If the worlds wealth were evenly distributed among its population, what would the standard of living be like?

Answer 1

Your question is quite interesting. So I tried find the answer. According to the World Bank, data for the entire world is the following.

GNI (current US$) (billions)....$44,963
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)....$6,987
Population, total (millions)....6,438

This means that world's total gross national income is about $45 trillion. Of this, the US accounts for about $13 trillion or 28%.

Average gross national income per capita for the world is abut $7,000. This ranges between $44,000 in the US to $300 in a number of African countries. The average world citizen has a standard of living on par with Mexico or Poland.

Answer 2

If the worlds wealth were evenly distributed among its population, then guess what! There would be equality for a short time, but within a couple of years, lazy people would sink back to the bottom where they were in the first place. Ambitious, smart, and diligent people would be owning a greater share again.

Why? Because what you own and how much you're worth is a reflection of your values inside. If you cannot contain wealth, you'll lose it. It makes no difference how much wealth you are given. You'll lose it.

This's the problem with most poor people. Their poor state is due the way they were raised. They are not poor because they are unfortunate. They are unfortunate, because of the way they think. You have to change a person's inside first, and then you'll notice changes on the outside. Every person is different, so it would make no sense to distribute the world's wealth evenly, because in a few short years, everything would be back the way it was! :)

And what would be the purpose of distributing the world's wealth evenly? To make equality? I am telling you that it would last only for a very short time.

Communism and socialism is the idea that people will be better off if their wealth is always distributed evenly. The answer is no. They won't be better off. You know what happens in communism. Great poverty takes over and many people die. That's the result. So, the idea looks like a good one, but it's a disaster in the end. It doesn't work.


"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

"The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups."

Answer 3

You would have mass starvation actually. The problem would be that you would have to move physical capital to places where it would not be productive.

Let us assume you seize the tractor of a farmer in Pennsylvania, in order to make things even, and give it to someone in Siberia.

Money is not counted by economists as wealth at all, rather as forgone leisure. If you combine the household and government balance sheets (a government of the people) then money ceases to exist entirely since money is a liability of the government to the people.

The overwhelming majority of all real wealth is physical capital, its value is based upon the productivity of the people who own it. African nations are poor because their peoples are very unproductive. Nigerian's live on less than a dollar a day because they produce less than a dollar's worth of trade goods per person per day.

In Asia, Bangladesh, for example, is 30 times less productive than America. That means that the average American produces 30x more stuff in one hour than the average worker in Bangladesh and the average American worker produces 200 x more stuff than their colonial counterparts did in one hour.

Wealth is strictly a function of the productivity of a people, the miscellaneous accumulations that occur such as tractors only hold value if they are used by a productive worker. Stocks, which are paper claims on physical assets, are simply farmers selling their tractors while continuing to use them transferring part of the profit from that work to the shareholders. Stocks, however, make up a very small part of the global wealth and really are just claims on physical assets. Most wealth is in homes, loans between people, and physical objects such as buildings and tractors.

Answer 4

Well, if everyone were equally rich/poor. The standard of living would be baaaad. Why? There would be no more product differentiation. Nobody would bother to come up with better products or services, since nobody would pay more/less. There would be no improvement in society, everything would come to a standstill.

Answer 5

Different people give different estimates of $2,000-$4,000 per person. Of course, as multiple people have pointed out, the economy would collapse if you tried it. See the links:

Answer 6

This would only happen in the worst of communist ideolgies.

Sad to even know people would think about things such as this. Liberals are REALLY polluting our educational system for someone to ask a question like this.

Stand up conservatives!

Heather, it's even worse that you would suggest that people should just be GIVEN things instead of EARNING them. That's what's wrong with today's society, everyone feels that they should have everything given to them, money, healthcare, etc...... Benefits MUST be EARNED to be appreciated!

Answer 7

I think it would put all people on a level playing field. I believe they should just give up on money all together and just start a system where everything is given to everyone. Everyone helps out everyone else, has a house, a car, food, lights, telephone! But that is utopia and will never happen!

Answer 8

pretty standard everywhere you go.