Writing for the outlet, Andrew Lisa explained that Americans hold a combined $160.35 trillion in wealth. To the average person, that sounds like quite the payday, but someone in the top 1% probably wouldn’t see it that way. According to Lisa, “The bottom 50% of the country shares less than 3% of that enormous pie, while the most fortunate 10% gorge on nearly all of it.”
There are approximately 340.11 million people in the U.S. If they all shared that $160.35 trillion, each person would come away with $471,465. Not only is that more than the average person could even imagine, but it only compounds when you consider how it would add up for families. For example, a couple would hold a combined $942,930, and a family of four would have $1.89 million. Because, of course, in an ideal world, wealth would be distributed evenly regardless of age.
That wealth has been plundered from around the world. But sure, let’s have Americans keep it all…
you may have confused this for an actual plan. it’s just a math equation showing how uneven the wealth distribution is. there’s no “letting them keep it all”, they already are going to keep it all. it’s just that most of it is kept by a handful of the most despicable people in the world.
$471,465. Not only is that more than the average person could even imagine
That’s (roughly speaking) owning your own home w/ no mortgage. I can imagine quite a bit more than not paying rent.
That’s very location dependent.
Okay… Your point?
Say it’s a upscale mobile home in Podunk for $100k. That leaves you with $375k. Can you imagine (per the article) other ways to spend your $375k?
A 2026 Ferrari 896 is $350k. Can you imagine driving a Ferrari every day? Sure it’s a dumb way to spend your money, but surely your imagination is capable of considering it.
You can get a lakefront home in the Ozarks for $325k. Can you imagine vacationing from Podunk to your second home in the Ozarks? Sure it’s hot and sticky most of the year, and too cold the remainder, but can you imagine it?
A horse costs ~$2k/month to care for. Can you imagine having a couple of horses for like 6-7 years then realizing you’re out of money and selling them to the glue factory?
My point is not that anyone needs any of these things, but I hope that “most people” can imagine quite a bit more than simple having $500k per capita.
https://www.zillow.com/burbank-ca/
https://www.zillow.com/fresno-ca/
https://www.zillow.com/chico-ca/
Bit of a price difference was my point.
I think different people with differing experiences and income and exposure have differing abilities.
I’d argue if all houses were redistributed to their rightful owners the price of all housing would go down - but that’s outside of this thought experiment I guess.
Remember though that that’s ~500k per person. So every kid, every SO, every parent. I think on average it would equate to more than just getting to own your home, even if we ignored the likely change in wealth valuations that would follow.
So every kid, every SO, every parent
Okay, so, a house in California with no mortgage.
I’m not saying this would be a bad thing, just that this isn’t “more than most people could imagine” kind of wealth. Maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetimes… but imagine?
Ask any 10-year-old what they’d do with $1M and somewhere between their personal butler, building a rocket ship and bringing dinosaurs back you will find the limits of human imagination quickly outpace the confines of $1M.
Chico, Fresno and Burbank. Not in California, even.
Sure, I guess you’re arguing semantics in which case have at it. Yes, people can imagine a lot more than what 1M would buy. Yes, most people won’t realistically earn 1M in their lifetime. Sure, the article had at least a single line that should be reworded.
The median lifetime earnings for all workers in the US are approximately $1.7 million.
Would you like me to change the number in my reply to 2M? Again, this feels like semantics - although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It’s good to recalibrate statistics, “US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime”.
But it doesn’t change the fact that this article brings up a useful thought experiment, the top reply in this chain added nothing of value to that conversation which I think can be destructive, and I was attempting to point that out in the hopes of improving comment culture on Lemmy.
Yes, most people won’t realistically earn 1M in their lifetime.
I don’t care what you do but you said the above, not the person you were replying to. That’s why I replied to you, not them.
Your point is equally valid without incorrect information in it. You seem very defensive about being fact checked; I figured I’d save anyone else who was curious the 5 seconds it took me to check your figure.
I’m not saying this would be a bad thing, just that this isn’t “more than most people could imagine” kind of wealth. Maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetimes… but imagine?
Ask any 10-year-old what they’d do with $1M and somewhere between their personal butler, building a rocket ship and bringing dinosaurs back you will find the limits of human imagination quickly outpace the confines of $1M.
^ The person I responded to said “maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetime.” And then referenced $1M. I was simply anchoring to their value colloquially like you would in casual conversation.
I’m not trying to come off as defensive, I apologize. I responded to a comment that felt like it laser focused on one sentence within the article, only to be responded to by you with again what felt like a laser focused comment about one sentence. You weren’t like “by the way, the median lifetime earnings of an American is badadadada. [Insert your thoughts on my comment], but I just wanted to correct your quoted value.” Which would have made your comment’s point more clear to me, you just dropped a random correction that wasn’t super relevant to the point I was trying to make or even the point of this thread.
I praised you for correcting that value in the thing you responded to.
