They do, it's called a house.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
966 points (97.4% liked)
Bluesky
1186 readers
104 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
I'm curious to know, if the wealth was redistributed like this, but with no modifications to the underlying system, how long before the existing Pareto-style distribution returns?
load more comments
(25 replies)
Doing it over world wealth/population (454385÷8.2) gives 55,412 USD per capita, which tell how skewed is wealth in the US.
If we could figure out how to distribute food efficiently and how to build housing units efficiently -- in the sense of actually getting that done -- $55k ought to be a perfectly acceptable amount of money for everyone.
We already have that figured out, we can supply food and housing to anywhere in the world.
We don't because capitalism.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
Deranged, these people don't realize there are voice actors for the muppets
So if that's the median, you need about half a million to be considered "Middle class" now?
Looks at housing prices... Yeah, sounds about right.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wealth is good and all, but the companies involved also lead to products being more expensive, that wealth would go a lot farther with either regulations on land ownership or total reform of land ownership, free universities, universal healthcare, zoning reform and work reform
Wealth inequality is our #1 issue in the world, and the root of all our other issues, climate change, politics, all issues. But y'all understand money doesn't work like the meme, right?
Tried explaining this to my stoner friend back in the 90s. Mike was appalled that the government shredded worn out bills. "Man! They could just give that to people like us!"
OK Mike, you understand that the US government could give each one of $1,000,000, today? And you know I charge $20 to mow a lawn? If we both had a million bucks, I wouldn't mow your lawn for $20. I'd want $20,000. I already have a million simoleans, what's $20?! "You could still get a righteous meal at McDonald's!"
If we all woke up with $417,465 tomorrow, we would instantly be broke. As dad used to say, "If getting money was easy, it wouldn't be money." We obviously need to tilt the table, radically, but just smearing all the money around is a childish idea.
Call me a downer, but I don't see any hope of clawing anything back from the rich short of guillotines. Every one of our institutions is bought and paid for, and that's still not enough. They rape us more everyday and demand yet more. (Call me bitter. Lowe's is pulling this shit on me daily. Stock must have gone down a nickle.)
It says wealth, not money. Redistribution would not look like printing dollars, it would be ownership of 471k worth of assets and securities.
It's not like the best way to do wealth redistribution is to just give the lump sum to every person. A significantly better way is to fund public goods: such as public infrastructure, universal healthcare, mass transit, social housing, public education, subsidies for healthy food, expanded protections for workers, and UBI to assist everyone's cost of living. Jobs would focus on the quality of their output over the overexploitation of the workers.
You're correct, anything communist of even socialist would take centuries to fully adapt to, even in USSR and China, it was state capitalism, not socialism
load more comments
(1 replies)
I dont want the money evenly distributed anymore. Now I want things to change entirely.
I don't want their capital. I want their heads.
load more comments
(1 replies)
$400 million would allow me to build a tiny house completely off grid with all the equipment I'd need to grow vegetables in a remote location for the rest of my life... The other $398 would go to helping anyone and everyone.
Misread the amount but leaving up as a reminder of my idiocy.
Sorry, you only get $400 thousand, not $400 million.
Geeze... I really can't read today.
To be fair, you could do that on 400k if you’re willing to be very frugal and handy.
I mean I know lots of people in the US who survive on 10k a year.
Haha you forgot about the trillions of debt. Thank you for coming to my Tex talk.
But those trillions in debt are literally held by private people as wealth. That’s what called bonds.
Eat the rich, embrace socialism, basically become a millionaire at some point
Vs whatever the fuck Reagan's neoliberalism has got you
But the consequences - how we tell who is elite vs who is not? /S
People who do great works will earn prestige, honor and renown.
Yea
People could still be famous for being good actors, make good music or play sports well
They just wouldn’t be incredibly rich or multiple orders of magnitude richer than the common person
That would be in equity, not in cash, but it would mean each person would have secure housing, a secure retirement, reliable transportation, and reliable healthcare
Imagine how much less stressful life would be if the average person didn’t have to worry about paying rent and whether or not they will retire at the end of their life.
I work in mental health and I guarantee you a lot of mental illness is not “mental illness” but resource management issues masquerading as such
Not sure how you get secure housing out of that. If everyone is in the market for housing then prices are going through the roof.
Increase supply if housing isn’t a commodity, reduce pricing if housing is no longer a vehicle for retirement, end housing as a vehicle for capital so there are far less empty homes doing nothing, etc
It doesn’t solve the problem overnight (zoning reform is a big issue to address, for one) but it would alleviate a lot of key issues
I've got a wild idea, maybe if there is demand we can increase supply. Surely in this hypothetical communist world, we can also build some housing without every rich asshole trying to stop it in the name of maintaining their property value through scarcity.
We can’t solve that at a national level. That’s city (and state/province) government’s domain. City governments put roadblocks in the way of development because it’s popular with homeowners who want to see their investment grow.
A lot of countries are facing this issue, not just the US. I’m in Canada and in our big cities (especially Vancouver and Toronto) we arguably have it worse than the US. I don’t know how to solve it. It’s going to require convincing homeowners to let the value of their homes go down. Not exactly a winning political strategy!
Imagine how much less stressful life would be if the average person didn’t have to worry about paying rent and whether or not they will retire at the end of their life.
"That sounds horrible, we can't make money in those conditions" is what the people standing in the way would say.
It's a damn shame they won't be around to see what happens to their children if this keeps up.
All that "generational wealth" isn't going to go where they think it is.
load more comments
(1 replies)