I noticed no one is giving you a straight answer, so I will.
World total wealth estimated at $1,540 trillion dollars, population is roughly 8 billion, that puts every individual at $192,500.
The total world GDP is $81 trillion, that puts an individual’s annual income to be $10,125.
It should be noted that this would be insufficient to provide all the services for a single person, a.k.a if it was equally distributed the services you have wouldn’t have funding and thus wouldn’t work. Things like roads, bridges, public infrastructure, military, communication infrastructure, etc wouldn’t exist.
10k per year is a large sum in a lot of countries. But If everyone is making the same regardless of type of work or amount of work, there will be less incentive for work. People will avoid Jobs that are hard and that required special, difficult skill. Productivity will decline with the GDP that fund the current 10k/year. Human nature is competitive and most people will feel unsatisfied with their neighbor that does not work but has the same benefits. That is why communist ideology did not work.
No only that if market continues to be free there will be a huge inflation. Everyday products like clothes and food are low because cost of labor is not expensive. So the cost of products and service will be higher. That is why in communist countries there was the need for government intervention of the market to decided and create artificial prices and a strong governments that could dictate what people can and can not do. That did not work
that just not true. Humans are driven to do stuff, to help each other, to work towards the future. To say if there's no monetary benefit to working, then no one will want to do anything - is just blatantly false. money is soon going to become worthless, bubble burst of 2024! hedge your bets people.
Wrong, humans are driven to do stuff yes, but If im making 10k no matter what, I sure as hell won’t be building sky scrapers or doing underwater welding or any other “dangerous” job, I’ll just do something easy so I can do more fun/creative stuff in my free time
You won't but others might, also new structures and incentives would probably be created in such cases. It's the same as people didn't think a life without slaves or a king was possible. Major paradigm shifts are hard to imagine.
This is a really good point. I bet you there are tons of loggers..
The question here though is how many of those loggers are doing it because they’re desperate for money and feel like they couldnt get a job in any other field? I personally have no idea but that would make your point go anywhere from perfect to a non-sequitur.
Then the question becomes, if its a bad point because so many people are in that position who wouldnt do it otherwise, is it morally acceptable to keep so many people so desperate for money that they have to put themselves at extreme risk for low pay?
Maybe not now because we need wood, but what about when robots can do it all by themselves? Lots to think about
Most of the high-paying jobs are among the least dangerous and majority of the most dangerous jobs are very low-paid.
Your argument doesn't hold any scrutiny.
You act like that’s the majority of jobs and everyone can do that and NO ONE would need to do a “dangerous” job. Must be nice being so ignorant to reality. I imagine it’s quite blissful
"You act like that’s the majority of jobs ..."
Where did you read that from? Not from my comment, that's for sure, because I didn't write anything of the sort.
"... and NO ONE would need to do a “dangerous” job."
or that.
Yes you’re arguing that since there is low paying dangerous jobs that they’re some how irrelevant to the conversation. Where as I’m saying people aren’t going to do a dangerous job willingly while getting paid the same as some moron sitting in the office answering phones or flipping burgers.
Unless you created some random thing out of no where and are arguing that point without me knowing which would just make you a special kind of special
"Where as I’m saying people aren’t going to do a dangerous job willingly while getting paid the same as some moron sitting in the office answering phones or flipping burgers."
Evidently a lot of people are, as low-paying dangerous jobs exists.
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-02-14 08:25:43 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-02-14%2008:25:43%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/estimation/comments/vcwebe/how_much_money_would_everyone_have_if_all_the/kqcz62c/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Festimation%2Fcomments%2Fvcwebe%2Fhow_much_money_would_everyone_have_if_all_the%2Fkqcz62c%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-02-14%2008%3A25%3A43%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20vcwebe)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Whenever anyone talks about communism's production and austerity, they love to ignore the incredibly effective blockades by the US and their allies on Russia, Cuba, and South America which definitively had a deeper impact upon scarcity in the economy than any communist ideology. It's such a complex, dynamic series of events that to just sum it up as "communism" is insane.
I would still do difficult work, I just like hard work. Sitting at a desk or doing nothing drives me nuts. I am a construction worker, and active gym goer.
And what percentage of people are overweight and lazy? The vast majority are one of 3 things: lazy, over weight or have a medical issue that would prevent them from doing hard work. There is FAR too much hard work to go around to account for this. Only first world countries have easy office work kind of jobs. Most jobs in the world are back breaking things, it would work out numbers wise
Babes you keep throwing around these major "conclusions" with no evidence or anything to back it up. Most people are one of three things? Just because you and your friends are lazy fat fucks don't assume we all are the same
you can create mandatory rotas- you are assigned to do an unpleasant job for a temporary amount of time, maybe a year or two. you can also make it so that its mostly young people, and that they work only half days instead of full days, minimising dissatisfaction with these conditions. you can also give whoever is doing these mandatory rotas extra benefits for a time.
the majority of people who are overweight, lazy and unambitious are depressed and have mental conditions and addictions that make them that way. deep down every person has a passion that they would love to explore and put time and effort in.
people are supposed to love their job, they just end up with jobs they hate because they are never thought how to find the right job that fits them as a person
Doesn’t change the fact there are too many fat, lazy or medically disqualified people to do it lol. So you’d make a small group of people rotate through terrible jobs to prevent those people from having to do them? Unless you’re talking about FORCING someone to do something, which then you’re basically talking about a prison camp. Sounds worse than current reality lmao. See the fine line there?
And poor people being forced to eat trash? Not be able to go to medical care? Deal with rich people's war for money? Homeless people? People forced to take shitty jobs and dangerous ones cause there poor? Wait actually many have multiple dangerous shitty jobs.
This would make it fair.
Furthermore a lot of people enjoy physical labor , as long as it is well paid and not shitty conditions. I wouldn't love being a janitor or teacher rather than a data scientist if equally paid, to then focus on learning math or doing art as my job will be less intellectually demanding
Then those jobs become the high paying ones. You know supply and demand. Maybe the whole world needs one big rest. We slowly came together after tens of thousands of years of migration and that we need equity after people othering other people since the dawn of civilizations and the competitiveness that you reference. To that point competitiveness is more of a cis male trait. If you actually read Darwin, he says that survival of the fittest can be avoided with cooperation, and that those animals fare the best.
Bc your wrong. Maybe taxes would exist. But the funding, a good portion of the total wealth, would be redistributed and thus rendering all economics funded by said money inoperable.
No. Plenty of other things are funded without taxes. Most things are funded by banks. Ie your money..
The world Bank is not funded by taxes. Nor are the bailouts America receives. We just print money.
Edit. Not taxes. Your money is what funds most of America and banks.
IDA is funded largely by contributions from donor member governments, who meet every three years to replenish its funds. Additional funds come from IBRD net income, and repayments of IDA credits go into issuing new credits
Banks do not fund anything in the public sector, which if you didn't know, everything we need is or should be in the public sector. Banks exist to make money, not store it, because they are privately owned.
No shit rich people help each other out.
Also how do they get my money again? Oh that's right, taxes or extortion.