… although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It’s good to recalibrate statistics, “US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime”.
Again, I apologize for coming off as defensive that was not my intention. I appreciate the calibration of casual figures, that’s good for everyone (and something I particularly appreciate).
While it wouldn’t last, it would at least help some people. Unfortunately even in controlled experiments money tends to funnel upwards.
When water pools, you break up the blockage and then it can flow again
what if it pools in the sea?
If you take all the wealth in an area and split it evenly among that populace there is no “upwards” - everyone is equal in terms of wealth. Money funnels “upward” because of wealth disparity, if someone owns more wealth than the average person than on average some of the average person’s money goes to that wealthier person in the form of rent or interest on debt or profits from the factory or what have you.
If all wealth was distributed this way it would look like everyone owning their own home and a portion of their place of work and their car, etc etc. I’m not saying money wouldn’t pool again over time, or that a new upwards wouldn’t be established, but I don’t think you phrased it fairly. The way you said it felt to me like an assumed hierarchy of better people and worse people - when in reality it’s just wealthy people and not wealthy people.
I feel like equitability needs to factor in, somewhere.
We likely should eliminate money. The concept seems to lead to issues.
if you eliminate money, people and small communities will come up with their own money. all it would do is fragment the market, which btw i’m not a-priori against.
That might need to be one of the last things, though. You need savings to strike.
The author makes solid points as to just exactly how fucked up our wealth distribution is, but smearing it around evenly would be a disaster.
Had this conversation with a friend in the early 90s:
Mike was really upset when he found out that the government burned and shredded worn currency.
“They could just give that to the people!”
“Well, yeah, and it’s well within the government’s power to give us $1M each. Want them to do that?”
“Hell yeah!”
“OK, you know I have a one-man lawn service and charge $20 a lawn, right? If I had one million dollars, how much do you think I would start charging? Hell, I wouldn’t consider anything less than $10,000, if that, because I already have a million dollars.”
“Yeah, but you could still get a righteous meal at McDonald’s for $20!”
🤦🏻♂️
We’re not going to get anywhere talking about wealth redistribution because American’s interpret that as the undeserving taking their hard earned money. We need to make the wealthy, not the merely rich, our enemies. We need to talk about how they are already taking our hard earned money.
With enough money, you could work less, and mow your own lawn. Cook your own food. If you had a million dollars, in most regions you could afford to live sustainably with very little income. Conveniences like lawn care and fast food would cost more because less people would be desperate to work long hours for minimal pay… but you would have more money to pay them.
If you want the luxury of having others do these things for you, you would probably keep working to make more money anyway. The same applies to the people who cook food and mow lawns - if they want luxuries, they would work for them. They would probably just work a bit less and charge a bit more. Like, say, 32 hours a week, and $30 an hour.
“OK, you know I have a one-man lawn service and charge $20 a lawn, right? If I had one million dollars, how much do you think I would start charging? Hell, I wouldn’t consider anything less than $10,000, if that, because I already have a million dollars.”
Wrong. You would charge nothing because at such an unreasonable rate no one would pay you for lawn service. You would have a lawn service in name only and certainly not a “business”.
Except if everyone had that kind of money who is really out the mowing lawns for $40?
Considering the cost of housing, healthcare, food etc intelligent people who realize ~$400k to ~$1.80m isn’t “fuck you” money.
Those things should be nationalized, anyway.
I don’t disagree with that sentiment.
I agree, but it’s enough to set you up for a better job. If you were living off like 60k a year you could invest that and be set for a while too.
If you were living off like 60k a year you could invest that and be set for a while too.
Exactly! You could invest it, take some time off, go back to school, learn that skill, or skills, you always wanted but never had time for but ultimately you’ll end up working again, maybe for yourself. Sure its possible you make some amazing investment(s) and never have to work again but in all likelihood you end up back in the grind.
Really my point was that the person I was replying to made a bad argument. $400k and $1.80m sound like astounding quantities of money but reality says they are not.
I agree, but back to the point, when you get back in the work force it won’t be mowing lawns. All the low level, unskilled labor would go away and throw the economy into chaos.
That’s a really bad example of what wealth redistribution actually entails. It’s not Robin hood giving the money off the rich to the poor, but rather the govt taxing the rich more, investing that in infrastructure, where Jim Bob can earn a paycheck and use it to buy a house.
That way people get infrastructure and housing, wist the rich have slightly less money sitting idle on a bank account. That way the money gets invested in the county and for the people and everybody benefits.
Jim Bob loves his country more as it provided the means for him to buy his home and make some kids, he enjoys the benefits of healthcare, so he in unafraid to go to the doctor, he lives longer so he can see his grandchildren growing up.
unifying against a common enemy is easy as long as that enemy is easily identified. i propose the top 1% wealth-hoarders the target.
fun fact: in the US, the top 1% each have $10 million or more. that makes it easy to remember, and easy to point to.
