IS it possible for everyone to be rich?

[erivera571]

Was bored w/ nothing to do and started thinking about this, but theoretically isn't it impossible for everyone to be rich? If you think about it, the saying "SOMEONE'S gotta do it." holds true in a lot of ways:



someone has to pick up your trash

someone has to watch your kids

someone has to fight the war(s)

someone has to take your order at McDonalds

someone has answer your concerns/provide customer service over the phone


So in essence being rich suggests having access and/or control over the labor of the non-rich. Being rich in other words means having the power to ride the backs of the poor.

The feeling of being wealthy in that case is connected to the ability to use other human beings. If there were no people around to serve us, you would never feel rich regardless of how much money you had.


Discuss.

 

[speakeasy]

What's considered "rich" is entirely relative. From the point of view of a rural villager in Laos, all Americans ARE rich, even the ones we consider poor. If you're asking will standard of living ever get so high that even the average person lives as well as what we consider a millionaire lifestyle, well in theory it's possible if incomes rise over time relative to inflation, but is it likely? Probably not.

 

[ketostix]

Well no it's not possible for everyone to be rich, but about 60-90% population could be wealthier if there were no rich in theory. American workers are so productive that if you divided the GDP up evenly I think it would workout to $100,000/per worker. I think at least 90% of workers make less than this and many much less. There's also the argument that the rich keep the poor productive. I think wealth could be distributed more equally. the real problem is we are losing are middle class and becoming a 2 class system-poor and super rich.

 

[(JJ)]

No it isn't. You're exactly right. The jobs people don't want have to be done by SOMEONE. This is exactly the problem with the idea that the government should ever interfere with the private sector because "once the government gets involved it'll all be utopia." In fact, a utopian society cannot exist. This is exactly the reason communism has failed.

Back to the original question, with rich being a relative term meaning essentially, to have more than everyone else, no. Not everyone can achieve the status of "having more than everyone else" because it creates a paradox.

 

[speakeasy]

You don't have to have more than everyone else to be rich. Bill Gates has more money than Kanye West, but that doesn't mean Kanye West isn't rich.

Keep in mind, jobs that have to be done can pay well if income rise over time relative to inflation. A construction worker probably made ****ty wages in the year 1700, but by the 1950s, someone doing that same work could have a middle class lifestyle. See what I'm saying? Now though, due to illegal immigration from Mexico, the wages for that job have gone down the toilet again unfortunately.

If you define "rich" as living a high level of material affluence and financial comfort, then yes, everyone could potentially be rich by that standard. But if you mean rich in the relativistic sense, then yeah, like JJ says, it's paradoxical because you can't have a society with all generals and no grunts. However, you can make raise wages over time so that the grunts have very comfortable lives and need nothing more. They will still make much less relative to those at the top, but they won't have anything to complain about at the bottom either. Gross inequities in wealth mainly become a problem when the lower rungs don't have the ability to basic comforts and have no social mobility or opportunity.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

it would be theoretically possible under a minimum government involved free market economy for the lower wage jobs to be filled by young people.

Everybody starts out at minimum wage, and then works their way up according to their own ambition.

of course that would mean getting rid of unions, compulsory education, etc.

Because most people would rather have a guaranteed medium range salary than unlimited opportunity for success AND failure, this scenario is unlikely.

The age of the Robber Baron has passed, and we are entering into the age of socialism. But we don't have to look far back enough in history to see that even enforced socialism in communist Russia led to the existence of some serious capitalistic mafia's.

As long as we live in a democracy, there will be a battle between those that work and make serious coin, and the vast majority of people want something for nothing and are easy to con by opportunistic politicians.

 

[azanon]

I think there are different definitions of rich/wealthy. I see the OP has his opinion, but I don't necessarily see it that way.

I define rich by how much free time someone has. I also highly consider one's net worth. Making 300K/year, but being chained to an 80hr/week job and being one paycheck away from losing everything isn't rich to me, for example.

Jobs are nothing but jails with more room and more luxuries while imprisoned.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Not everyone can achieve the status of "having more than everyone else" because it creates a paradox.

It doesn't create a paradox at all. Its just a stupid.


In order for everyone to have a better life, the standard of living must be raised. Education must be improved, government funding for infrastructure must increase (and they better actually build the damn things), the justice system must be fixed up... etc.