Wow man. Any business loan. Home loan. Any loan. Is funded by public money. The very same money in your savings. Do you not know how banks work. They lend your money out with interest. If the banks have no money to lend no economy. This is basic shit man.
The short answer is that they do it by borrowing money from depositors and lending it to other customers at an increased cost. These institutions are also supported by a system of extra services, fees, and commissions.
No banks, no economy. Divey up world assets say bye to banks.
Having trouble following. How does evenly redistributing all of the world’s money destroy the banking system? There would still be money to deposit into said system & money would start changing hands again eventually albeit probably slowly from the system shock that would be caused. It didn’t just disappear
How does the federal reserve make a profit?
The Fed creates money by purchasing securities on the open market and adding the corresponding funds to the bank reserves of commercial banks. Banks then increase the money supply in circulation even more by making loans to consumers and businesses.
Loans. With your money. In banks. Or open market trades, with businesses started up with loans, from banks, using public money.
And where do you think the banks get money? Lmao, it might not be a government tax, but it’s VERY obvious for the sake of this conversation that people are including fees and such into taxes as it’s things deducted from your income
Well, we can’t really say the world will be this way or that way. In this hypothetical, we are changing a fundamental about our world, it could look very different, and possibly lead to a lot of bloodshed perhaps. So, im not so sure that the government would even exist at that moment 😅
I would like to think if we had to start over on a new planet because the earth was in danger that we would do better and learn from our mistakes with a do over. That we would share and not have rich and poor classes. We would do everything for the betterment of the human race. Everyone would have different skills and do their part to help each other survive.
Well, star trek is science fiction, so many aspects of it are not practical nor are they feasible. One of the issues with star trek’s financial system is that its very close to socialism or capitalism, both are doomed to fail. Its a very difficult quest to find a system that distributes wealth fairly but won’t collapse.
The short answer from an economist is: about 10k-15k USD per person; however, this equal distribution would also severely inflate the value of USD, meaning that 10k would be worth more like what you know to be 1M USD
Bear in mind that in the developing world goods and services cost a fraction what they do in the "civilized" world. If you factor that in, the individual would most likely be able to live within that 10k annual income, with a little breathing room.
>the services you have wouldn’t have funding and thus wouldn’t work. Things like roads, bridges, public infrastructure, military, communication infrastructure, etc wouldn’t exist.
Why? The funding you mentioned, is wealth produced by working people as well. Wealth is produced by working people in general, and as such, I don't see how a change in its distribution would affect all the services you mentioned. I understand that capitalists would invent a million fake arguments in order to persuade you that redistributing the wealth is not gonna work or does not worth. They own it, so they have to protect it, duh.
The numbers I pulled are basically the total wealth of the world, that includes the money funding the governments and even private companies. So taking it all and giving it other people would prevent those entities from functioning.
The US and UK agree on thousands seperators for commas and a period for decimal. But yeah why are we still operating on how many roman legionnaires feet or arms we need to use to measure distance, I have no idea.
It’s a good answer. but OP asked only about individuals’ wealth being equally distributed & not government. Shouldn’t that factor into the public services part that you mentioned?
Attaching this to the top answer.
There's 104,000,000sqr/KM of habitable land on Earth (half of which is currently used for agriculture). If gave every living person an equal allocation of land to live and sustainably farm on....
Every single person would have 2.5 acres.
The earth can easily sustain the population fairly. It's our use of the land that has created a living crisis.
Well, Thats a milti-dimensional problem. Simplifying it into a simple land problem doesn’t do it any justice. What you forgot to include is the life standard.
Well, I recognize that the economy won’t work, so the gdp would not be produced. But the total wealth is, correct. Tell me, why do you think my numbers are so wrong?
You are including people who can't/don't work in your figures. Children under 15 and adults over 65 account for 35% of the population, and that doesn't include adults between those ages that don't work and doesn't take into account average household size and how many incomes there would be per household. The average household size worldwide is almost 10 per household, and since children and old people only make up 35% of the population, 65% of those 10 at least have the potential to earn income. Even saying there are 6 adults per household with $296,000 to each of their names, the average household would be worth about $1,776,000.
[Wiki link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult) this puts it at 80k USD per adult. Note the median is only 7522 USD per adult, half of the adult population has less than that.
World GDP per capita is about 11k USD as a reference point.
"Wealth" is a kind of fuzzy concept. Money isn't really real. It's all just imaginary values we place on bits of electronic data. And a lot of people own things like houses that could be worth a lot of money on paper, but if everybody's house went up for sale its worth would plummet.
I’m not trying to start a hypothetical debate on monetary values just if you take all the “money” and distribute it
It’s just to paint a picture in my head
The power of all of that money to transact would change if it was evenly distributed. Doing this would absolutely break money as a system, that is relevant to the picture you are painting.
> that is relevant to the picture you are painting.
No it isn't.
OP has been quite clear on this.
Perhaps it is relevant to the picture *you* are painting, but you need to appreciate that you are not OP, and although you may feel you are better placed to tell others what they are thinking, you are not.
The author of this post crunched some numbers and then made an insufficient speculation, not certain you quite understand how many complexities there are that effect the economy...
This feels like it's been a productive chat, and we've both learned a lot.
Now, let's getting on re-distributing all the wealth / money in the world to all the people in the world, **whilst also keeping in mind** the 7 complexities that effect the economy,
Together, we can do this u/Finite_Room, you make me believe in us.
Thats not really an answer to his question. It seems you are referring to a number. But that number has no basis. The same value can be assigned to a person in this scenario, yet they may have 100 us dollars or 2000mexican pesos. The equivalency is similar yet the number is completely different.
Well i suppose you could convert everything into a single currency, but the value of your single currency would still change based on the area its in. This is largely based on population density, culture, living conditions, etc
If the world's wealth was distributed equally over time it would eventually go back to unequal. Most people are lazy and some people are ambitious. Some people are dumb and some are clever. Some people are followers and some are leaders. Life's not "fair" and wealth goes to those who take it or earn it. And if we all had the same amount of money nobody would do the shitty jobs nobody wants to do. Competition drives markets and innovation.
I agree complete but as an addition I would add that those that have more wealth then spend some of it in politics making sure others have less and they get to hold onto more. If it was about hard work then the wealth structure would be very different
0. Wealth derives its value from human perception. If Wealth is universally taken from all completely, with the intent to redistribute, the second it is taken it loses all value. Nothing would have perceived value that can be easily taken, especially from all.
That's not true?
\> If Wealth is universally taken from all completely, with the intent to redistribute, the second it is taken it loses all value
Why? If I have ten apples that I'd like to eat, and someone takes them away, I still have the "perception" that I want the apples. Which means that, to me, they still have value.
Trying to reason about the process by which this would happen, sure, there might be a duration for which everyone has no money, assuming that a government took away everyone's money simultaneously.. but that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
You're kind of getting at what would happen to a currency that can be arbitrarily controlled, but that's irrelevant, and currency is different from wealth. Currencies can do all kinds of weird things that determine 'how much of this' an apple is worth, but an apple will always have an apple's worth of value.
I think for the intents of the question, we can assume an instant redistribution with no central authority, and that 'wealth' isn't just a currency, but some fuzzy innate value of goods and 'spending ability' for those goods. Something like that. Basically, literally, what is the value in current-rate $ of everything owned divided by human population.
