Multiply 30000 a year (a lower end US wage) by the number of people living in what the UN defines as poverty. That’s about two billion. You get 60 trillion dollars a year. That’s close to world GDP.
If you gave that out and those two billion people tried to spend it, you’d just get hyperinflation because there isn’t enough supply to match that demand.
We have a lot of abundance but not that much. Still fewer people as a percentage live in poverty by far than at any time in human history. It’s mostly going in the right direction. We’ve lifted a billion out of poverty in the last 20 years.
Living on 30kUSD/yr is a lot different in London than it is in Buenos Aires. To set a universal safety net ensuring everyone had adequate food, shelter, education, medical care, transportation etc would be a lot cheaper than 60tUSD/yr.
First, this means, as compared to today, that the results of some people's labor, and a lot of that, are sent to these undeveloped countries, rather than letting them sell it at a price of their choice. Why would they agree to that? Or buying that with tax money, which nobody would agree to either.
Second, as the last few decades have shown, just sending food, medicine and other supplies to these regions just makes more miserable people.
If you gave that out and those two billion people tried to spend it, you’d just get hyperinflation because there isn’t enough supply to match that demand.
We have a lot of abundance but not that much. Still fewer people as a percentage live in poverty by far than at any time in human history. It’s mostly going in the right direction. We’ve lifted a billion out of poverty in the last 20 years.