 

[Hughman]

It's all relative. Wealth will increase and lives will become more comfortable, but until nanoforges, warm/cold fusion and other von Neumann machines come into existence, there will always be some form of underclass in relation to those above them.

'Forever Free' by Joe Aldeman is great story about how society will be when all the comforts in life can be produced for pennies.

 

[Luthor Rex]

"Rich" is a relative thing.

Compared to what the American middle class has today, Julius Caesar was in poverty. Even America's poor has access to things that couldn't have been purchased at ANY price in ancient Rome.

I am middle class myself, and compared to the "rich" of this nation you could look at me as being 'poor' but this kind of poverty is easy to deal with. My grandparents were below the poverty line, they didn't have to pay taxes every year because so little money came in from pensions and social security. I saw how they lived and honestly I would be fine living that way too. They were in a safe neighborhood, they were always clean and never "looked" poor.

Even if we did an experiment where we took a group of people, stuck them on an island, and gave them all the same exact resources and allowed for no trade we would end up with some people having more than others. It would be that way because some people are just more efficient with resources than others. Some people are more ambitious and are willing to work longer and harder than others.

 

[Luthor Rex]

I define rich by how much free time someone has. I also highly consider one's net worth. Making 300K/year, but being chained to an 80hr/week job and being one paycheck away from losing everything isn't rich to me, for example.

This is a very good insight. It's the "golden handcuffs" of corporate life. What's the point of having all the wealth in the world if you are a slave?

 

[erivera571]

I think there are different definitions of rich/wealthy. I see the OP has his opinion, but I don't necessarily see it that way.

I define rich by how much free time someone has. I also highly consider one's net worth. Making 300K/year, but being chained to an 80hr/week job and being one paycheck away from losing everything isn't rich to me, for example.

Jobs are nothing but jails with more room and more luxuries while imprisoned.

It's true that wealth is also defined by how much free time you have, but even then ... someone out of the picture is working to allow you to have that free time / vacation / etc. Whether its directly or indirectly.

For example suppose you are a wealthy person that owns a large apartment complex and collect rent from the people there, although they are not directly working for you, they are indirectly working for you by working their job(s) and from their paychecks paying you the rent, this money in turn allows you to have all that free time.

 

[DJKid]

It's true that wealth is also defined by how much free time you have, but even then ... someone out of the picture is working to allow you to have that free time / vacation / etc. Whether its directly or indirectly.

For example suppose you are a wealthy person that owns a large apartment complex and collect rent from the people there, although they are not directly working for you, they are indirectly working for you by working their job(s) and from their paychecks paying you the rent, this money in turn allows you to have all that free time.

aka positive cash flow....

 

[erivera571]

aka positive cash flow....

Yea I know, that was just an example to illustrate how the "rich" live off the labor of the "poor".

 

[oakraiderz2]

No...one word...balance.

 

[EA Gold]

I've heard it somewhere if the rockefellors, rothschilds, imf, and the world bank were to not exist or let go of their power of control.

Every single person in America if not every person in the world would have atleast 3-5 million dollars in cash.

True or Not, I forgive all of them anyway.

 

[Alle_Gory]

I've heard it somewhere if the rockefellors, rothschilds, imf, and the world bank were to not exist or let go of their power of control.

Every single person in America if not every person in the world would have atleast 3-5 million dollars in cash.

True or Not, I forgive all of them anyway.

Ok. So 300million people in America with 3million in cash means that the Rockefeller et al have in possession 900 trillion dollars. Which is impossible, and makes your comment very embarrassing.

I blame the elementary schools for not teaching kids basic math and comprehension skills.

 

[Captain Harlock]

That's it, I'm flying to the US to get my millions from Rockefeller.

 

[teagan]

Look at it this way, if everyone was rich, then the price of everything would be raised. That would cause hyperinflation and the economy as we know it would collapse. And don't even think about trying to freeze prices, that would be even worse. Basically, we would all go from equally rich to equally poor.

Not everyone can be rich. There must be those who are at the top and those who are the bottom.

 

[ElChoclo]

It is not possible, unless there was some way to genetically engineer everyone so that they have the personality of Scrooge McDuck, and actually want to dive into their money bin and swim around in it.

Those who don't have that personality will never keep it, and keeping it is the trick.