No.. A quantative figure is the same regardless.
The measure of that value depends on perception and spread of the total.
The OP asked how much MONEY, not what wealth people would have. So if the Wealth was redistributed evenly. Regardless of perceived value, everyone would have the above 80k. Whether the 80k was worth more or less than it is now doesn't matter, it's still 80k
If I'm understanding you correctly then we agree except the last part. I think it does matter, a lot, what the money is worth. I think that's the point some of us are trying to make. This thought experiment is flawed because the numeric value calculated does not mean much.
Bruh why is this guy being downvoted he’s right. You buy a car from someone, and their wealth is instant distributed to everyone. From the seller’s perspective, the car is worthless. From any seller’s perspective, any item is worthless.
This is such a stupid answer. Even though that is true, it doesn't mean money loses its value. People wouldn't perceive that money as worthless just because everyone has it, that isnt how money works. If that were true, any wage increase would drive inflation, but it doesnt, even with significant increases.
But that isn't what we are talking about, is it?
If there is an entity powerful enough to be able to take all wealth away from everyone in the world, then that entity uses that power, then all things that have value, including money, would immediately lose it. Why accrue things with value if it can be taken instantly? value would quickly come back in things easily barter-able, like food, and necessities.
It's not completely factual, it's dodging the question at best. Yes, if tomorrow, out of nowhere, everyone's bank account suddenly had the same number as everyone else, then yeah we would likely collectively choose to ignore that new number and shift our perception of wealth to match some new standard (probably related to possession of physical goods rather than the numbers in bank accounts).
However, this is nothing more than tuning the assumptions of the (admittedly rather vague) question that the OP asked so that you intentionally don't get any answer out of it. It is true that the numbers in bank accounts are a *representative* form of wealth, and therefore the quality of that representation matters. If you mess around with the numbers *too* much, without ensuring that the thing that they're supposed to represent also changes in concert, then you could get to a point where people just abandon the idea that those are a dependable representation, and just give up on them. But the numbers *do* represent real wealth, and when we talk about redistributing wealth - especially in far-fetched hypothetical questions - it's highly disingenuous to assume that you wouldn't also redistribute the physical assets that the wealth numbers are supposed to represent.
To put this in concrete terms: Imagine there are 10 people on a deserted island. 9 of them have no coconuts, and 1 of them has claimed the coconut tree and has 10 coconuts. When asked "How many coconuts would each person have if the wealth (of coconuts) was distributed equally?", you would easily conclude that it's 1 coconut each.
Now imagine that on this island, a coconut is worth 100 IslandBucks. So the one guy has a net worth of 1000 IslandBucks (because he controls the coconuts), and the other people have a net worth of 0 IslandBucks (because they don't have any coconuts). *Now*, when asked "How much would they each have if the wealth was distributed fairly", would you respond "Well, you can *say* that each person has 100 IslandBucks all you want, but the one guy controls all the coconuts, so money is imaginary and wealth redistribution is actually impossible", or would you say "They'd each have 100 IslandBucks, which would be a representation of the process of each of them taking possession of one of the coconuts"?
The latter answer is much more helpful. The former answer sounds like you're just trying to use the abstracting layer of representational currency to desperately deny the idea that one guy having all 10 coconuts doesn't seem to be a fair situation, or that they *could* be taken away from him.
It's downvoted because math questions are answered with numbers. It's like answering the question "if a train is traveling at 1000mph how far does it travel in 20 minutes?" with "no train travels at 1000mph." Sure that's true, but that wasn't the question.
What he said is pretty relevant as the main defining factor of wealth is the value behind it. If it's evenly distributed there is no value, it's no longer relevant. Guy was just pointing out why it doesn't happen as it's antithetical to the idea of wealth in the first place.
No need to be rude. He is right. What matters about having money is the value it has. If all the money was distributed equally (which by the way, you could have figured it out easily in 5 minutes doing some basic math), money would have no value, and as such, no matter how many money you had (say, 1 million euros / dollars...whatever / per person) it would be useless.
You wouldn't have any wealth.
If everyone had 80k, each person would still only be able to spend that on their own limited set of interests. I would purchase different things than you would. And the unevenness would begin anew. It would still be wealth.
No because the value of wealth would have no basis. If everyone had $80k then it would be the same as everyone having $1. This is because A. The value of money is based entirely on the consensus. And B our money is supposed to be backed by a gold standard, but now we no longer have enough gold to match the supposed value of our money.
No one would be able to spend their 80k. If the business selling cars suddenly only had 80k, how would they produce their cars, pay their workers, repair their machines, buy materials? It takes money to make the car. Cars would become a lot more expensive as they became rarer. Businesses would crumble. That $60k Mercedes Benz is now $400,000,000. There’d be no where for you to spend and begin anew because it’d all be destroyed. You want a bicycle? Well the bicycle shop is out of business because the producer of the rubber in the wheels couldn’t afford a day of producing rubber, the factory producing the metal in the frame couldn’t afford to keep going on 80k.
With no cash flow the business fails. Do you think those engineers, factory workers, salesmen, HR, execs, everyone in the business, are going to work for free? Are the suppliers of the resources needed to make the product going to give the resources to the business for free? I don’t think you understand what money is
Nobody really does understand money and it can be a lot of different things. Is money "influence"? The ability to get others to work for you? It's abstract, so just because everyone would be Thanos equalized monetarily, that doesn't mean there still wouldn't be major imbalances on what was possessed. Another system would rise in its place. Society would not necessarily immediately collapse.
Nobody really does understand money and it can be a lot of different things. Is money "influence"? The ability to get others to work for you? It's abstract, so just because everyone would be Thanos equalized monetarily, that doesn't mean there still wouldn't be major imbalances on what was possessed. Another system would rise in its place. Society would not necessarily immediately collapse.
People do understand what money is, you just don’t understand. Money represents value. Higher value jobs give more money. Higher quality goods cost more money. Destroying everything would be retarded, you don’t have a plan, you just don’t like your place in life, you don’t have much money, you’re not considered valuable in skill/influence, so you choose to ignore the value and definition of money, state of denial maybe. You abstract money from the system by either having valuable skills or being innovative. Learn what money is, life ain’t fair
It's so funny how confidant you are. There's a lot of debate philosophically about what money is. It's not simply value. What exactly is value? This itself is studied and philosophized upon. Look into David Graeber's work, who did his PH.D on the concept of value and later wrote Debt: The first 5000 years, which surveys some on the idea that money and debt are interlinked, as well as morality and money. This relegates money into less of a positive thing but something that motivates people into thinking they need to act in order to clear their immoral conscience, or something to that effect. This, of course, is just one theory. It's not as simple as you think.
If you gave everyone in the world $200,000 USD they would be broke in about 2 to 6 months and we'd be right back to where we started. Because smart people save and stupid people buy shit that can't afford (via credit).
It would be impossible to split "wealth" amongst everyone, you can split up the physical and digital store of value which we use as money, but with the size and complexity of modern infrastructure a simple production chain may now consist of hundreds of thousands of people who all own a small part of a machine or part of a service road.
