I didn't say it would fix income inequality at all. I was saying that in a hypothetical thought experiment, where you take all money and give everyone an equal amount, that it would eventually become unequal again because of how people choose to use thei money, which is still my original point. Which was people's actions and how they utilize money leads to long term effects on their finances.
In no way does that make someone suddenly able to make more money or change their income in the short term. What it would show is that how people use their money effects things in the future.
For example, if everyone was given $100k. Some people would put a down payment on a mansion and borrow the rest. Some people might out it all in a bank that pays 1% interest. Some people would blow it on hookers and blow. Some people might lease some space and open a bar. Some might speculate in Dutch tulip bulbs.
What I'm saying is that different outcomes occur. In the context of this thought experiment, my hypothesis is that, due to how people spend money where everyone has an equal amount, you'd still end up with rich and poor people.
A lop sided economy isn't the product of people forgetting how to save money, but it does happen when rich people,keep doing the things that made them rich, and poor people keep doing the things that make them poor.
How about a different metaphor. Let's look at resist favorite kicking boy, fat people. How they deal with food affects their health. So they eat as much junk food as they can? Do they eat just salads and go to the gym every day? Are they fat because there exists thin super models using thin privilege that are making them fatter? Is any of it based on their actions, lifestyle, or decisions in how they handle food and exercise?
Understand this is a metaphor and not exactly the same, the whole point is that many people seem to claim that no one can affect their wealth or, as in the title, their savings and investing to help their future.
Will there always be poor people who are broke and have no savings? Sure. Poverty, much like being wealthy, is a generational problem. Some people are born into shitty circumstances and due to various issues will be lucky to push a broom for scraps. Just like some people are born into awesome circumstances who never have a health problem and get good educations and have wealthy parents setting them up to succeed.
The majority of people however, have a mix of good and bad things in their life, in which the decisions they make affects their future. I'm not saying that prudent investing in your health, your education, your wealth, and your career can have profound effects.
The title seems to link rich CEOs as being related to why people have no savings, as if a CEO drives to your house, steals out of your wallet and you suddenly have no lonely as an individual. It's worded to convince you that because someone else saves more, then you can save nothing, which is intellectually dishonest.
Again, nothing I've said "solves" differences in anyone's income being more or less than anyone else's, although investing in your education, health, and wealth can open up income streams that supplement your income, which at this point is not even relevant.
A lop sided economy, in which their are politically connected rich people who change laws to benefit themselves and box out competition is NOT a good thing, nor is having a lop sided trade arrangement in which capital, instead of goods and services, leave the country causing an imbalance, but that wasn't ops post. Op's post was about people not having any savings, which I gave my opinion on, which was there are people that don't have savings due to how important they feel savings are to them.