This is fucking stupid. If everyone had a million dollars to start people would still want their lawns mowed. And other people would still want more than a million dollars. So your neighbours arent going to pay $10000 dollars to not have to mow their lawn but they still would pay 20. Or maybe up to 100. Starting everyone off on an equal footing wouldnt just magically rause the value of everything, theres plenty of small business owners that make a million dollars and they don’t just stop working.
People would want their lawns mowed but who would mow it? I mean if my family was suddenly millionaires why would I kill myself in the heat for a few bucks a mow. There might be a big landscaping company that makes millions, but the people pushing the mower don’t see that. I think you’d see a mass exit of low level workers which would cripple the economy.
People would want their lawns mowed but who would mow it
Anybody who likes mowing lawns and is happy to get paid for it.
The thing about having that financial stability behind you means you wouldn’t have to work a job you hate to survive. People could pursue the things they enjoy to earn money because they wouldn’t be dependent on just that income.
I work for a tech company in Property Preservation, this is my bread and butter. Mowing lawns is not glamorous. There are often issues, pay is often changing and has to be negotiated, having a reliable crew is hard, handling equipment issues with a schedule is a nightmare, it’s not a fun happy job. There are people who enjoy it, but it’s hard work. With that kind of money you can get skilled up to a job that is less hard on your body, not exposed to the elements, and pays better.
People could pursue the things they enjoy to earn money because they wouldn’t be dependent on just that income.
And I’m telling you that no one enjoys mowing lawns for 8 hours in the Arizona heat or dealing with traffic to drive around urban areas with your equipment, it won’t happen.
Then expand this to other jobs. Who is working the drive thru at Wendys for fun? Who is getting yelled at as Walmart Customer Service for fun? These jobs aren’t fun, people do them because it’s the best way they can survive in their current situation.
Ok, I disagree.
It’s cool, you can be wrong, people are wrong all the time.
But I’m sure you’re right, people would for sure work at McDonald’s for fun. Lol. So obvious you’ve never had that kind of job.
When not necessarily being forced to do a thing, people may actually choose to do a thing, because it’s no longer survival/crises dependent. And McDonald’s is garbage fill-up with no nutritional value being kcal anyway.
Ok, whatever you say. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You’re gonna love it when you try to loop in the age-old tradition of wage theft to the conversation. It’s currently topping the charts in the US for another year, folks! (That’s what. Two centuries or something now?) Above on-site theft like shoplifting, etc., and even employee theft — despite what the news tells us. Every minute shorted from your break, every tipped manager, etc.
This would be much more compelling if it clearly outlined just the portion controlled by the top 1%.
There’s no need to mix the rest of us up in this, before the ultra-rich start paying their fair share.
The wealthy hoarding the money makes it more valuable.
Give it to the people and it will lose a lot of value.
This says a lot about economics and how wealthy these people actually are.
If not using something that is supposedly meant to be used makes it more valuable, then that something’s value is made up.
Hey wait a minute… Is… Is capitalism just a big scam???
That misses, if I’m not mistaken, that that wealth is not in available money to use. It’s in factories, equipment, structures, land, intellectual property, team cohesion, national reserves, loans to foreign countries.
If wealth were spread around evenly, then the market allowed to operate again, any one person could trade their ‘wealth’ for spending money and consume food/games/house/etc from it. But if most Americans spent it all as spending money, the country would collapse.
And practical advice: that’s (related to) why, if you want to start building wealth for yourself or your children, it’s important to put some of your money into ‘assets’ that are doing something. A new goat for your farm, an improved chainsaw, an educational course, or stocks and shares (which essentially means lending your wealth to someone else to make something with it and they give you back part of the profits). Rather than consuming it all.
Just… Try not to grow it into an empire that exploits the poor and needy for your further benefit.
It’s in factories, equipment, structures, land, intellectual property, team cohesion, national reserves, loans to foreign countries.
We know that community ownership of those things causes them to perform better. The idea of the benevolent genius billionaires has been conclusively tested and disproved.
Every country, even the United States, already have laws that prevent individuals from hoarding those things to prevent competition.
We stopped enforcing those laws, once individuals had enough money to bribe their way past those laws. The billionaires have also seized control of enough media to convince many average people that what they are doing isn’t a crime.
It’s still a crime.
It’s in factories, equipment, structures, land, intellectual property, team cohesion, national reserves, loans to foreign countries
That’s called ‘capital’ and ‘the means of production’. A guy once wrote a very informative book about that.
Ah, probably another dull, academic book no one read. No real influence on the world. Bottom marks. En’ gels find it boring too.
No they’re talking the wealth of the 1%, which is not the infrastructure of the US.
It kind of is though, the wealthy don’t keep those trillions of dollars in savings accounts, they keep it in assets, which in some cases are literally factories and warehouses and large machines and in other cases just proxies for those things. It’s complicated but not untrue to frame it that way
Americans would squander it all within a few years and the collective wealth of the country would collapse within a decade. Half the country voted for Trump.