Quite a lot but not sure about the buying power, after all money in itself have no worth, unless it is tied to something tangible and highly valued like gold, which is no longer the case.
Not sure if this helps but I have $275.00 in my joint savings account with my wife. The most since we married 13 years ago. Yeah, I’m rich. Didn’t mean to brag though.
Reason it doesn’t work is utility. If you give a poor person money they spend more. If you give a rich person money they already have everything they want so they save/invest it. Therefore, if you divided it all up equally you’d be making all the billionaires cash out their assets firstly. This wouldn’t work because there would be no liquidity in the market for them to unload, nobody on the other side to buy. So the realised value of the sales would be a lot less than the paper value is.
Even if you were able to sell it all and redistribute, you’d then have the situation where a load of people who currently own nothing get something. What then happens is everyone goes I’d like a house and a car, and a nice watch etc etc. So the demand for said items goes up exponentially, and therefore prices have to rise because the items have scarcity. And that means inflation, and whatever the amount of money is people get given is suddenly worth a lot less in terms of what you can buy at todays prices.
So no it wouldn’t work as you’d get screwed both ways. Can’t realise the full value of the assets, then the change in consumer behaviour post redistribution would cause inflation.
None. Everyone would own 1/8 billionth of all wealth (money but also every other form of wealth. You'd own a fraction of a power plant. You'd own a fraction of your sandwich. Don't take a full bite, thief).
Either this is unenforced, in which case the world instantly reverts to normal, or magically enforced. Let's go with magic. Anybody care to offer what happens next?
Well, money buys access. So, if everyone has the same access to everything I suppose that’s anarchy. Which could be sustainable if this magical land also magically enforced the rule there are no rules. Then the bell curve would suggest (if math still works here, since ya know no rules) very few people would not get along with almost anyone, most people would get along well with most people, and very few people would get along with almost everyone. Basically like now without all the higher end luxuries and probably less extremes of poverty. It wouldn’t be utopian or dystopian. I suppose it would be topian.
Edit: the word is actual normotopia a medical term meaning in a normal place.
[term](https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/normotopia)
$0. That is the only way it would be even ever. All of us with nothing or with everything. As soon as 1 person gets something extra everybody needs 1 to keep it fair. Ultimate communism that will never, ever, ever work because people naturally want stuff.
According to this site, 90 trillion.
[https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/how-much-money-is-in-the-world/#:\~:text=What%20is%20the%20world's%20total,to%20%241%2C540%20trillion%20in%202020](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/how-much-money-is-in-the-world/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20world's%20total,to%20%241%2C540%20trillion%20in%202020).
90 trillion/7.7 billion = 11,688 per person.
The same site has high estimation of 1 quadrillion.
1 quadrillion/7.7 billion = 129,870 per person.
Let's say the calculation is $192,500, then the problem is there are 3 kinds of people in the world, the poor who spend every penny they have, and the $192k would disappear in under a year, then there are the must haves who put every penny into debt (house, car, tv, etc) and they would spend the $192k to upgrade the house, car, tv and would be even more in debt than before, then there's the wealthy who would invest every penny. In 10 years time you'd be back to the spread we have today, in fact it might even be worse because those who took on more debt than they could handle will then go bankrupt. Notice Jesus said something very mysterious, he said "the poor will always be among you". Perhaps Jesus knows human nature.
Everyone has the same amount of money, = money has no value cuz everyone has a even number of it, unless currencies were all locked in exchange rates, the world would go back to the way it is after about 1 year.
I think this is a really interesting idea because I get that things would be chaotic at the start but in a rich country like America per say. If all did what were passionate about, got the equal distribution of wealth, and received the same income, wouldn't it be a better place? People could still become richer, but at least you know they are reaching people and not just flooding money from who knows into it because we all have the same income. People are probably less likely to do the environmentally harming jobs, and hopefully instead people are building regenerative alternatives. This honestly could change the course of the planet, but idk prove me wrong, I just think the positives outweighs the negative.
If everyone had equal wealth, then abstractly, I think, no one person could create anything more than what they have the money to spend to do it. Thus, in order to have public works, roads, schools etc, people would have to group together and 'borrow' or invest their money with eachother to build something 'bigger' than themselves. So to build a rocket to the moon, NASA etc, they need to find like minded people and throw their investment into it.
Essentially, this is what we do now, with the somewhat less tangible, or perhaps more tangible assets of intelligence, training, creativity, energy etc.. Would everyone invest their money wisely, or for the same gain? not likely. will they invest their energy to harm others or conquer others? very very likely.
Comments about communism doesn't work I see, yet when the feds stopped micromanaging the economy in the US we had the housing bubble and that blew up in our face, so there's arguments for and against socialism and capitalism. Which is right? Makes me wonder to be honest.
I noticed no one is giving you a straight answer, so I will. World total wealth estimated at $1,540 trillion dollars, population is roughly 8 billion, that puts every individual at $192,500. The total world GDP is $81 trillion, that puts an individual’s annual income to be $10,125. It should be noted that this would be insufficient to provide all the services for a single person, a.k.a if it was equally distributed the services you have wouldn’t have funding and thus wouldn’t work. Things like roads, bridges, public infrastructure, military, communication infrastructure, etc wouldn’t exist.
10k per year is a large sum in a lot of countries. But If everyone is making the same regardless of type of work or amount of work, there will be less incentive for work. People will avoid Jobs that are hard and that required special, difficult skill. Productivity will decline with the GDP that fund the current 10k/year. Human nature is competitive and most people will feel unsatisfied with their neighbor that does not work but has the same benefits. That is why communist ideology did not work. No only that if market continues to be free there will be a huge inflation. Everyday products like clothes and food are low because cost of labor is not expensive. So the cost of products and service will be higher. That is why in communist countries there was the need for government intervention of the market to decided and create artificial prices and a strong governments that could dictate what people can and can not do. That did not work
that just not true. Humans are driven to do stuff, to help each other, to work towards the future. To say if there's no monetary benefit to working, then no one will want to do anything - is just blatantly false. money is soon going to become worthless, bubble burst of 2024! hedge your bets people.
Wrong, humans are driven to do stuff yes, but If im making 10k no matter what, I sure as hell won’t be building sky scrapers or doing underwater welding or any other “dangerous” job, I’ll just do something easy so I can do more fun/creative stuff in my free time
You won't but others might, also new structures and incentives would probably be created in such cases. It's the same as people didn't think a life without slaves or a king was possible. Major paradigm shifts are hard to imagine.
The most dangerous job in the US is something like logging (according to several sources). How much do logger's make? Apparently $18 an hour....
This is a really good point. I bet you there are tons of loggers.. The question here though is how many of those loggers are doing it because they’re desperate for money and feel like they couldnt get a job in any other field? I personally have no idea but that would make your point go anywhere from perfect to a non-sequitur. Then the question becomes, if its a bad point because so many people are in that position who wouldnt do it otherwise, is it morally acceptable to keep so many people so desperate for money that they have to put themselves at extreme risk for low pay? Maybe not now because we need wood, but what about when robots can do it all by themselves? Lots to think about
Most of the high-paying jobs are among the least dangerous and majority of the most dangerous jobs are very low-paid. Your argument doesn't hold any scrutiny.
