@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe seems like a answer to a very strange question to me, how does one arrive at that?

Obviously one should be paid for a service they provide, how does it matter how much they make, or how would you even know that?

In general I think wealth is a poor metric in isolation. It should be contrasted with expenditure, the quality of which becomes definitive. If someone accumulates twice the wealth you do in a month, but also spends that much in comparable period of time, then there is no accumulation to even speak of. We can only discuss throughput. Success and worthiness of a fresh water pipe going to a densely populated area is proportional to its throughput, while for another that's for some reason going into the ocean it is inverse.

Now since strictly defining (as a single number) what is necessary for survival and what is peak comfort is an impossible pipe dream of the control freak, I think we have to go with the greedy algorithm - wealth needs to be culturally devalued on its own, in favour of planned accumulation and expenditure.

People shouldn't be looking at one's net worth and thinking one successful and wondering whether one deserved it. They should be looking at one's expenses and laughing one out of the room for everything one wasted like an absolute moron and ginormous safety cushions one sits on like a total pussy.

This is not a novel idea and is common to a degree, but I think it should be strongly emphasised and applied more rigorously.