That's very location dependent.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When water pools, you break up the blockage and then it can flow again