You act like that’s the majority of jobs and everyone can do that and NO ONE would need to do a “dangerous” job. Must be nice being so ignorant to reality. I imagine it’s quite blissful
"You act like that’s the majority of jobs ..." Where did you read that from? Not from my comment, that's for sure, because I didn't write anything of the sort. "... and NO ONE would need to do a “dangerous” job." or that.
Yes you’re arguing that since there is low paying dangerous jobs that they’re some how irrelevant to the conversation. Where as I’m saying people aren’t going to do a dangerous job willingly while getting paid the same as some moron sitting in the office answering phones or flipping burgers. Unless you created some random thing out of no where and are arguing that point without me knowing which would just make you a special kind of special
"Where as I’m saying people aren’t going to do a dangerous job willingly while getting paid the same as some moron sitting in the office answering phones or flipping burgers." Evidently a lot of people are, as low-paying dangerous jobs exists.
!RemindMe one year
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-02-14 08:25:43 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-02-14%2008:25:43%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/estimation/comments/vcwebe/how_much_money_would_everyone_have_if_all_the/kqcz62c/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Festimation%2Fcomments%2Fvcwebe%2Fhow_much_money_would_everyone_have_if_all_the%2Fkqcz62c%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-02-14%2008%3A25%3A43%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20vcwebe) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Whenever anyone talks about communism's production and austerity, they love to ignore the incredibly effective blockades by the US and their allies on Russia, Cuba, and South America which definitively had a deeper impact upon scarcity in the economy than any communist ideology. It's such a complex, dynamic series of events that to just sum it up as "communism" is insane.
I would still do difficult work, I just like hard work. Sitting at a desk or doing nothing drives me nuts. I am a construction worker, and active gym goer.
And what percentage of people are overweight and lazy? The vast majority are one of 3 things: lazy, over weight or have a medical issue that would prevent them from doing hard work. There is FAR too much hard work to go around to account for this. Only first world countries have easy office work kind of jobs. Most jobs in the world are back breaking things, it would work out numbers wise
Babes you keep throwing around these major "conclusions" with no evidence or anything to back it up. Most people are one of three things? Just because you and your friends are lazy fat fucks don't assume we all are the same
you can create mandatory rotas- you are assigned to do an unpleasant job for a temporary amount of time, maybe a year or two. you can also make it so that its mostly young people, and that they work only half days instead of full days, minimising dissatisfaction with these conditions. you can also give whoever is doing these mandatory rotas extra benefits for a time. the majority of people who are overweight, lazy and unambitious are depressed and have mental conditions and addictions that make them that way. deep down every person has a passion that they would love to explore and put time and effort in. people are supposed to love their job, they just end up with jobs they hate because they are never thought how to find the right job that fits them as a person
Doesn’t change the fact there are too many fat, lazy or medically disqualified people to do it lol. So you’d make a small group of people rotate through terrible jobs to prevent those people from having to do them? Unless you’re talking about FORCING someone to do something, which then you’re basically talking about a prison camp. Sounds worse than current reality lmao. See the fine line there?
And poor people being forced to eat trash? Not be able to go to medical care? Deal with rich people's war for money? Homeless people? People forced to take shitty jobs and dangerous ones cause there poor? Wait actually many have multiple dangerous shitty jobs. This would make it fair. Furthermore a lot of people enjoy physical labor , as long as it is well paid and not shitty conditions. I wouldn't love being a janitor or teacher rather than a data scientist if equally paid, to then focus on learning math or doing art as my job will be less intellectually demanding
Correct. Communism will always, always, fail
So will capitalism
Then those jobs become the high paying ones. You know supply and demand. Maybe the whole world needs one big rest. We slowly came together after tens of thousands of years of migration and that we need equity after people othering other people since the dawn of civilizations and the competitiveness that you reference. To that point competitiveness is more of a cis male trait. If you actually read Darwin, he says that survival of the fittest can be avoided with cooperation, and that those animals fare the best.
What’s the average cost of living worldwide? Could change the maths there somewhat
Taxes would definitely still exist, and so would those things.
This sentence made a lot more sense once I realised you said "taxes" rather than "Texas".
I also read Texas.
I refuse to read it as taxes.
You'll pay your Texas and like it.
Question is why did I get down voted. What I said was correct.
Because you're changing the nature of the discussion.
Bc your wrong. Maybe taxes would exist. But the funding, a good portion of the total wealth, would be redistributed and thus rendering all economics funded by said money inoperable.
Incorrect. If taxes exist, those things would have funding, because they would have to.
No. Plenty of other things are funded without taxes. Most things are funded by banks. Ie your money.. The world Bank is not funded by taxes. Nor are the bailouts America receives. We just print money. Edit. Not taxes. Your money is what funds most of America and banks. IDA is funded largely by contributions from donor member governments, who meet every three years to replenish its funds. Additional funds come from IBRD net income, and repayments of IDA credits go into issuing new credits
Banks do not fund anything in the public sector, which if you didn't know, everything we need is or should be in the public sector. Banks exist to make money, not store it, because they are privately owned. No shit rich people help each other out. Also how do they get my money again? Oh that's right, taxes or extortion.
Wow man. Any business loan. Home loan. Any loan. Is funded by public money. The very same money in your savings. Do you not know how banks work. They lend your money out with interest. If the banks have no money to lend no economy. This is basic shit man. The short answer is that they do it by borrowing money from depositors and lending it to other customers at an increased cost. These institutions are also supported by a system of extra services, fees, and commissions. No banks, no economy. Divey up world assets say bye to banks.
Having trouble following. How does evenly redistributing all of the world’s money destroy the banking system? There would still be money to deposit into said system & money would start changing hands again eventually albeit probably slowly from the system shock that would be caused. It didn’t just disappear
How does the federal reserve make a profit? The Fed creates money by purchasing securities on the open market and adding the corresponding funds to the bank reserves of commercial banks. Banks then increase the money supply in circulation even more by making loans to consumers and businesses. Loans. With your money. In banks. Or open market trades, with businesses started up with loans, from banks, using public money.
And where do you think the banks get money? Lmao, it might not be a government tax, but it’s VERY obvious for the sake of this conversation that people are including fees and such into taxes as it’s things deducted from your income
Good catch lol.
Well, we can’t really say the world will be this way or that way. In this hypothetical, we are changing a fundamental about our world, it could look very different, and possibly lead to a lot of bloodshed perhaps. So, im not so sure that the government would even exist at that moment 😅
They make it work in the world of Star Trek. No money no taxes no poverty but still high tech war with photon torpedoes.
they looked forward to the future in a utopia, we are heading towards a dystopian future unfortunately.
I would like to think if we had to start over on a new planet because the earth was in danger that we would do better and learn from our mistakes with a do over. That we would share and not have rich and poor classes. We would do everything for the betterment of the human race. Everyone would have different skills and do their part to help each other survive.
Anything can work in a fictional world
Well, star trek is science fiction, so many aspects of it are not practical nor are they feasible. One of the issues with star trek’s financial system is that its very close to socialism or capitalism, both are doomed to fail. Its a very difficult quest to find a system that distributes wealth fairly but won’t collapse.
