likely have multiplied their money.
Why? Because the difference between rich and poor isn't money - it's ambition, hard work, education, but most importantly, discipline and contacts.
Poor people (in the US and many first-world countries, anyway) lack discipline and the ability to delay gratification - the can't save up over time to improve their situation, but focus only on what they want THIS MINUTE. Middle class folks think weeks in advance, but rich people think years in advance, and work towards distant goals.
Rich people invest in themselves to improve their market value through education and building a network of contacts who are or will likely be in a position to help them at some point - and they often sacrifice and risk a lot to accomplish that.
That's how it is possible for lower class people to become rich, and how lazy or undisciplined "rich" can become penniless.
There are variables!!! I need answers...
Are talking about starting from scratch? If all wealth and debt were erased and then everyone was given 50k, and it there was still an open marketplace?
If that's the case, we'd end up in the same place. Smart, industrious people would invest in businesses and make money... dopey people would spend it all on clothes and toys.
Or, your talking about a star trek type society where no one needs to work for money at all. If that's the case wealth would get replaced by fame. Some people would sit around not doing much, others would drive into they're passions and do impressive things... i think it all comes down to drive... and we're not all equal in that respect.
The problem is human morality.
Even if some how everything was equal and enough for everyone, it would not last.
Humans lie, cheat and steal. Even a very good person would in the right circumstances act inappropriately.
Look at some of the Oil rich countries. They have enough money from the sales of natural resources to fund all budgets, yet their people work useless government "make work" jobs.
When I see a welding robot, I do not see free GNP, or step towards the future, instead I see a loss of several jobs.
If I invented a cornucopia device tomorrow, it would not solve corruption. In the end some one would benefit from it at someone else's expense.
Even if money did not exist, and everyone was honest, we are each different. Some people can live far better with less, some people produce more, others squander what they have.
Communism hag never truly existed, every some has ended up in some kind of dictatorship, I get what you mean and there's a theory that says that if you hive the whole money in the world to everyone in same amounts the money would go back to those who already have it in less than 4 years… because the difference it is about how people spend it… rich people buy assets first ad then at the end they buy liabilities, and poor people buy first liabilities and at the end (if they even buy ) buy the assets…
People who work hard would stop working, they would wonder why they are bothering. The whole reason people take on very responsible jobs, long hours etc is because of the pay and advantages. Lazy people would sit back and get the same as them, so they would stop working.
Even if you gave everyone the same money after a bit those who are crap with money would be in dept and those who are clever and save would be saying they have investments and properties, and it would go back to how it was before because the stupid ones wasted their money and the bright ones were careful.
I think it would soon be unequal. Freedom necessitates the ability to achieve unequal results, and the results can become unequal rather quickly. Say one person invents an exciting new product that everyone wants to have. He originally invented it for himself but now everyone wants to have their own and pushes him to start selling the product, and so he risks all his money to start a business and sell the product and becomes wealthier than everyone else who voluntarily gives him the money in exchange for his goods. As long as money exists (which tends to imply property rights as well), it's going to move around from one hand to the next, creating unequal outcomes.
The concept sounds good but would fail if ever tried. Whoever was responcible for distributing the money would definitely give themselves more, eventually there would be no uniqueness in our clothing or looks. There would be little motivation for innovation so there would be no new technology to further society and we would be producing goods inefficiently.
Eventually, over time, it would return to the present state.
You would have a group of people who are not financially responsible spending their money and not able to replenish or maintain their balance and on the the other end of the soectrum, you would have a groyp that is financially frugal and increase their money.
It's just human nature and laws of financial responsibility. Several camps of thought and 1point of view might not be better than the other.
Some people will spend until gone, some will invest and let it accumulate and in the middle, some will spend to make more to spend to make more.
It wouldn't be a life worth to live for that what I am sure of.
I have never imagined and can't imagine what will happen if all people in the world had equal money. Though I believe that it shouldn't be like having equal money but it should be like if having basic needs (water, food, shelter, medical needs and education) given to everyone. And I am sure the world will be a different place. Where people will only live to make there life better and won't suffer for like people these days are suffering without those needs.
We would slowly trend back towards inequality as some people settle into this life and feel content while those not driven by fulfilling their basic needs start to either accrue money for reason or provide service that people volantarily give more towards. Those people would most likely use said money to support the thing that’s making them this money and would gather even more money. Setting the bar back to a flat equality will only reshuffle the deck it wouldn’t change the game. Now raising the basic starting point and ensuring no one exists in the portion of the game that entrapps them in an unwinnable struggle through well structured policies could be an amazing solution.
Holy shit, why do people have to be so cynical - it would be great to live without poverty, for all peoples sake. Homelessness, starvation, discrimination, economic disparity - gone. That's bad? And even if it were just temporary, at least we could be happy knowing that we tried. Blacks are disproportionately poor, and also were disproportionately enslaved for decades... Coincidence? It's time for reparations. I'm all for this idea, and considering the deep inequalities that exists, I think most people are supportive of financial equality. The CEOs are not, but fuck them for exploiting the masses for minimum wage. Let's share the wealth, share the love, and stop bitching about communism being a dirty word. We all have equal rights (supposedly), money is a right. We need money to live. Work too. Much rather live in a world without poverty, and i challenge anyone to say they cherish poverty and will fight to keep it.
I think that there would be a lot more fairness in life, I think that people would be happier to work crappy jobs as long as they are getting a decent life. I think that we could have more workers Doig one job, work less hours because of it, and everybody would be better off.
Nowadays people with qualifications and education can't even get work. If we could all work any job, then the basic jobs will be covered, as for the jobs that we consider highly like doctors and other health care professions, we could give them a better wage, but it should be capped.
But I think that everybody should have a decent shot at life, without having to worry about surviving.
Also I think that crime rates would be down, because crime wouldn't benefit as much as much as it might now.
Who knws
The hard worker, the strivers, inventors, the driven, the clever, wise, intelligent would prosper and grow their money and would get more and more. The lazy, foolish, self destructive would squander it and they'd probably be back to not having any money before too long.
A lot would just save and live frugally and they'd stay even.
Again the situation will turn to same. Again there will be rich and there will be poor. Same as before. As it is proved in history there are many person who came from poor condition bt by their hard work or smart work they become richest. Also money is unstable. It can't stay always with us. Of course not if we will behave like a lazy person. So at last again there will be poor and rich as per their behavior.
But yeh, then there will be a best thing. Many person who struggle due to less money to achieve what they deserve it will not be there or will be very less such case. Then rich will be only those who deserve that place. For at least one generation surely
People will not work for one another the only thing that makes you work in group our team is money
Not many people will like the idea of working together if there is no common interest in world which is monetary gains everyone must to do something by their own to prove their potential which is not sensible.
If everyone has equal amount of money there will be no competition no shelf improvisation.
And beside all money is a yardstick to measure your potential and capacity in society there is no other physical yardstick to measure it
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions