Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
It's bad in a couple ways that come to mind right off the bat. We are all stuck here together on one planet and uneducated and poor women have more children. And there are way too many people here already.
.
And
.
The poor people will eventually just start walking with pointy sticks to take from the rich what they need to survive. No one will stand by and starve while the rich eat cake. Walled cities of privilege will eventually fall to the siege from outside.
.
Just a couple. Right off the bat.
|
A US household that makes $2,138 per year is right at the average worldwide income, meaning any household making more than that amount in a year is making more than the average household. Someone right at the US defined poverty line is in the top 14% of global earners.
Not only do a relatively few own the majority of the wealth in the US, but relatively few nations hold the majority of the worldwide wealth.
Then, older people tend to be wealthier than younger people, as they have had more time to accumulate wealth. In fact, the people comprising the top (and everywhere along the distribution) changes over time.
If it were possible to distribute wealth evenly without destroying productivity and making everyone worse off for it, I might consider it, but that is a fantasy. That's like imagining what I would do if I had a genie that granted magic wishes.
Regarding angry mobs of the have-nots; they don't stand a chance. You don't bring pointy sticks to a gunfight. It would take a majority of people identifying as having unbearable lives for them to overwhelm the wealthy. As it is, when it comes down to it, those who conjure anger in the US have no conviction, because at the end of the day they like their smartphones and relatively comfortable lifestyle and aren't willing to risk anything substantial (since they have much to lose).