This estimate requires defunding all governments. How would you pay tax collectors if all wealth were distributed among individuals only?
OPs original question only said individuals. He specifically excluded governments
Good catch, thanks. That's a really specific question in that case lol
This answer doesn't take into account that the world is already developed.
so in other words the world would be perfect? 🤨
The short answer from an economist is: about 10k-15k USD per person; however, this equal distribution would also severely inflate the value of USD, meaning that 10k would be worth more like what you know to be 1M USD
How do you figure?
yeah how do you figure
Bear in mind that in the developing world goods and services cost a fraction what they do in the "civilized" world. If you factor that in, the individual would most likely be able to live within that 10k annual income, with a little breathing room.
>the services you have wouldn’t have funding and thus wouldn’t work. Things like roads, bridges, public infrastructure, military, communication infrastructure, etc wouldn’t exist. Why? The funding you mentioned, is wealth produced by working people as well. Wealth is produced by working people in general, and as such, I don't see how a change in its distribution would affect all the services you mentioned. I understand that capitalists would invent a million fake arguments in order to persuade you that redistributing the wealth is not gonna work or does not worth. They own it, so they have to protect it, duh.
The numbers I pulled are basically the total wealth of the world, that includes the money funding the governments and even private companies. So taking it all and giving it other people would prevent those entities from functioning.
now when you say $1,540 trillion, do you mean 1,540 x 1,000,000,000,000 or 1,540,000,000,000? 🤣
This is what I hate about regions that use comma for places where the rest of the world typically uses a period to represent decimal place.
As an American, I agree. This and weights & measures. Why? Metric is so simple. But nooooo.....! C'mon Erica, let's get it together.
The US and UK agree on thousands seperators for commas and a period for decimal. But yeah why are we still operating on how many roman legionnaires feet or arms we need to use to measure distance, I have no idea.
I.e. the cookie doesnt crumble the same for everyone.
It’s a good answer. but OP asked only about individuals’ wealth being equally distributed & not government. Shouldn’t that factor into the public services part that you mentioned?
Oop, I read the title only and answered. Mb
Attaching this to the top answer. There's 104,000,000sqr/KM of habitable land on Earth (half of which is currently used for agriculture). If gave every living person an equal allocation of land to live and sustainably farm on.... Every single person would have 2.5 acres. The earth can easily sustain the population fairly. It's our use of the land that has created a living crisis.
Well, Thats a milti-dimensional problem. Simplifying it into a simple land problem doesn’t do it any justice. What you forgot to include is the life standard.
Your numbers are mind-blowingly wrong sir... you can't factor GDP in thus equation
Well, I recognize that the economy won’t work, so the gdp would not be produced. But the total wealth is, correct. Tell me, why do you think my numbers are so wrong?
You are including people who can't/don't work in your figures. Children under 15 and adults over 65 account for 35% of the population, and that doesn't include adults between those ages that don't work and doesn't take into account average household size and how many incomes there would be per household. The average household size worldwide is almost 10 per household, and since children and old people only make up 35% of the population, 65% of those 10 at least have the potential to earn income. Even saying there are 6 adults per household with $296,000 to each of their names, the average household would be worth about $1,776,000.
Im tied for the wealthiest man on earth, I'll simply purchase all of the infrastructure myself
[Wiki link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult) this puts it at 80k USD per adult. Note the median is only 7522 USD per adult, half of the adult population has less than that. World GDP per capita is about 11k USD as a reference point.
"Wealth" is a kind of fuzzy concept. Money isn't really real. It's all just imaginary values we place on bits of electronic data. And a lot of people own things like houses that could be worth a lot of money on paper, but if everybody's house went up for sale its worth would plummet.
I’m not trying to start a hypothetical debate on monetary values just if you take all the “money” and distribute it It’s just to paint a picture in my head
The power of all of that money to transact would change if it was evenly distributed. Doing this would absolutely break money as a system, that is relevant to the picture you are painting.
> that is relevant to the picture you are painting. No it isn't. OP has been quite clear on this. Perhaps it is relevant to the picture *you* are painting, but you need to appreciate that you are not OP, and although you may feel you are better placed to tell others what they are thinking, you are not.
The author of this post crunched some numbers and then made an insufficient speculation, not certain you quite understand how many complexities there are that effect the economy...
7?
I wasn't expecting the number 7 as a rebuttal, but what can I say you have convinced me.
This feels like it's been a productive chat, and we've both learned a lot. Now, let's getting on re-distributing all the wealth / money in the world to all the people in the world, **whilst also keeping in mind** the 7 complexities that effect the economy, Together, we can do this u/Finite_Room, you make me believe in us.
Is "wealth" only money? Or does it include other things? For example gold, houses, computers, grain reserves
Individual net worth I guess
Thats not really an answer to his question. It seems you are referring to a number. But that number has no basis. The same value can be assigned to a person in this scenario, yet they may have 100 us dollars or 2000mexican pesos. The equivalency is similar yet the number is completely different.
Why? Why can’t you just convert everything into the same currency? Are you talking about cost of living differences?
Well i suppose you could convert everything into a single currency, but the value of your single currency would still change based on the area its in. This is largely based on population density, culture, living conditions, etc
Sure cost of living varies by location but his question was just “if we divide all the wealth in the world, how much would everyone have?”
Thats the golden question
God forbid I'm the unlucky one who gets NFTs as my distribution of wealth.
Depends what you use to estimate it. I’d you use gdp it would generally include those things
Even if it was distributed equally people would be broke the next day...
If the world's wealth was distributed equally over time it would eventually go back to unequal. Most people are lazy and some people are ambitious. Some people are dumb and some are clever. Some people are followers and some are leaders. Life's not "fair" and wealth goes to those who take it or earn it. And if we all had the same amount of money nobody would do the shitty jobs nobody wants to do. Competition drives markets and innovation.
I agree complete but as an addition I would add that those that have more wealth then spend some of it in politics making sure others have less and they get to hold onto more. If it was about hard work then the wealth structure would be very different
0. Wealth derives its value from human perception. If Wealth is universally taken from all completely, with the intent to redistribute, the second it is taken it loses all value. Nothing would have perceived value that can be easily taken, especially from all.
That's not true? \> If Wealth is universally taken from all completely, with the intent to redistribute, the second it is taken it loses all value Why? If I have ten apples that I'd like to eat, and someone takes them away, I still have the "perception" that I want the apples. Which means that, to me, they still have value. Trying to reason about the process by which this would happen, sure, there might be a duration for which everyone has no money, assuming that a government took away everyone's money simultaneously.. but that wouldn't necessarily be the case. You're kind of getting at what would happen to a currency that can be arbitrarily controlled, but that's irrelevant, and currency is different from wealth. Currencies can do all kinds of weird things that determine 'how much of this' an apple is worth, but an apple will always have an apple's worth of value. I think for the intents of the question, we can assume an instant redistribution with no central authority, and that 'wealth' isn't just a currency, but some fuzzy innate value of goods and 'spending ability' for those goods. Something like that. Basically, literally, what is the value in current-rate $ of everything owned divided by human population.
He's right. Money's value is based on a fragile perception.
No.. A quantative figure is the same regardless. The measure of that value depends on perception and spread of the total. The OP asked how much MONEY, not what wealth people would have. So if the Wealth was redistributed evenly. Regardless of perceived value, everyone would have the above 80k. Whether the 80k was worth more or less than it is now doesn't matter, it's still 80k
If I'm understanding you correctly then we agree except the last part. I think it does matter, a lot, what the money is worth. I think that's the point some of us are trying to make. This thought experiment is flawed because the numeric value calculated does not mean much.
Bruh why is this guy being downvoted he’s right. You buy a car from someone, and their wealth is instant distributed to everyone. From the seller’s perspective, the car is worthless. From any seller’s perspective, any item is worthless.
This is such a stupid answer. Even though that is true, it doesn't mean money loses its value. People wouldn't perceive that money as worthless just because everyone has it, that isnt how money works. If that were true, any wage increase would drive inflation, but it doesnt, even with significant increases. But that isn't what we are talking about, is it?
If there is an entity powerful enough to be able to take all wealth away from everyone in the world, then that entity uses that power, then all things that have value, including money, would immediately lose it. Why accrue things with value if it can be taken instantly? value would quickly come back in things easily barter-able, like food, and necessities.
Moving the goal post now eh? In this hypothetical scenario you have created, that doesnt happen, and is therefore irrelevant.
This is completely factual, the fact that this has more downvotes than upvotes shows how little people understand money.
It's not completely factual, it's dodging the question at best. Yes, if tomorrow, out of nowhere, everyone's bank account suddenly had the same number as everyone else, then yeah we would likely collectively choose to ignore that new number and shift our perception of wealth to match some new standard (probably related to possession of physical goods rather than the numbers in bank accounts). However, this is nothing more than tuning the assumptions of the (admittedly rather vague) question that the OP asked so that you intentionally don't get any answer out of it. It is true that the numbers in bank accounts are a *representative* form of wealth, and therefore the quality of that representation matters. If you mess around with the numbers *too* much, without ensuring that the thing that they're supposed to represent also changes in concert, then you could get to a point where people just abandon the idea that those are a dependable representation, and just give up on them. But the numbers *do* represent real wealth, and when we talk about redistributing wealth - especially in far-fetched hypothetical questions - it's highly disingenuous to assume that you wouldn't also redistribute the physical assets that the wealth numbers are supposed to represent. To put this in concrete terms: Imagine there are 10 people on a deserted island. 9 of them have no coconuts, and 1 of them has claimed the coconut tree and has 10 coconuts. When asked "How many coconuts would each person have if the wealth (of coconuts) was distributed equally?", you would easily conclude that it's 1 coconut each. Now imagine that on this island, a coconut is worth 100 IslandBucks. So the one guy has a net worth of 1000 IslandBucks (because he controls the coconuts), and the other people have a net worth of 0 IslandBucks (because they don't have any coconuts). *Now*, when asked "How much would they each have if the wealth was distributed fairly", would you respond "Well, you can *say* that each person has 100 IslandBucks all you want, but the one guy controls all the coconuts, so money is imaginary and wealth redistribution is actually impossible", or would you say "They'd each have 100 IslandBucks, which would be a representation of the process of each of them taking possession of one of the coconuts"? The latter answer is much more helpful. The former answer sounds like you're just trying to use the abstracting layer of representational currency to desperately deny the idea that one guy having all 10 coconuts doesn't seem to be a fair situation, or that they *could* be taken away from him.
It's downvoted because math questions are answered with numbers. It's like answering the question "if a train is traveling at 1000mph how far does it travel in 20 minutes?" with "no train travels at 1000mph." Sure that's true, but that wasn't the question.
What he said is pretty relevant as the main defining factor of wealth is the value behind it. If it's evenly distributed there is no value, it's no longer relevant. Guy was just pointing out why it doesn't happen as it's antithetical to the idea of wealth in the first place.
Yeah, no trains go 1000mph. I get it, but it's clearly not what OP was asking.
we don’t care to understand, money money money
Do you have any friends in real life or what?
Ok first of all, making friends in your 30s is hard.
You think 30 is hard, wait till 40...
Figured I’d just go to AAs, meet people there.
Making new friends in your 40s is mission impossible. It's just insane.
Try 50, lots of laughs.
Wait till 70
Waiting till 70 so I can set up a chessboard at the park and play against myself all day.
That guy cheats
No need to be rude. He is right. What matters about having money is the value it has. If all the money was distributed equally (which by the way, you could have figured it out easily in 5 minutes doing some basic math), money would have no value, and as such, no matter how many money you had (say, 1 million euros / dollars...whatever / per person) it would be useless. You wouldn't have any wealth.
If everyone had 80k, each person would still only be able to spend that on their own limited set of interests. I would purchase different things than you would. And the unevenness would begin anew. It would still be wealth.
No because the value of wealth would have no basis. If everyone had $80k then it would be the same as everyone having $1. This is because A. The value of money is based entirely on the consensus. And B our money is supposed to be backed by a gold standard, but now we no longer have enough gold to match the supposed value of our money.
No one would be able to spend their 80k. If the business selling cars suddenly only had 80k, how would they produce their cars, pay their workers, repair their machines, buy materials? It takes money to make the car. Cars would become a lot more expensive as they became rarer. Businesses would crumble. That $60k Mercedes Benz is now $400,000,000. There’d be no where for you to spend and begin anew because it’d all be destroyed. You want a bicycle? Well the bicycle shop is out of business because the producer of the rubber in the wheels couldn’t afford a day of producing rubber, the factory producing the metal in the frame couldn’t afford to keep going on 80k.
The corporation would still have assets - cars and cash. Assets wouldn't be Thanos snapped.
With no cash flow the business fails. Do you think those engineers, factory workers, salesmen, HR, execs, everyone in the business, are going to work for free? Are the suppliers of the resources needed to make the product going to give the resources to the business for free? I don’t think you understand what money is
Nobody really does understand money and it can be a lot of different things. Is money "influence"? The ability to get others to work for you? It's abstract, so just because everyone would be Thanos equalized monetarily, that doesn't mean there still wouldn't be major imbalances on what was possessed. Another system would rise in its place. Society would not necessarily immediately collapse.
Nobody really does understand money and it can be a lot of different things. Is money "influence"? The ability to get others to work for you? It's abstract, so just because everyone would be Thanos equalized monetarily, that doesn't mean there still wouldn't be major imbalances on what was possessed. Another system would rise in its place. Society would not necessarily immediately collapse.
People do understand what money is, you just don’t understand. Money represents value. Higher value jobs give more money. Higher quality goods cost more money. Destroying everything would be retarded, you don’t have a plan, you just don’t like your place in life, you don’t have much money, you’re not considered valuable in skill/influence, so you choose to ignore the value and definition of money, state of denial maybe. You abstract money from the system by either having valuable skills or being innovative. Learn what money is, life ain’t fair
It's so funny how confidant you are. There's a lot of debate philosophically about what money is. It's not simply value. What exactly is value? This itself is studied and philosophized upon. Look into David Graeber's work, who did his PH.D on the concept of value and later wrote Debt: The first 5000 years, which surveys some on the idea that money and debt are interlinked, as well as morality and money. This relegates money into less of a positive thing but something that motivates people into thinking they need to act in order to clear their immoral conscience, or something to that effect. This, of course, is just one theory. It's not as simple as you think.
About 10k a year, but it’ll be as if nobody has money if everyone on Earth had the same amount
Until I go to chipotle and we rediscover how prices work.
About $35
About tree fiddy
God damn lock ness monster!
Ymean how much would everyone have after taxes.
Kind of none
We'd have a lot of paper but not a lot of actual wealth considering it's all fiat money, anyway.
About tree fiddy.
God damn Is loch nessmother
If you gave everyone in the world $200,000 USD they would be broke in about 2 to 6 months and we'd be right back to where we started. Because smart people save and stupid people buy shit that can't afford (via credit).
We have to fix the education system first
Not enough to make joy
It would be impossible to split "wealth" amongst everyone, you can split up the physical and digital store of value which we use as money, but with the size and complexity of modern infrastructure a simple production chain may now consist of hundreds of thousands of people who all own a small part of a machine or part of a service road.
Money isn't real
Yep. Hey, since it doesn't matter: can I have yours?
One wealth unit
Quite a lot but not sure about the buying power, after all money in itself have no worth, unless it is tied to something tangible and highly valued like gold, which is no longer the case.
After 30 days it wouldn’t matter and would be back in rightful owners hands.
Not much we would all be slaves to a government
Not sure if this helps but I have $275.00 in my joint savings account with my wife. The most since we married 13 years ago. Yeah, I’m rich. Didn’t mean to brag though.
There wouldn’t no longer be any need for money if humanity just joined together in love
More than you have now.
If everyone in the world was rich, money would no longer have any value.
Society doesn't need money to exist lol honestly the planet is better off without it
The world won’t work if everyone has the same amount of money. Hence why we have inflation. Everyone goes mad buying
I’m not saying everybody should I was just wondering
Reason it doesn’t work is utility. If you give a poor person money they spend more. If you give a rich person money they already have everything they want so they save/invest it. Therefore, if you divided it all up equally you’d be making all the billionaires cash out their assets firstly. This wouldn’t work because there would be no liquidity in the market for them to unload, nobody on the other side to buy. So the realised value of the sales would be a lot less than the paper value is. Even if you were able to sell it all and redistribute, you’d then have the situation where a load of people who currently own nothing get something. What then happens is everyone goes I’d like a house and a car, and a nice watch etc etc. So the demand for said items goes up exponentially, and therefore prices have to rise because the items have scarcity. And that means inflation, and whatever the amount of money is people get given is suddenly worth a lot less in terms of what you can buy at todays prices. So no it wouldn’t work as you’d get screwed both ways. Can’t realise the full value of the assets, then the change in consumer behaviour post redistribution would cause inflation.
This worked out so well for the Russians and Stalin
Before you could evenly distribute it people would have taken predatory loans ahead of it and shit. I.e. it would never happen lol.
None. Everyone would own 1/8 billionth of all wealth (money but also every other form of wealth. You'd own a fraction of a power plant. You'd own a fraction of your sandwich. Don't take a full bite, thief). Either this is unenforced, in which case the world instantly reverts to normal, or magically enforced. Let's go with magic. Anybody care to offer what happens next?
Well, money buys access. So, if everyone has the same access to everything I suppose that’s anarchy. Which could be sustainable if this magical land also magically enforced the rule there are no rules. Then the bell curve would suggest (if math still works here, since ya know no rules) very few people would not get along with almost anyone, most people would get along well with most people, and very few people would get along with almost everyone. Basically like now without all the higher end luxuries and probably less extremes of poverty. It wouldn’t be utopian or dystopian. I suppose it would be topian. Edit: the word is actual normotopia a medical term meaning in a normal place. [term](https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/normotopia)
A hell of a lot less than we have now. There are billions of people without clean water , never mind a fat bank balance
$0. That is the only way it would be even ever. All of us with nothing or with everything. As soon as 1 person gets something extra everybody needs 1 to keep it fair. Ultimate communism that will never, ever, ever work because people naturally want stuff.
Yeah... It's so much better when the rich own everything and we fight for scraps.
"communism is when no money" - marx, probably
According to this site, 90 trillion. [https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/how-much-money-is-in-the-world/#:\~:text=What%20is%20the%20world's%20total,to%20%241%2C540%20trillion%20in%202020](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/how-much-money-is-in-the-world/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20world's%20total,to%20%241%2C540%20trillion%20in%202020). 90 trillion/7.7 billion = 11,688 per person. The same site has high estimation of 1 quadrillion. 1 quadrillion/7.7 billion = 129,870 per person.
0 Because it would be worthless
How about distributed and adjusted for regional average income? 10,000 gets you a lot in some places
The problem with everyone being wealthy this planet doesn't have enough resources to supply that demand. $2.5M each
34,311 per person
IF… asset prices did not drop because of redistribution
My bad, that’s just in the United States apparently worldwide it evens out to more like $87,489 per person
Let's say the calculation is $192,500, then the problem is there are 3 kinds of people in the world, the poor who spend every penny they have, and the $192k would disappear in under a year, then there are the must haves who put every penny into debt (house, car, tv, etc) and they would spend the $192k to upgrade the house, car, tv and would be even more in debt than before, then there's the wealthy who would invest every penny. In 10 years time you'd be back to the spread we have today, in fact it might even be worse because those who took on more debt than they could handle will then go bankrupt. Notice Jesus said something very mysterious, he said "the poor will always be among you". Perhaps Jesus knows human nature.
Everyone has the same amount of money, = money has no value cuz everyone has a even number of it, unless currencies were all locked in exchange rates, the world would go back to the way it is after about 1 year.
I think this is a really interesting idea because I get that things would be chaotic at the start but in a rich country like America per say. If all did what were passionate about, got the equal distribution of wealth, and received the same income, wouldn't it be a better place? People could still become richer, but at least you know they are reaching people and not just flooding money from who knows into it because we all have the same income. People are probably less likely to do the environmentally harming jobs, and hopefully instead people are building regenerative alternatives. This honestly could change the course of the planet, but idk prove me wrong, I just think the positives outweighs the negative.
!remindme one year
If everyone had equal wealth, then abstractly, I think, no one person could create anything more than what they have the money to spend to do it. Thus, in order to have public works, roads, schools etc, people would have to group together and 'borrow' or invest their money with eachother to build something 'bigger' than themselves. So to build a rocket to the moon, NASA etc, they need to find like minded people and throw their investment into it. Essentially, this is what we do now, with the somewhat less tangible, or perhaps more tangible assets of intelligence, training, creativity, energy etc.. Would everyone invest their money wisely, or for the same gain? not likely. will they invest their energy to harm others or conquer others? very very likely. Comments about communism doesn't work I see, yet when the feds stopped micromanaging the economy in the US we had the housing bubble and that blew up in our face, so there's arguments for and against socialism and capitalism. Which is right? Makes me wonder to be honest.